| HOME | Featured Stories | June 2009 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: SEA MEETS LAND AT HABONIM NATURE RESERVE
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 30, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: It's so hot in Israel this week that I thought a refreshing image of our watery coastline might offer a tiny bit of relief. This shot was taken at Habonim Nature Reserve along Israel's central coast near Zichron Ya'akov. I had been camping for several days and had an opportunity to study the layout of the park and find an optimal shooting location. There are numerous rocky points that jut out into the sea, affording a chance to shoot the incoming waves from an unusual perpendicular perspective rather than the more typical head-on view one has when standing on the beach. The continuous action of the ocean is similar to the dancing flames of a fire. No wave is alike and the pattern of crest, foam, and spray is constantly changing. My goal with this photo was to capture all of these elements simultaneously while also showing some aspect of the landscape not buried in rushing water. Since I was not racing against rapidly changing light, I stood quietly for a few moments and studied the scene, picking up on the rhythm of the waves and honing in on the key areas of the composition where timing would be critical. I prioritized my exposure to a fast shutter speed and clicked off a few frames, then turned off my camera and returned my mind to admiring the setting. When photographing in nature, photographers have to be careful not to lose sight of the moment as they push themselves to create an image that will only be appreciated in another time and place. It's a challenging paradox, but I have found that without that meditative immersion in a place, its beauty will not reveal itself to me. It's nice to take home a memory, but if you never really visited in the first place, then what is the point of going?
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
OBAMA'S 3AM PHONE CALL
Posted by Saul Goldman, June30, 2009. |
|
Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net |
|
PETITION OF SUPPORT OF DR. YORAM BLACHAR, PRESIDENT OF WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 30, 2009. |
|
Anti-Israel activity and campaigns in the medical press are unfortunately nothing new; however they have reached a new "low" in the last few months. The most recent manifestation of the anti-Israel phenomenon infecting the medical world is a letter spearheaded by Dr. Derek Summerfield and signed by 725 physicians, "publicly protesting and appealing against the recent appointment of Dr. Yoram Blachar, longstanding President of the Israeli Medical Association, as President of the World Medical Association." The "facts" set out in the letter are nothing new. There were allegations made against Israel of torture, but no names were provided. An effort was made by the Israeli Medical Association to speak personally with each and every physician who signed the letter. Most were never employed by, nor had any connection to, the Israeli Prison Services as claimed in the letter. All of the three physicians who were employed there vigorously denied any involvement in interrogations, torture or medical approval for the above. The letter further states that Dr. Blachar has made statements which were untrue on at least 10 occasions in the Lancet and the BMJ. No basis is made for these claims other than the opinion of the authors. Finally, Summerfield goes so far as to accuse the IMA ethics chairman, Prof. Avinoam Reches, of being personally involved in torture. Whatever political views one may hold, we firmly believe that politics has no place in medicine. Medicine is meant to serve as a bridge, not a divide. The intermingling of medicine and politics is dangerous, particularly when opinions, presented as facts, are printed on the pages of medical journals. The current situation is viewed as extremely dangerous for the future of Israeli medicine, of academic freedom and international cooperation. ACTION — IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, a letter of support for Dr. Blachar, for the IMA and for Israeli medicine can be found: here. Please sign your name and country and in the 'Notes' section please include your title, field of medicine (or other) and place of employment. Please send this letter on to others whom you feel might be similarly interested in expressing support. Thank-you for your support,
Editor's Note: Read Barron, "Following the Herd" for another example of Summerfield's distortions and lies. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
TERRITORY OR INSANITY?
Posted by Victor Sharpe, June 30, 2009. |
|
Military wisdom from 40 years ago. Immediately after the June 1967 Six Day War, a secret memorandum was issued by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Their conclusions were that any peace settlement between Israel and the Arab belligerents would only succeed if Israel retained certain territories vital for its continued existence and survival. The areas the Joint Chiefs declared as the minimum defensible borders for the Jewish state included the Golan Heights, the western half of Samaria (the northwestern part of the West Bank), all of Judea (the southern part of the West Bank), the Gaza Strip and several portions of the eastern Sinai Peninsula. This, of course, occurred before the world became obsessed with the creation of an Arab terror state within the narrow territory between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. Since that report in 1967, the Begin government gave away all of the Sinai. Under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his deputy, Ehud Olmert, Israel gave away the entire Gaza Strip in 2005, with catastrophic consequences for the Jewish state. Ehud Barak, Israel's present Defense Minister, had years earlier withdrawn from the southern Lebanon security strip, thus allowing the Islamist Hizbullah to fill the vacuum with dire consequences for northern Israel. A conflict broke out — the Second Lebanon War — disastrously mismanaged by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was launched too late and ended too soon. After Israel endured over 10,000 incoming missiles from Hamas-occupied Gaza, a war was finally launched by Israel. It too began too late and ended too soon, and the Islamist Hamas continues to pursue its ambition of finally destroying Israel. Israel is under the greatest pressure in years from an American administration to give away the ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria. President Barack Obama is perceived by many to be a clear and present danger to the very survival of the reconstituted Jewish state. In the aftermath of the Six Day War, the US Joint Chiefs were not interested in Jewish patrimony or Biblical history. They were solely concerned with the strategic necessities for Israel's survival in a very bad neighborhood. That is why they set out what the bare minimum retention of territory for Israel should be. Col. Irving Kett (USA, ret.) also prepared an Army War College study on Israel's security needs in 1974. His study was called, "A Proposed Solution to the Arab-Israel Conflict". In it, he strongly suggested that, from a military point of view, Israel's borders should be constituted to make it a compact state with natural boundaries on all sides — the Jordan River to the east, Golan Heights to the northeast, the Litani River in the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the west and the historic boundary with the Sinai Peninsula to the south. As a direct result and consequence of Arab aggression, most of those borders had been attained by Israel at one time or another. Irving Kett had not been aware that another memorandum had been produced earlier, on June 29, 1967, for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara by General Earle Wheeler, chairman of the JCS, at the direction of President Lyndon Johnson. That study was declassified in 1983 and, as I mentioned earlier, it recommended that Israel keep all of Judea, the western half of Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and two significant parts of east and south Sinai. The similarity between the memorandums is quite remarkable. Colonel Kett pointed out what the IDF has always known, but what too many Israeli politicians preferred to ignore; namely, that there is vital strategic value in the mountain range which forms the spine running through Judea and Samaria. The highlands run some 54 miles from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south and dominate Israel's coastline. The spine is 12 miles wide and Israel simply cannot afford to vacate it. It was assumed for years by both the Israeli military and politicians that if a Palestinian Arab state came into existence it would have to permit an Israeli defense line on the Jordan River (the Allon Plan), and that such a state would have to be demilitarized. The answer, of course, would be to have made permanent the suggested boundaries proposed in both Kett's memorandum and the earlier JCS report of some 40 years ago. Events have moved on since then. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would never agree to this and Hamas in Gaza would scornfully dismiss it out of hand. The Arabs have become even more vicious in their anti-Jewish rhetoric and behavior, and a jihadist Iran has all but encircled the Jewish state through its Islamist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon. The Arab-Israel conflict is not, and never has been, merely a war over territory. It is, and always has been, a religious war. Islam will never accept a non-Muslim state, whatever size or shape it may be, within lands previously conquered by Muslims in the name of Allah. The "two-state solution", so beloved of President Obama and President George Bush before him, requires Judea and Samaria to be given away to the Palestinian Arabs. But the Arabs have no intention of making peace, which should be enough for an Israeli government and Prime Minister with intestinal fortitude to defy the world's pressure for the Jewish state to slowly and surely disappear. After all, Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir all said "no" to American presidents in the past and prevailed. Interestingly, Colonel Kett had also suggested that the Palestinian Arabs be resettled in a state in the Sinai. The other famous suggestion has been that Jordan is Palestine, which is based upon the historical fact of the first "two-state solution" enacted in infamy by Great Britain some 87 years ago. Even President George W. Bush, when visiting Israel as Governor of Texas, was moved to utter, "The whole of Israel is only about six times the size of the King Ranch near Corpus Christie." Yet even he, after becoming president, called for a "two-state solution" west of the Jordan River. Pushing Israel back to the "Auschwitz borders", as Abba Eban called them, where the Jewish state is only nine miles wide at its most populous region, is what the "two-state solution" is all about. The dread euphemism "Final Solution" comes to mind. Hopefully Binyamin Netanyahu stressed the territorial insanity of that fact over and over during his meeting with Obama in the White House. Victor Sharpe is author of the book "Politicide — The attempt to murder the Jewish state" and "The Blue Hour and Other Strange Tales." His essays and articles have appeared in many places including Outpost, FrontPageMag.com, Wall Street Journal and London Daily Telegraph. |
|
A TALE OF 2 NORWEGIAN NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS FOR LITERATURE
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, D.C. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
Norway recently assumed the chairmanship of an international task force on Holocaust education. Yet the Norwegian government also recently launched a year-long celebration of the life and work of a supporter of the Nazis. The object of this adoration is Knut Hamsun (1859-1952), author of such acclaimed novels as Hunger, Pan and Growth of the Soil, which won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1920. Among the latter book's most ardent fans was Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who had it translated and published in a special edition for German soldiers during World War II. The feeling was mutual. Hamsun welcomed the Nazi occupation of Norway, met personally with both Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, and in 1943 sent his Nobel Prize to Goebbels as a gift. After the war, Hamsun was arrested for treason but escaped trial after he was found to suffer from "weakened mental capacities." He was, however, found to be civilly liable, and received a substantial fine, because of his membership in the Norwegian fascist party Nasjonal Samling, led by the infamous Vidkun Quisling.
NONE OF THAT has stopped the government of Norway from undertaking "Hamsun 2009," commemorating Hamsun's 150th birthday with a year of public events, exhibits, commemorative coins, a new 27-volume collection of his writings and, on August 4 (Hamsun's birthday), the opening of a $20-million, six-story Hamsun Center in his home town of Hamaroy, complete with the unveiling of a huge bronze statue of the honoree. Queen Sonja personally kicked off the festivities, joining members of the Hamsun family for a viewing of the National Library's exhibit of Hamsun's handwritten manuscripts. The exhibit included an article Hamsun wrote hailing Hitler as "a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations." Afterward, the queen would say only, "I think we'll have to keep two thoughts in our head at the same time." Evidently she meant thoughts about both Hamsun the writer, on the
one hand, and Hamsun the Nazi supporter, on the other. A third thought
might be in order — a thought about the fact that the royal family was forced to flee Norway when the Nazis, so admired by Hamsun, occupied their country.
THE CONTRAST between the experience of the royal family in the 1940s and the behavior of the Norwegian royalty today is not the only irony in this story. Consider the fact that the only other Norwegian to win the Nobel Prize for Literature in the past 100 years was Sigrid Undset, a fervent anti-Nazi — in other words, Hamsun's moral opposite. Undset (1882-1949) won the Nobel Prize in 1928 for her novels about life in medieval Scandinavia, including the trilogy Kristin Lavransdatter. Joseph Goebbels had no interest in Undset's works; the accolades of her countrymen, and her readers around the world, had to suffice. Undset fled Norway in 1940 to escape the Nazis. Taking up residence in New York City, she soon became cochair of the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe (better known as the Bergson Group), which pressed the Roosevelt administration to rescue Jews from the Nazis. While the Nazis, cheered on by Hamsun, were deporting more than 700 Norwegian Jews to Auschwitz in the autumn of 1942, Undset was a leading activist in the Bergson Group's campaign of rallies, newspaper ads and Washington lobbying for US action to save the Jews. Yet there is no word from Oslo about any plans by the Norwegian government to hold any year-long celebration of her life and work, nor to erect a statue of her, nor even to sponsor an exhibit acknowledging her literary and moral achievements.
ALL OF WHICH would be bad enough, but to make matters worse, Norway recently assumed the chairmanship of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education Remembrance and Research, a group of 26 European countries organized in Stockholm in 1998 to promote awareness of the Nazi genocide. In an essay published last week, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, challenged Norway's chairmanship of the task force. "This country is unfit to hold such a position when in the same year it has held major memorial activities for the Nazi-admirer Hamsun," Gerstenfeld wrote. Each of the countries belonging to the task force has pledged to carry out the eight-point final declaration of the Stockholm Conference. Point number six is particularly relevant to the Knut Hamsun controversy: "We share a commitment to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to honor those who stood against it." This puts the Norwegian government in something of a bind, because instead of honoring "those who stood against the Holocaust," such as Undset, it is honoring someone who stood for it. In the 1940s, Undset and Hamsun made their choices: Undset sided with good, Hamsun with evil. Today, Norway too must make a choice, between venerating the memory of the Holocaust, and desecrating it. It cannot do both. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
OBAMA IS INTERVENING ON THE WRONG SIDE IN HONDURAS
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Jack Kelly and it appeared in the Jewish World Review. |
|
Manuel Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez wannabe, was elected president of Honduras in November, 2005. He wanted to serve a second term. But there was a difficulty. Under the constitution of Honduras, the president may serve only a single four year term. Mr. Zelaya proposed to circumvent that difficulty by holding a popular referendum on whether he should be allowed to run for a second term. But there was a difficulty with that, too. The constitution of Honduras provides only one way for the constitution to be amended. That is by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the national congress in two consecutive regular annual sessions. The supreme court of Honduras ruled the referendum was unconstitutional, and the national congress passed a law forbidding referenda within 180 days of a national election. (Honduras' next is this November.) But Mr. Zelaya pressed on. When the army — acting on an order from the supreme court — refused to distribute ballots for the referendum (which had been printed in Venezuela), the president fired its chief of staff. The supreme court unanimously declared the firing illegal, and Honduras' attorney general asked congress to oust the president. Push came to shove on Sunday (6/18). The army, acting on a warrant issued by the supreme court, arrested Mr. Zelaya and sent him into exile (in his pajamas, to Costa Rica). This was described as a "coup" by the news media, and was denounced by, among others, Hugo Chavez, who threatened military action to restore Mr. Zelaya to power, and the Obama administration. It's the administration's view the coup was an "illegal and illegitimate act that cannot stand," officials, briefing on background, told journalists. Mr. Zelaya must be returned to power, they said. "Knowing trouble was brewing in Honduras over several weeks, the Obama administration warned power players there, including the armed forces, that the United States and other nations in the Americas would not support or abide a coup," the AP quoted "officials" as saying. "They said Honduran military leaders stopped taking their calls." It seems more accurate to say that Mr. Zelaya, with Venezuelan help, was trying to execute a coup against the Honduran constitution than to accuse the military — which was acting on orders from the supreme court and with the support of the legislature (124 of 128 deputies in the unicameral congress endorsed Mr. Zelaya's removal Sunday afternoon) — of having done so. Daniel Lopez Carballo, a retired Honduran general, told CNN that if the military hadn't acted, Mr. Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator, would have been running Honduras by proxy. Typically in a coup, the military seizes control of the government. But the military quickly surrendered power to an acting president — from Mr. Zelaya's own party — chosen by the national congress. The streets of Tegucigulpa were quiet after Mr. Zelaya's removal, perhaps because not many Hondurans like him. In a Mitofsky poll taken in April, Mr. Zelaya had an approval rating of 25 percent, the lowest of 18 regional leaders. So Mr. Obama is intervening on the wrong side. But if you take him at his word (a dangerous thing to do), the wonder is that he is intervening at all. This is the guy, you'll remember, who was so concerned about being perceived as "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs that he, alone among Western leaders, refused to denounce the blatantly stolen election in Iran, or to express support for those who protested the theft. Mr. Obama is now doing with regard to Honduras what he has refused to do with regard to Iran: organizing an international coalition to pressure the country to reverse course. Why threaten Honduras, but not Iran? Honduras is no threat to us. Iran is. A large majority in Iran oppose the government's brutality. Apparently, a large majority in Honduras support what the army has done. There is a disturbing consistency to Mr. Obama's apparent inconsistency on Honduras and Iran. In both the case where he has intervened, and in the case where he hasn't, he has taken the side of anti-American dictators (in Mr. Zelaya's case, a wannabe dictator) over the vast majority of their people. "We're getting a close look at Obama's priorities, and they are hideously out of step with democracy and the rule of law," said Web logger Ed Morrissey. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
TEEN WOUNDED IN ARSON-ROCK TERROR ATTACK ON YITZHAR JEWS
Posted by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, June 30, 2009. |
|
In what appears to have been a coordinated attack on Jews from Yitzhar, in Samaria, a group of Arabs set fire to agricultural fields on Monday evening and then released a barrage of rocks at people responding to the arson. IDF forces responded to the incident and dispersed the attackers. Yitzhar residents said Arabs from the neighboring village of Assira al-Kabaliyeh set fire to agricultural land belonging to the Jewish community. When people from Yitzhar went out to the fields to try and put out the flames, they came under a rain of rocks thrown by a gathered group of Arabs. A 17-year-old Jewish youth was hit in the eye by a rock thrown by one of the attackers. He was hit as he attempted to stop the flames from spreading in the Shalhevet Yah neighborhood on the outskirts of Yitzhar. The youth was taken by ambulance to the Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikva with light head injuries. Not prepared to withdraw, Yitzhar residents responded to the provocation and a confrontation ensued. However, even after the initial fire was extinguished by Yitzhar residents, the clash continued. Responding to reports of the violence, IDF forces were dispatched to the scene. The soldiers employed riot control measures to break up the Arab mob and end the confrontation. According to eyewitness reports, some of the Arabs continued to throw rocks and set fire to other sections of the Yitzhar fields as they withdrew. There were no injuries reported among the soldiers. Yitzhar, a Jewish community about eight kilometers southwest of Joseph's Tomb in Shechem, has been the scene of repeated clashes between Arabs and Jews claiming rights to the community's land. Founded in 1983 on a strategic hilltop, Yitzhar is home to about 500 people.
Nissan Ratzlav-Katz writes for Arutz-7
(www.IsraelNationalNews.com).
|
|
FRENCH PRESIDENT CALLS TO OUST FM LIEBERMAN
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, June 30, 2009. |
|
This is very good news for Lieberman and very bad news for Netanyahu. As I predicted before the elections, Lieberman has become the big winner. At nearly every turn of the political wheel of fortune, Netanyahu looses and Lieberman wins. Netanyahu's in character betrayal of his voters when he capitulated to the enemy's demands for an Arab terror State in Yeshah drove off tens of thousands of Likud voters. He followed this up by an even more noxious act of betrayal by imposing a tax on the poor. This has lead to his condemnation by the most loyal and faithful block in the Likud, the merchants of Machenah Yehudah. It seems that Netanyahu can not make a move that does not seriously harm the Likud and elevates Lieberman. If the Likud is to survive and not be supplanted by Lieberman's group, it must rid itself of Netanyahu. The sooner the better.
Stop complaining and fight back! Here's how:
Have a nice day |
|
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for the removal of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in a blatant move, probing deep into Israel's internal political arena. According to a Channel 2 News report on Monday night, the meeting in Paris last week between Sarkozy and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was not a cordial as the Prime Minister's Office wishes us to believe. Channel 2 reported the French president told the prime minister that Lieberman most be removed from his post due to his extremist views, suggesting that he replace him with former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, today the opposition leader. Drawing an extreme example, Sarkozy reportedly added that even Jean-Marie Le Pen is a nice person when one meets him. Tzachi Moshe, media advisor to Minister Lieberman, stated if the statements attributed to the French leader are correct, then his statements represent blatant interference in Israel's internal affairs and his words are "grave and serious". Moshe called for an across the board condemnation of the president's interference in internal affairs, expecting a response from all political parties regardless of affiliation.
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. |
|
THE BIBI TWO-STEP
Posted by Moshe Dann, June 30, 2009. |
|
The Iranian nuclear issue is moot. It became moot when George W. Bush left the White House. Nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power — especially not President Obama. It's doubtful that Israel would risk a pre-emptive attack and its aftermath. Israeli politicians, military egos, and media pundits, however, have created a hysterical state of mind which is now being used to garner support for destroying more Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. This provides Prime Minister Netanyahu with a perfect excuse; dealing with Iran is more important than West Bank outposts. Sound logical? Most PR does. But it presents a totally false symmetry. What does Iran have to do with settlements? The idea that evacuating Jews will bring Arabs into a coalition against Iran and promote regional strategic cooperation is delusional. With Iran in full support of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and other Muslim countries, who cares about a few Jews living on hilltops? Obama has painted himself into a corner. Unwilling to take on Iran militarily, he has turned against the closest and most vulnerable target, Israel. And Netanyahu — as in previous confrontations over policy differences — may be wobbling, yet again. Remember his excuses for signing the [1] Wye Agreement in 1998, which turned over major cities and vast tracts of land to the PA? "Now they will be accountable," he burbled. He went along with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's [2] "disengagement" from Gaza because, he said, his role as finance minister was too important to leave. He failed to lead Israelis fed up with corruption and ineptitude after Israel's botched action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It could be another set-up, or a new dance step. Iran needs the American bogeyman to unite; America needs the threat from Iran to whip Israel into major security surrender; and Netanyahu needs both to build a strong coalition and stay in power. He's been through all of this before; he won't make the same mistakes. Whether or not Iran has the capability of launching a nuclear-tipped missile from its territory is unclear. Thanks to Pakistan and North Korea, Iran may have acquired the technology for a smaller nuclear devise mounted on ballistic missiles that could be launched by small groups anywhere, most likely via Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. The obvious advantage of Iran's use of a proxy is that it's harder to trace its origins, thereby offering Iran protection from retaliation, at least for a while, if at all. This situation severely limits Israel's options, primarily its reliance on anti-missile defense. Chances are good that an incoming missile will be intercepted, which would then entitle a response with full force. Ironically, once it achieves nuclear capability, Iran is more identifiably dangerous, and therefore more limited. The more threatening Iran becomes, the higher the stakes, the more intense a confrontation and the likelihood of a serious response. This offers the only real chance to prevent Iran from attacking. The United States, Britain and France (at least) must warn Iran that launching a missile — any missile (since it can be assumed to be a WMD) — would result in the total annihilation of Iran by a combined international force. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's refusal to make this clear weakens any opposition and offers no incentives for Iran to change course. The warning to Iran must be clear, unequivocal, and substantive, obligating the "great powers," including NATO, to become part of a control mechanism, and one that will act decisively. There can be no question about the ramifications of a first-strike launch using WMD. The advantage of such a system is that it virtually locks in all participants and everyone knows the rules. Iran's success up to now has been due to the lack of rules, clear red lines, and meaningful consequences. The responsibility for prudence and self-preservation as well as the system itself, therefore, is incumbent on every player. And once armed, there is no withdrawal. Without doubt, Iran, like Pakistan and North Korea, will try to distribute and build facilities for WMD, and they may be initially successful, as occurred recently when a nuclear facility was being built in Syria. It would appear, however, that these initiatives could be readily eliminated. Countries which have WMD and threaten others should be ostracized. This could easily become part of the UN Charter and other international bodies. In this way, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons could be a blessing in disguise, if it prompts a new way of thinking about the problem and how to contain it. As more nations acquire nuclear weapons they can learn that it's also a responsibility. This, however, has nothing to do with Jews, settlements, elephants, or camels. And if you think Obama knows the dance floor, Bibi can show him a trick or two. Moshe Dann, a former asst professor of History (CUNY), is a
writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at
moshedan@netvision.net.il
|
|
GIVE DESPERATE, HUNGRY ISRAELI CHILDREN FOOD AND FUN THIS SUMMER!
Posted by Meir Panim, June 30, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FROM ISRAEL: AFLOAT IN LUNACY
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 30, 2009. |
|
It's hardly a new refrain in these postings: the sense that the world is upside-down and crazy. Unfortunately, that sense is only growing stronger. Several people forwarded to me in recent days a quote from columnist Burt Prelutzky, that says, in essence, when Obama receives his physical, he should have a brain scan, because there has got to be something terribly wrong "with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran." Not funny at all, really, because it cuts too close to the bone of truth. ~~~~~~~~~~ From a purely informal source in the US (and I readily acknowledge that this is not confirmed) comes information that a Democratic Congressperson in a key position is saying that even Obama's people are finding themselves unable to convince the president to cool it a bit on the issue of settlements. It seems that when it comes to a complete settlement freeze Barack Hussein Obama is mushuga al ha-devar. On this issue he's crazy — obsessed. Obsession is a good word, for it has been pointed out that if his goal is promotion of a genuine peace negotiation, what he's doing — which hardens Israeli hearts against him — is counterproductive. Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the Washington Post, described the situation accurately when he recently wrote that "Obama began with a broad strategy of simultaneously pressing Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to take concrete steps toward peace", but that this has "narrowed to a single point: a standoff with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu over whether 'natural growth' would be allowed in Jewish settlements." MK Otniel Schneller, of Kadima, please understand, has now lambasted Obama administration officials, charging that they hold beliefs influenced by "far-Left opinions outside of the Israeli consensus" (about which more below). Schneller, who is interested in promoting a "peace deal" with the Palestinians, says that "the most dangerous thing to the peace process is to push the Israeli public into a corner." He calls the current Obama demand "extortion." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1246296531821 ~~~~~~~~~~ The other side of the coin, in terms of what Obama's position does, is to make the Arabs, who think they have a free ride, more intransigent. The Jerusalem Post editorial today alludes to a recent article by David Ignatius in the Washington Post that quotes an Arab diplomat as telling him that what Arabs demand is not a settlement freeze but rather an imposed settlement. The editorial carries this one step further, indicating that Obama has also been hearing this from "some in the ostensibly pro-Israel community in Washington, led by J Street." J Street, funded by George Soros, is at the heart of what Schneller was referring to in terms of "far-left opinions." J Street may proclaim itself pro-Israel in its own fashion, but in my book it is solidly anti-Israel. And dangerous. The painful fact is that Soros, having done funding for his campaign, has the ear of Obama. Any American, Jew or non-Jew, who genuinely cares about Israel, and is not yet aware of this, needs to (in the words of the late, great advice columnist Anne Landers) "wake up and smell the coffee." ~~~~~~~~~~ The heat is on our government from all sides with regard to freezing of the settlements. From the Quartet, and from various European nations, including those just visited by PM Netanyahu. Additionally, Sweden, which is no friend to Israel, is poised to
assume the EU presidency. NGO-Monitor has just released information
detailing "Swedish government funding for radical [anti-Israel] NGOs
under the guise of human rights and humanitarian aid."
~~~~~~~~~~ The question then is how well Netanyahu and company will continue to hold in the face of all of this. There are mixed messages, and concern grows. We're hearing talk about a "compromise" on the subject, some way to reach a meeting of the minds between Jerusalem and Washington. That has to be bad news. In some quarters it's said we may ultimately agree to a "temporary" freeze, for three or six months. That would be very bad news indeed. Right now DM Barak is in New York, and today held a four hour meeting with George Mitchell. Immediately before he left, the Defense Ministry revealed that it had improved the construction of 50 homes in the Samaria community of Adam — part of a master plan for 1,500 homes for the Binyamin region. This may or may not have been timed to deliver a message. (In due course I'll have more to say about these plans.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Emerging from the meeting, half of which was held privately between the two parties, Barak told reporters that he and Mitchell were "not stuck on the issue" of settlements, and that he had indicated to Mitchell that Israel will consider "any positive contribution to the peace efforts." He said there were still gaps between the sides (the US stance has not softened), but that efforts would continue to reach understandings. What understandings? Vague diplomatic talk. We will have to see what emerges, or ensues in follow-up talks. But the reference to gaps, and efforts to downplay the settlements as focus of the talks is encouraging. It would certainly seem that Barak did not acquiesce today to a freeze, even a temporary one, on the building in settlement blocs. This broadly comports with what YNet had reported: that a forum, which included Barak, PM Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Lieberman, and Ministers Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon, met yesterday in preparation for Barak's meetings with Mitchell. It was decided that settlement construction would not be frozen now, and that there would be an attempt to convince the US that discussion on this could be delayed until talks with the Palestinians were under way. Talks with the Palestinians? Let us hope they continue to balk. We may have a deliberately devised catch 22 here: with the PA saying they won't talk because we haven't frozen settlements. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, my friends, it's time to let our voices be heard again. Here in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has to be thanked for not caving, and urged as strongly as possible not to cave to Obama in the future.
In the US, forget the obsessed Obama. Contact your own Senators and Congresspersons. Tell them you are adamantly opposed to pushing Israel on a settlement freeze. Ask them for a greater focus on what the PA will do to stop incitement. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
Remember, folks, numbers count. Circulate this request, please! ~~~~~~~~~~ An unsettling sign of caving to Obama, however, has come with agreement on another front: some withdrawal of IDF forces from major PA cities, to allow day-to-day takeover by PA security forces being trained by General Dayton — forces, it should be noted again, that, according to reliable reports, Dayton himself indicated might turn on Israel within two years if they don't get what they want. The PA is looking for a situation in which the IDF would be prevented from returning to these cities. The IDF maintains the right to return if necessary. If this has a deju vu feeling it is because we've been on this merry-go-round before. Ultimately, it is the IDF that controls terrorism in those cities, and ultimately, we always have to return. The concern — the deep concern — is with regard to the security risk in the interim. ~~~~~~~~~~ French President Sarkozy was way out of line in recently urging Netanyahu, according to a Channel Two report yesterday, to "get rid of Lieberman" and (are you ready for this?) replace him with Livni. Our Foreign Ministry responded that this represented "intolerable intervention in internal Israeli affairs." And Netanyahu has in turn responded appropriately, indicating that Lieberman was an important part of the government team. Today he told more than 20 ambassadors from EU nations that he has complete confidence in Lieberman. ~~~~~~~~~~ All is not grim, however, in spite of the above. According to Reuters, the US has given assurances that it will continue to support Israel at the UN. Additionally, US loan guarantees have been re-approved. ~~~~~~~~~~ President Peres left Sunday for a four-day visit to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan — the first visit by an Israeli president since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Muslim states. He is being accompanied by a delegation of 60 senior officials of leading Israeli companies in the fields of water technology, agriculture, communications, medical technology, and defense. Azerbaijan stood its ground against an irate Iran, even though Iran re-called its ambassador and expelled Azerbaijan's ambassador in protest. In fact, according to Yediot Ahronot, an Iranian official went to Azerbaijan a month ago to persuade Azerbaijan to cancel its visit from Peres. Baku's response: "We don't tell you whom to meet when you meet with Armenians, and you won't tell us whom to meet either. Azerbaijan is a sovereign country, and no one will tell it whom to receive." So, we have friends, and in this case a Muslim friend, to boot. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Arutz Sheva, the "Religious Zionist Budget" will not be cut in the coming year. This budget provides funds for strengthening Jewish identity, supporting hesder yeshivas (which combine Torah study and IDF service), and bolstering youth groups associated with the religious Zionist movement. Sounding good from here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Also sounding good: The IDF Spokesperson's Office has confirmed that the Navy has seized a "Free Gaza Movement" boat, "Arion," that was headed for Gaza in violation of the Israeli blockade on the Strip. The boat was taken to Ashdod, and the crew detained by the IDF. This is something the Olmert government never had the guts to do. ~~~~~~~~~~ And one last, important, piece of good news for today: Drawing on the principle of "universal jurisdiction," which is — as I recently wrote — being abused for political purposes, a Spanish court had been proceeding with the investigation of the IAF bombing in Gaza on July 22, 2002 that killed Hamas terrorist Sheikh Salah Shehadeh and 14 others. The original complaint was lodged by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and involved war crimes allegations against seven senior Israeli officials, including former IDF chiefs of staff Dan Halutz and Moshe Ya'alon, and former defense minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. Today, Spain's National Court, in a 14 to 4 vote, decided not to proceed with the case. The legal reasoning that was applied has not yet been announced. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA ON THE ROPES — A RANK AMATEUR
Posted by LEL, June 31, 2009. |
|
Obama thaw on Israeli settlement construction follows Iran setback, Saudi brush-off. This below is a DEBKAfile special that comes from today's IsraPundit
|
|
The Obama administration signalled a new mood of compromise on settlement construction just ahead of the key talks in New York between Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak and prime minister's adviser Yitzhak Molcho and US envoy George Mitchell Tuesday, June 30. While the Israeli delegation was still airborne, the US state department spokesman Ian Kelly said: "We've been working with all the parties to try and come up with... an environment conducive to the resumption of negotiations. I'm not going to prejudge what happens tomorrow." Asked by reporters if that meant the US administration was ready to compromise and accept a suspension of settlement activity instead of a total halt, Kelly said that some level of flexibility was part of the negotiation process. "Working our way to our resolution, I'm not going to say we're not going to compromise. Let's just see what happens." At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "I don't want to get ahead of some very important meetings tomorrow between Ehud Barak and George Mitchell, except to say that we're optimistic about making progress." DEBKAfile's political analysts attribute this large crack in US president Barack Obama's unswerving push for a total halt on settlement activity on the West Bank to four new developments: 1. The prospect of direct US-Iranian dialogue on the nuclear issue has vanished into the blue yonder as relations go from bad to worse in the aftermath of Iran's disputed presidential election. A tough US stance against Israel as a bargaining chip with Iran is no longer relevant. The Obama administration had factored Arab reciprocity into its campaign to halt Israel's settlement activity. When it was denied, the White House saw no point in continuing to lean on Israel. 3. More and more former Bush administration officials are challenging the administration's insistent denial of Bush administration understandings with Israel on settlement expansion to accommodate natural growth. These officials emphasize that the understandings exist both orally and in writing. Monday, June 29, the Washington Post offered three reasons for the White House's decision to ease up on its "absolutist" position: "First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for... Second, the administration's objective... is unobtainable... No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze and no coalition could be assembled... to impose one. Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical matter, unnecessary... both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with previous US-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to inside the periphery of settlements near Israel — since everyone knows those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement..." In view of the US administration's newfound flexibility on the settlement issue, Israeli government circles see the tables turned and the American squeeze deflected to coercing the Palestinian Authority to return to the negotiating table. Egypt has set July 7 as the deadline for the warring Palestinian factions — Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah and the Islamist Hamas which rules Gaza — to get their act together and achieve a united national front ahead of peace talks with Israel. Netanyahu, after accepting the two-state principle, pulling Israeli troops out of four Palestinian towns, thinning out West Bank roadblocks and making his point to Washington on the settlement freeze, is ready to invite the opposition Kadima party and its leader, Tzipi Livni, to join a national unity government under his rule. Foreign minister Avigdor Liebermann and his nationalist Israeli Beitenu party might present an obstacle. Therefore, some political circles in Jerusalem assign the anonymous leak to the media Monday, June 29, which cited French president Nicolas Sarkozy as bluntly advising Netanyahu when they met at the Elysee last week to get rid of Avigdor Lieberman and replace him with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, as a prod for Lieberman to step aside. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA SWEET-TALKS DICTATORS, YET STRONG-ARMS ISRAEL
Posted by AFSI, June 30, 2009. |
|
The article below was written by M.K. Moshe Arens and
appeared in Haaretz
"The right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria is a basic principle not subject to negotiations. The Israel prime minister has to make this crystal clear." |
|
Dealing with U.S. President Barack Obama constitutes a major challenge for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been a long time since America last had a president as powerful as Obama, who controls both houses of Congress and is wildly popular among the American public. It is from this advantageous position that Obama has decided to confront Israel, and now the Israeli prime minister has to decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the world's troublemakers in Tehran, Damascus, and Pyongyang are getting away with murder. As for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad, Obama has decided to sweet-talk them. Meanwhile Kim Jong-il is still waiting to see how the U.S. president will deal with him, as North Korea continues to threaten the world with its nuclear-tipped missiles. The exception to it all is Israel — Obama is telling Jerusalem in no uncertain terms what he expects from it. No doubt about it, the American leader has decided to use strong-arm tactics on America's long-time ally. He has carefully and deliberately targeted the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria as the focal point of the pressure he has decided to apply on Netanyahu. For years these settlements have been castigated by Israel's enemies, and even some of its friends, as constituting an obstacle to regional peace — a sentiment also echoed by the Israeli left. With that kind of backing, Obama must have concluded that Netanyahu will have no choice but to buckle. That is why he and Hillary Clinton are keeping up the pressure. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements... It is time for these settlements to stop," he declared in Cairo. To leave no room for doubt, Clinton emphasized that Obama was referring to all settlements, including Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Those who choose to take comfort in Obama's choice of words — he referred to "legitimacy" rather than "legality," and talked about "continued" Israeli settlements — are only fooling themselves. Obama has targeted all Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria as well as East Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods, and he does not intend to let go easily. Netanyahu made a serious error of judgment in trying to parry Obama's opening serve by explaining the need for additional settlement construction due to the "natural growth" of the Jewish population there. Referring to the space required for kindergartens, nurseries and homes for newlyweds does not convince someone who does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement construction. Expecting heartfelt sentiments from your opponent in this game is not going to get us anywhere. Obama is playing hardball. While efforts to assuage the concerns of the Israeli public regarding relations with the U.S. — by saying that the settlement issue is negotiable — may leave an impression in Israel, they are falling on deaf ears in Washington. The right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria is a basic principle not subject to negotiations. There is more at stake here than mere rights to natural growth. Britain tried to abrogate these rights in the infamous MacDonald White Paper of May 1939. That document ended up in the trash bin of history. The Arab Legion tried to deny this right from 1948-1967, after destroying the Jewish settlements in the area, only to be driven out in the Six-Day War. And today, too, no coalition of friends or foes is going to succeed in this endeavor. The Israel prime minister has to make this crystal clear. The gauntlet has been dropped and it has to be taken up. Succumbing to the pressure that is being applied on the settlement issue will only result in additional pressure on other issues, and before long Israel's position on matters of principle and substance will begin to crumble. This is not going to be easy, but Israel's staunch supporters in the U.S. will stand by it. It will be a test for the American Jewish leadership — and for the people of Israel. 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. Barry Freedman is Executive Director. If you would like to be on AFSI's email list then contact them at: afsi@rcn.com |
|
IRAN COUNCIL CERTIFIES AHMADINEJAD VICTORY
Posted by Daily Alert, June 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Michael Slackman and it is archived at
|
|
As the certification was announced, security and militia forces flooded the streets, and protesters who were already out marching down Tehran's central avenue, Vali Asr, broke into furious chants. The marchers were quickly dispersed, but other Iranians, urged by opposition Web sites, went to their rooftops to yell "God is great!" in a show of defiance. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the Guardian Council's secretary, sent a letter to the interior minister saying the panel had approved the election after a partial recount, according to state television. "The Guardian Council, by reviewing the issues in many meetings and not considering the complaints and protest as valid, verifies the 10th presidential election," Ayatollah Jannati wrote. The letter made scant mention of the sweeping public anger and accusations of fraud. Earlier in the day, apparently in an attempt to create a semblance of fairness, state television said the Guardian Council had begun a random recount of 10 percent of the ballots in Tehran's 22 electoral districts and in some provinces. The recount only aroused new skepticism, however, when the official news agency, IRNA, said that in one district, Mr. Ahmadinejad won even more votes than he had in the first count. Opposition candidates had refused to participate in the review by sending representatives, saying that the election should be annulled because of widespread fraud. "There is a serious crisis of confidence and danger between the state and a large section of the population," said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. "I think this anger and discontent right now might have been managed and controlled, it might not erupt again in the next two days or week. But it has not been resolved." "It is a divided country now," said an Iranian political analyst who would speak only anonymously to avoid retribution. "We have two completely different world views. Ultimately, it is the competition between tradition and modernity." Speaking to reporters in Washington on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Iranian government was facing an enormous credibility gap over the election, something the day's events in Iran did little to address. "I don't think that's going to disappear by any finding of a limited review of a relatively small number of ballots," she said. Asked whether the United States would recognize Mr. Ahmadinejad as Iran's president, she said only, "We're going to take this a day at a time." The decision to certify the election seemed to reflect a growing split among the Iranian leadership about how to respond to a nation that has been left badly scarred after widespread protests, and a violent government crackdown that left at least 17 dead and hundreds more injured, hospitalized and jailed. One group of officials under the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to be trying to resolve the internal dispute by shifting some blame to foreign powers, particularly Britain, and by continuing reliance on the hammer-fisted policy of dispatching the police and militia members to beat protesters. But there appear to be a growing number of officials and clerics who are deeply concerned about the unrest. On Monday, the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Parliament was scheduled to visit the holy city of Qum to meet with two grand ayatollahs. A day earlier it met with two former presidents, Mohammad Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in an effort to ease the strains that have developed since the June 12 election. The speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani, a former nuclear negotiator, has emerged as a powerful opponent of Mr. Ahmadinejad. It is not clear how far those seeking some kind of reconciliation will be able to push their drive, as the current hard-line leadership of Mr. Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei has continued to lash out at the opposition and insist that Iran's troubles are a result of meddling by foreign powers. The nation's intelligence chief charged that the protests were inspired by Western and "Zionist" forces, and Mr. Ahmadinejad called Monday for an investigation into the shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan, the young protester who became a symbol when a video of her dying moments in the streets was seen all over the world. Witnesses said she was shot by a member of the Basij, the government militia. But now the government is pressing an account that foreigners killed her to undermine its credibility. Political analysts inside and outside the country doubted that the millions who participated in the rallies would believe the government's version. But there are millions more citizens who may, because they receive virtually all of their information from state media — primarily television — and because of Iran's history of exploitation by the West. On Sunday, the authorities arrested nine Iranian staff members of the British Embassy in Tehran, and while five had been released Monday, four remained in custody for what the intelligence service said were efforts to incite and organize the protests. But as the arrests ratcheted tensions up between Iran and the European Union, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman tried to ease back on Monday, however slightly. "Reduction of ties is not on our agenda with any European country, including Britain," the spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, said. Iran's economy, even before the electoral crisis, was suffering from the drop in oil prices, with inflation of at least 15 percent — and by some estimates 25 percent — and damaging unemployment. On Sunday, the government announced that it had to end all subsidies for gasoline used by private vehicles, a decision that was expected, but given the timing, suggested serious strains to the state budget. Antagonizing the European Union, Iran's largest trading partner, could do further damage. There was already some indication that some of Iran's most powerful groups, close to the supreme leader, were growing anxious over the state of the nation. European security experts, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, confirmed reports in Italian and Turkish newspapers that large sums of money had been sent to havens outside the country from banks controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. There was another lesson from Sunday that challenged the government's belief that it can return to a state of normalcy by crushing protests and talking about recounts without also offering hope of an objective review. The Iranian calendar is filled with a large number of national, religious and cultural memorials, holidays and observances. On Sunday, one memorial turned into a protest by thousands of people, forcing a recognition that without shutting down civil life for a vast majority of Iranians, there would be no way to prevent large crowds from gathering. "I think the memorials and the various anniversary dates, particularly for the most recent martyrs, present the greatest of threats to the regime of gatherings that could gather steam and momentum," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "I expect authorities will continue to do all they can to prevent people from gathering in large numbers in such occasions." Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo. Editor's Note: The cartoon is not part of the original
article. It comes from the June 30, 2009
Atlas Shrugs website
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
|
|
NO NEW CLASSROOMS FOR JEWS IN SAMARIA; U.S. DEMANDS ISRAEL GIVE UP
GOLAN, TOO; TURKEY TURNING AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 30, 2009. |
|
POLITICAL VEGAN RESTAURANT IN TEL AVIV A new restaurant was opened as a gathering place for leftists. Uniformed and armed Israeli soldiers are barred. The restaurant's rationale is that it opposes all forms of oppression, including killing animals for food and the Israeli "occupation" of Judea-Samaria (Prof. Steven Plaut. Unable to persuade the majority to adopt their views, the leftists seek to force their views upon the majority. This majority is growing, because leftist concessions to the Arabs have gotten thousands of Israelis killed. Suppose that ban extended to all food stores. Who then would defend those leftists from the Arabs, who have tried a number of times to wipe out the Israeli Jews? What "occupation?" The Territories are within the Mandate that recognized the Jewish people's pre-existing right to recover them. Foreign powers later conspired to deprive the Jewish people of them, but that does not negate Jewish rights. Repeated Arab aggression against Israel brought the Territories under Israeli control. That is where it belongs. Incidentally does the restaurant allow Arab customers, or does it boycott them, too, for their actual oppression What happens when Israel relinquishes control over territory? IDF forces left Lebanese soil. Result: Hizbullah oppresses the Lebanese and made and prepares war on Israel. Israel abandoned its own communities in Gaza. Result: Hamas oppresses the Arabs and made and prepares war on Israel. Can't just let territory fall into the hands of a terrorist enemy. Those vegans ought to learn from Israel's mistakes. Let them put pressure on the Arabs, who are the aggressors, not on defenders of Israel! If you want an outstanding vegan or vegetarian meal in Jerusalem, at modest prices and with friendly service, try the Village Green near Zion Square. They won't bother you over politics. For more on discrimination in Israel, click here:
Defense Min. Barak authorizes or rejects building plans in Samaria
and outside the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli population there is
growing. [Many being Orthodox, have large families.] Barak rejected
the building of 20 new classrooms for children
Isn't that carrying appeasement-minded politics too far? PM NETANYAHU ON IRAN MOTIVE FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed Iran's motive for
nuclear weapons. He said many people suppose that it merely is a
status symbol. Netanyahu thinks otherwise. He pointed out that Iran
furnishes allies with thousands of rockets for murdering Israeli
civilians
A regime bent on mass-murder does not seek nuclear weapons just for show. Can sanctions stop Iran? After all these years of attempted sanctions, leaving Iran just months from nuclear weapons, sanctions have proved futile. U.S. DEMANDS ISRAEL GIVE UP GOLAN, TOO In addition to demanding that Israel give up the strategic mountain
provinces of Judea and Samaria, plus Gaza Strip, U.S. envoy Mitchell
demands that Israel cede the strategic Golan Heights. He depicts this
as part of peace-making
The U.S. would strip Israel of strategic borders past which the Arabs repeatedly launched attacks on Israel. It would give those regions, some of which now are parts of the State of Israel, to Arabs who still want to destroy what would be left of Jewish sovereignty. That is not peace-making. It invites war by boosting the prospects of victory, irresistible to jihadists. Foolish, if peace were the U.S. goal. Futile, if long-term Arab friendship, were the U.S. goal. Effective, if destruction of the Jewish state is the U.S. government's goal. For more on U.S. diplomacy with Syria, click here: (Diplomatic butter-up with Syria) To see how the U.S. is opening up another front against Israel,
click here:
MURDER FOR HONOR In Gaza, a father admitted murdering his daughter as an "honor
killing." In Israel, an Arab was indicted for murdering his daughter
in another "honor killing." In the other part of the Palestinian
Authority (P.A.), male and female relatives admitted murdering a youth
on suspicion of his assisting Israel. P.A. police have not uncovered
any evidence that the youth did. The P.A. commander said he'd bring
the youth's killers to justice
I think the Arabs should redefine "honor" and due process. Sometimes the Arabs attributed murders to the anti-sin motive, but really were extorting property or taking personal vengeance. To appreciate Arab Muslim culture more, click here:
TURKEY'S ISLAMIST REGIME The Turks have come to sound like the Arabs and like Iran's leaders. For example, Turkey's Islamist media calls Jews names such as "blood-sucking vampires." For another example, the pro-government media called the Gaza incursion genocide and a crime against humanity. They did not say the same when visited by Sudan's vice-president (Haymi Behar in Jewish Political Chronicle, Spring 2009, p.7 from Ynet, 3/1/09) who actually commits genocide. I'm not sure the Muslims mean their epithets only symbolically. They take the Koran literally, and it calls some or all Jews pigs and apes. TURKISH ANTI-ISRAEL MINI-SERIES The Arab world is displaying a Turkish miniseries. The programs depict Israel as helping organized crime spread prostitution and drugs throughout Turkey. Turkish Jewry reports other TV programs there being antisemitic (Elgar Lefkovits, Op. Cit., p.9 from Jerusalem Post, 2/25). Bad enough that among the people there is solidarity with foreign Muslim aggressors, but worse the government indoctrinates in bigotry. How fast Turkey descended into primitive religious hatred! Wild lies instead of facts. Speaking of lies, what say you now about President Obama's claim that Islam is tolerant? Not when it is in a militant phase. Minorities never have security. Jews in Turkey fared much better under secularist regimes and my grandfather was the Sultan's clock repairman before that. ISRAELI TOURISTS SHUN TURKEY. NOW Turkey used to be the most popular destination of Israeli tourists. Almost 10,000 Israelis have canceled season-start trips to Bodrum, Turkey, alone. They were prompted by the insulting treatment of their President by the Turkish President in Davos. Turkey's Minister of Tourism feels that his own President's outburst boosted Turkey's popularity among the Arabs (Op. Cit., p.9 from Dagan News Agency, 4/3/09). The Turkish President did not insult personally his Israeli counterpart. Personally, I consider Pres. Peres a most subversive, anti-Zionist conspirator. Turkey formerly ruled over the Arabs and repressed them. Somehow, the Arabs don't blame Turkey for past colonialism TURKEY & THE EU & UN Anders Rasmussen was Prime Minister of Denmark when a private Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad. The Prime Minister defended the rights of a free press. In any case, it was beyond his power to censor. Nevertheless, when most NATO members supported Mr. Rasmussen's nomination to head NATO, Turkey objected. It acceded only when given: an EU concession in negotiations on Turkey's membership application, the appointment of two Turks to senior NATO posts, and an apology by Rasmussen. This was a step away from freedom of the press, because the government accepted a penalty imposed by Turkey. [Muslims often defame non-believers but bridle at non-believer criticism of themselves, whether the criticism be valid or not.] For 20 years, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) systematically used accusations of "Islamophobia" and of "insults to Islam" to cow critics. It is getting the UN to abandon human rights and freedoms. The US resists some of the UN resolutions against freedom of speech and religion, but does not make "a vigorous counterattack in defense of freedom." [Therefore, the resolutions keep coming. We should be trying to defeat their radical ideology.] In 1990, the OIC issued the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. They patterned it after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but subordinated rights to undefined Islamic law. It subordinated freedom of speech to their laws against blasphemy. The UN didn't adopt it but nevertheless cites it. The OIC attacked human rights reporting. In 1994, the UN special rapporteur on Sudan reported that Sudan's capital punishment for anyone older than seven and convicted of apostasy or adultery violated Sudan's commitment to human rights agreements. Sudan called the report blasphemy, because it criticized Sudan's Islamic law. Sudan warned him he might be condemned to death. In 1997, OIC members Egypt, Bangladesh, Algeria, Pakistan, and [reputedly moderate] Indonesia, etc., condemned the UN special rapporteur on racism of blasphemy for reporting antisemitism in Muslim states. The next report exempted the Muslim world from that scrutiny. In 2002, the OIC bloc got the UN Human Rights Commission to end special reporting on human rights in Iran. That year, in response to the Danish cartoons, the OIC got the special rapporteur on freedom of expression to include instances when freedom of expression is racially or religiously discriminatory (Paul Marshall, Jewish Political Chronicle, spring 2009, p.10 from the Weekly Standard, 4/16/09). Making concessions to Islamists curbs our own freedom to prevent their conquering us. The OIC represents 57 Muslim governments. Its position is against freedom. How can they claim Islam is consistent with democracy? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
LILY STEINER SHARES SOME INSIGHTS WORTH READING
Posted by Mr La, June 30, 2009. |
|
Lily Steiner is West Coast executive director of American Friends of the Ariel University Center (AUC). |
|
Obama and the State Department are just ignorant, there is no other suitable word for it, polite or otherwise. They have not taken the time to go and visit what they negatively call Settlements and what I proudly call Settlements. Same place, same set of facts, different perspective because they have not been to see it work. A place where Jews, Arabs, Russians, Ethiopians, every religion, nationality, age and creed live, work, innovate and get along — this is anyone's definition of Peace in the Middle East. Ownership of land and boarders can come later, but talk about reality on the ground, and where it is happening. This type of peace exists now in the Middle East — it exists in lots of places within Israel, and it has always existed in areas that are labeled as Settlements. From the very first settlement, before the creation of the state of Israel, Jews have always reached out to their Arab neighbors and successfully integrated them into their lives and celebrations. They have done and do this out of innate hospitality, but also for selfish reasons; there are 22 Arab countries, each of them enormous both in geographical size and population, it was never Israel's intent to take them over or conquer them, but to live together with them in Peace. How stupid do you need to be to believe Israel wants to conquer the whole of the Middle East for a Jewish Homeland? First of all there are not enough Jews in the whole world to populate it, and second of all, it is just a ridiculous premise. The facts show that Israel shares it knowledge and natural resources with the world as well as its Arab neighbors, despite the political conflicts and war, and it is much greater giving than getting on Israel's part. If you want Peace, get the Arabs to model some of what is going on in the settlements, on Arab lands, and then it won't matter who has sovereignty over it. Ariel is the newest University in Israel. It has 11,000 students, 500 are Arabs — the number would be higher, but the Arabs are afraid their own families and friends will kill them if they are found to be studying at an Israeli institution. Ariel University is in the heart of the largest Settlement, it is a Settlement to be proud of, both the city and the University. Every University classroom has an Israeli Flag. Every student, including the Arabs, must take a course in Jewish Heritage each semester. There are no problems, all the student¹s cross the green line to come and study each day. This Settlement should be expanded, not stopped on threat of destruction — it is a MODEL OF PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Just because the Arab PR machine coined the phrase "Settlements are block to Peace in the Middle East" does not make it true, it is just a case of tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people will believe it. Even the President and State Department of the U.S.A. I am not asserting that there has never been a crazy person in a settlement, but I am yelling from the rooftops that there are thousands of individual stories of cooperation and living and caring together in the settlements than there are negative incidents. It is always, and I will state this again, it is ALWAYS the attacks by Arabs on the settlements, which create the negative press for the settlements, when these settlements are the victims in the attacks. We have the model in Gaza of what happens when Settlements are disbanded. Even the Arabs, who lived and thrived there, did not pick up and continue a lucrative industry that would have made them and their children proud, instead, they destroyed it and so now remain poor and beholden to their extremists. They then compound this by assisting in the distribution of arms and ammunition to destroy the very Jewish people who were helping them feed and clothe their children before they forced them to leave. I want to call on all Settlers to make yourselves known. Write about who you are and what you do and let the world see that you are kind, and creative; professionals, blue collar workers, what you do with your lives and your families. I know you help with sick, orphaned and troubled teens, I know you have interests as far reaching as classical music to obscure bohemian pottery and rock music, but let the world know, connect to people with the same hobbies, interests and dreams, and let them know you are proud to be Settlers and why you are proud — you took a piece of land that the Arabs never believed would be anything but desert and you make it bloom and flourish each and every day. Share your stories of Peace in the Middle East today, let everyone know about the Arabs that live and work among you happily and who given the choice would never chose to be a citizen of a Palestinian State, because there is no Peace in Arab communities or villages with anyone other than other Muslims. What the stupid, blind, idiotic world is suggesting is not Peace in the Middle East, but an apartheid that will forever separate the Jews and the Arabs. Settlements should be applauded and looked up to as a model upon which to base Peace. Each and every person who went out and made a home for themselves in the areas won by Israel in 1967 when it was attacked on all fronts by its Arab neighbors, each and every person who took a risk in developing a home in these uncharted areas that were left barren and empty for so many years, each of you should be so proud of what you have achieved and accomplished — and if you do not live there and do not know what those achievements and accomplishments are, then go and visit, go and look, and see the reality, not the empty words of those that do not want to live in peace and do not care if their children ever do. Be proud to be a settler, you have done wonderful things — now share them with the world.
Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
70 ACADEMICS 'DISAPPEAR' IN IRAN CRACKDOWN ON DISSIDENTS
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 29, 2009. |
|
From Le Soir Brussels: "Nato Can Take Teheran In 7 Days In Order To Restore Democracy Like They Did In Serbia And Iraq." This was written Hana Levi Julian and it appeared in
Arutz-7
|
|
Iran is continuing its crackdown on dissidents protesting irregularities in the country's presidential elections with the arrest of 70 academics who met on Wednesday with challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. The Kalemeh web site, which is linked to Mousavi's campaign, reported that it was not known where the professors were taken. Other prominent dissidents, as well as at least 10 foreign journalists and some 26 Iranian reporters, have "disappeared" in a similar manner in recent days. Despite the risk, protesters clashed again Wednesday with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's special Basij militia force, which has brutalized many of the demonstrators since the June 12 elections. Email readers, click here to see the footage. WARNING: Many of the images snapped during and after the violence are graphic and disturbing. Water cannons, tear gas canisters and batons wielded by riot police did not stop the protesters from continuing to defy a government ban on gatherings and demonstrations to protest the results of what they insist was a rigged election. The crowd, which massed outside the Iranian parliament building, was forced back by armored vehicles. "Basiji [militiame beat people down like animals," a local source told The Jerusalem Post. "It was like they were beating up dolls. The security forces were out for blood. Hundreds of them charged out of nowhere. The next thing we saw was fire, blood, and clouds of tear gas." A massive demonstration was planned for Thursday by Mousavi, who called for a 'Sea of Green' to blanket the central square in Tehran in what he said he hopes will be the largest protest on the streets of Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Mousavi's trademark campaign color was green. At least 17 people were reportedly shot to death by Basij militiamen, according to the AFP news agency, but it is impossible to know whether the number is accurate because of constrictions placed upon journalists in the field. Protesters said many more were wounded as well. The New York-based Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran both stressed in statements issued to the media that the government is holding hundreds of activists without access to lawyers or their families. Most have not been charged, and many risk being tortured. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
MAINE FINES GROUP FOR `INFLAMMATORY ANTI-MUSLIM MESSAGE'
Posted by LEL, June 29, 2009. |
|
The Christian Action Network (CAN) runs afoul of bureaucratic political correctness. This was written by Patrick Poole and it appeared June 25,
2009 on Pajama Media
Patrick Poole is an anti-terrorism consultant to law enforcement and the military. |
|
An organization in the national spotlight recently for producing a documentary identifying several dozen potential terrorist training compounds in the U.S. has offended the sensibilities of Maine bureaucrats, who have fined the organization $4,000, alleging among other things that the group sent out mailings containing an "inflammatory anti-Muslim message." The group in question, the Christian Action Network (CAN), received notice of the fines and the fundraising ban in a May 6 letter from Elaine Thibodeau of the State of Maine's Department of Professional and Financial Regulation.[1] Enclosed in the letter was a prepared consent agreement for CAN to sign agreeing to all of the state's allegations, waiving all rights to appeal, and agreeing to pay the $4,000 fine. As part of the consent agreement, CAN is required to agree to all of the state's allegations, including their assertion that their mailing amounted to hate speech. "These bogus charges and fines the State of Maine has imposed are nothing but an attempt to stifle our free speech and silence our organization from speaking out about the steady creep of radical Islam in America," CAN president Martin Mawyer told Pajamas Media. "We fully intend to appeal the state's penalties because if they successfully silence us here, we will quickly find that we won't be able to speak out anywhere." CAN was in the news earlier this year following the release of their documentary, [2] Homegrown Jihad, which details dozens of compounds across the U.S. operated by Pakistani Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, who has previously been identified in State Department reports as a terrorist leader, and his group, Jamaat al-Fuqra.[3] The documentary looks into the past terrorist acts of the group in the U.S., including the assassination of two moderate Muslim leaders, the firebombing of non-Muslim religious facilities, and an investigation[4] by Colorado authorities that led to convictions and lengthy prison sentences. These activities have been covered in several FBI domestic terrorism reports and a more recent assessment[5] by the Center for Policing Terrorism. Other prominent convicted terrorists, including "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid, D.C. Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, and NYC landmarks bomb plotter Clement Rodney Hampton-El, have been identified as former members. But what has Maine bureaucrats roiling is a fundraising mailing sent by CAN (a copy of which was provided to Pajamas Media) regarding a public school curriculum used in California requiring students to pray to Allah, dress up as Muslims, adopt Muslim names, and learn the five pillars of Islam. Since Christians and Jews are not given similar accommodations, CAN encouraged their supporters to send a petition to Maine Gov. John Baldacci asking him to prevent such instruction in Maine public schools. Among the stated allegations in Thibodeau's letter and the consent agreement is that this amounted to hate speech, claiming: 5. The correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message. In two separate rounds of correspondence with Thibodeau, I inquired what basis the state used to determine that the mailing was "inflammatory," but she refused to address that question on both occasions. In addition to running afoul of ideological sensibilities of Maine state employees, Thibodeau makes two regulatory claims that prompted the $4,000 in fines. The first claim made by the state is that CAN was not properly registered when the mailings were sent. The second is that CAN used Maine Gov. John Baldacci's name without his permission. CAN responds that they made all efforts to comply with state law and promptly provided additional information requested by Thibodeau's office. And they provided Pajamas Media with documentation that seems to flatly contradict the State of Maine's allegations. While Thibodeau's letter claims that CAN's charitable solicitation license expired in November 2007, CAN produced copies of canceled checks cashed by the Maine state treasurer that accompanied their 2008 renewal and registration. Nothing in what the state has sent to CAN indicates that 2008 registration was in any way defective (or even mentions it), which creates problems for the state's position, for if the previous year's registration was in order, and CAN claims to have received nothing to indicate otherwise, their fundraising mailing would have fallen within the 90-day renewal period when the mailing was sent. The state's claim that their 2009 registration was out of order and that they were fundraising without a license would therefore be moot as the mailing was sent prior to the renewal period's expiration. In support of their position that CAN was not properly registered this past April, Thibodeau's office claims that several pages of CAN's annual audit were not properly transmitted with their application and notified them of the error by email on April 6. Her letter acknowledges that they received the missing pages on April 21, postmarked on April 13. This constitutes the grounds for the state's $1,000 fine. Thibodeau confirmed that the state doesn't send out any official notice that an organization's application has been approved. "They have created a black box registration process where if they don't like what you're saying, they will go back through your application and determine that your application wasn't correct, and suddenly you're violating the law," Mawyer said. "That's what we believe has happened in this case." Perhaps more troubling for free speech advocates is the state's claim that CAN needed the governor's permission in order to use his name on the petition that the group urged supporters to send to him: 8. Governor John Baldacci did not give written consent, or any other consent, to the Christian Action Network to use his name for the purpose of soliciting contributions. This was the stated basis for assessing the heavier $3,000 fine. Thibodeau's letter and the consent agreement also allege that the use of Baldacci's name was intended to suggest his endorsement of CAN. But Mawyer notes that the U.S. Postal Service examines all of their fundraising solicitations, including looking for any implied endorsements, before they are mailed. "It would be a violation of federal law for us to make any false representation concerning any endorsements, which is one reason why we submit all of our fundraising letters to the Post Office for their approval prior to anything being sent out under our non-profit mailing permit, as was the case with this fundraising package," Mawyer said. "We have had the Post Office reject packages in the past, and we have rewritten them to get their go-ahead. Now Maine is telling us in essence that even if we get federal approval beforehand, the state retains the right to reject their interpretation and impose their own standard if they disagree with the content of your mailing." It is particularly telling that while the state claims that CAN implied the governor's endorsement, they did not assess any fines based on this allegation, perhaps with the problem of the Postal Service's prior approval of the CAN mailing in view. But the free speech chilling effect from Maine could be enormous as their interpretation of state law could virtually outlaw any issue mentioning government officials without obtaining their prior written consent. As Mawyer observes, "Imagine not being able to criticize a public official without their express written permission or without any reference to them whatsoever." One important outstanding issue following the rounds of correspondence between Pajamas Media and Thibodeau concerns a public complaint received by her office about the content of CAN's mailing cited in her May 6 letter. Her letter gives specific dates on all other matters except this one. Mawyer's concern is that the complaint may have not only preceded the state's notification of the missing pages to the application, but also their decision to consider CAN's solicitation license invalid. I specifically asked twice on what date the complaint was received and Thibodeau refused to address the question both times. "There's little doubt that our documentary on Islamic terrorist camps operating inside the U.S. and our statements of concern about the spread of radical Islam is at the heart of the state's actions. And we can't help but conclude based on the available evidence that if we were ACORN, or any other group advocating some left-wing cause, they would be using a less-than-rigorous scrutiny in their interpretation of the law," Mawyer said. "Would they ever dare consider applying these standards to CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations]?" CAN is appealing the fines issued by the State of Maine and is also considering a lawsuit to prevent bureaucrats from using rulings after the fact to go after charitable organizations running afoul of political correctness. If Maine were to prevail in this case, they fear that it would not only be used by groups like CAIR to attempt to discredit CAN's investigative work, but also be an invitation for Maine and other states to use bureaucratic interpretations to go after other organizations making similar "inflammatory anti-Muslim messages." Footnotes [1] http://www.maine.gov/pfr/index.shtml [2] http://www.christianaction.org/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=13 [3] http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/ terroristoutfits/jamaat-ul-fuqra.htm [4] http://www.ago.state.co.us/pr/121001_link.cfm.html [5] http://www.centerforpolicingterrorism.com/pdf/JAMAATAL-FUQRA2.pdf Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
IS THERE DISSENSION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ABOUT OBAMA'S OUTREACH TO THE ISNA
Posted by LEL, June 29, 2009. |
|
This was written by The Iconoclast and it appeared in New
English Review
|
|
This coming week, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) will hold its annual convention in Washington, DC. The Obama Administration has done a literal two step. As reported by IPTNews," FBI Replaces Brotherhood-Tainted Liaison with Brotherhood-Tainted Liaison", the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI have simply exchanged one Muslim Brotherhood Front, CAIR, for another, the ISNA. This is in furtherance of outreach to the American Muslim community following the President's Cairo U. speech. In a controversial move the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that it will send representatives to attend the ISNA convention. IPT News report noted that there is serious dissension in the DOJ and FBI over this ISNA issue. There is good reason for these internal DOJ and FBI concerns given the recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. The federal prosecutors had named CAIR, ISNA and several other Muslim Brotherhood front groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. This trial resulted in May convictions of five officials of the Muslim charity on charges of funneling over $12 million in funds to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two of the HLF officials fled the US in 2004 for Syria when the indictment in the original trial was handed down, as we have posted. The ISNA has admitted ties to Hamas. The Investigative Project alerted us to an Indianapolis NBC affiliate WTHR investigation of the ISNA, which has its national headquarters in that area. The report, "Images in Conflict," was done back in 2004 but is still relevant. You can watch the WTHR report on YouTube, here and here. In the transcript of the WTHR investigation of ISNA were these revelations: On Holy Land Foundation and Hamas connections Tucked away on the farmland of rural Plainfield, Indiana, are headquarters to one of the largest Islamic organizations in the country — the Islamic Society of North America. On convicted felon Sami Al Arian, Triple I-T and Saudi funding Recently indicted University of South Florida professor Sami Al Arian is one controversial figure ISNA supported. In a federal indictment, Al Arian is accused of heading the U.S. front for the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The DOJ links him to the death of 100 civilians overseas, including two Americans. When Al Arian was arrested, ISNA issued a statement critical of the government. Thus, in light of the Holy Land Foundation and Al-Arian convictions, ties to the extremist Triple I-T and Hamas, you can understand why there is dissension in the Justice Department FBI `substitution' of the ISNA for CAIR at the behest of the Obama White House. |
|
ACLU PUSHING FOR MORE MONEY FOR HAMAS
Posted by Steven Emerson, June 29, 2009. |
|
The American Civil Liberties Union released a report (together with a You Tube video) attacking the U.S. government's efforts to shut down terrorist-financing charities. The report was based on 120 interviews, 115 of which were conducted with Muslim community leaders and other Muslims "directly affected by" U.S. government policies regarding the charities. It suggests (contrary to a substantial body of evidence) — that the U.S. government was wrong to have acted against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation and other charities accused of raising money for terrorist organizations. The report also perpetuates the myth that the United States government may be planning to prosecute persons for unwittingly contributing to charities that were fronts for terrorism. The ACLU asserts that post-September 11 policies targeting these charities have a "disproportionate" effect on Muslims and "are undermining American Muslims' protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination." It recommends a series of policy changes which include repealing Executive Order 13224, issued shortly after September 11, which creates mechanisms for designating persons and organizations as "specially designated global terrorists" (SDGTs). The ACLU also calls on the FBI to employ the" least intrusive means" necessary to accomplish its investigative objectives and urges the federal government to ban law enforcement practices that "disproportionately" target people "based on ethnicity, national origin or religion." In his June 4 Cairo speech, President Obama asserted that there are too many impediments to Muslim efforts to fulfill their obligation to give charity, or zakat. As we have previously noted, this is patently untrue. The only way "loosen" restrictions would be to effectively to cripple current U.S. law barring material support for terrorism. The ACLU recommendations mean "more money for Hamas," said Dennis Lormel, who created the FBI's terror financing section. Terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah use the charities to build hospitals and provide food to the poor to win the trust of local Muslims. They then use "this credibility to enlist children as suicide bombers," Lormel said. But if the ACLU had its way, the U.S. government would lose critical tools for preventing U.S. charities from sending money to terrorist organizations. Using the "least intrusive means" would make it much more difficult (if not impossible) to shut down terrorist — financing charities like HLF, Lormel told IPT News, because they could deny the government the ability to use methods like wiretaps which were critical to building a case against the group for providing funds to Hamas. Ending the SDGT designations would take away a valuable deterrent to abuse. "We know from experience that people stop donating to these charities once they are designated as supporters of terrorism," added Lormel, a 28-year FBI veteran who oversaw its stepped-up efforts to shut off the flow of funds to terrorist organizations after September 11. The ACLU complaints about the "disproportionate" impact of these investigations on Muslims overlook the reality that most of "the terrorist violence we've seen the past eight years comes from the Muslim world," says Jonathan Schanzer, who worked as a Treasury Department counterterrorism analyst in the George W. Bush Administration. One myth running through the ACLU report is that the government may be preparing to prosecute persons who contributed to such charities out of ignorance. American law makes it illegal to provide support to any entity designated a terrorist group by the federal government. But the 1995 executive order signed by President Clinton and legislation enacted the following year by Congress cementing it into law do not affect donations to relief agencies that have not been so designated. Virginia Imam Mohamed Magid claims that Muslims have a legitimate fear that they could innocently contribute to a charity today and find themselves under investigation several years later if the government concludes that the charity is financing terror. But for someone to be convicted of a crime, prosecutors must prove they knew that money would go to benefit a terrorist organization. Before the Treasury Department shut down the HLF in 2001, it had been considered the largest Muslim charity in the United States. Five leaders of the organization were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms for providing $12 million to Hamas. But Jim Jacks, the lead federal prosecutor in the HLF case, notes that only leaders were charged — not the people who contributed money believing it would be used for humanitarian projects. "There was never an instance where a donor has been prosecuted or sanctioned for making donations to the Holy Land Foundation," Jacks said. "The people who were prosecuted and held accountable were the people that set up and ran the Holy Land Foundation and knew what they were doing." Lormel said the procedure used in the HLF trial has been implemented across the board. "The government has not gone after donors in any of the other [terror-financing] cases," he said. The ACLU suggests in its report that that the HLF, Global Relief Foundation (GRF), Al-Haramain and Benevolence International Foundation cases were little more than witch hunts targeting Muslims who were not involved in terrorism. But in each of these cases, the government has presented substantial information linking the groups to terror. In the HLF case, the five defendants were convicted after a two-month trial on all counts of conspiring to provide money to Hamas. Jurors convicted the five after hearing testimony from expert witnesses such as Matthew Levitt, former deputy assistant Treasury secretary, who explained the connection between Hamas' military and social branches and how the HLF used zakat committees to route money to Hamas. During the sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis repeatedly said the evidence was clear that "The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas." In the GRF case, the Treasury Department detailed the group's connections to al Qaeda and the Taliban, including contacts with Wadih el-Hage, Osama bin-Laden's personal secretary, who was convicted for his role in the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. After years of wrangling with Saudi Arabia, the Treasury Department last year designated Al-Haramain's worldwide operation for having provided material and financial support to al Qaeda. In Bosnia, for example, they found links between Al-Haramain and Al-Gama al-Islamiyya, an Egyptian terror group that signed Osama bin Laden's Feb. 23, 1998 fatwas against the United States. In Bangladesh and Kenya, Al-Haramain members were implicated in assassination plots against U.S. citizens. These are just a small fraction of the connections between Al-Haramain and terrorist organizations cited by the Treasury Department in designating it a supporter of terrorism. In the case of the Benevolence International Foundation, the group was designated for supporting terrorism because of memos like this, in which members of the group establish a terrorist base in Sudan. The designation occurred in 2002 after Bosnian authorities uncovered ties between Benevolence International Foundation and Al Q aeda. But in attempting to manufacture a case that the U.S. government is persecuting Muslims, the ACLU chose to overlook considerable evidence showing that these charities are involved in terrorism. This appeared today in Jewish World Review. |
|
ISRAEL 'FED UP' WITH US DECLARATIONS AGAINST YESHA
Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, June 29, 2009. |
|
A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is "fed up" with American statements against Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew-language Yisrael HaYom (Israel Today) newspaper reported Monday. As Defense Minister Ehud Barak flies to Washington for meetings with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, the unnamed senior official stated, "Israel will demand that any compromise be part of a wider program of regional peace, and only after agreement on the basic principles outlines by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his [recent] speech at Bar-Ilan University." The Prime Minister declared for the first time that he would accept the creation of a new Arab state on part of the land of Judea and Samaria on condition that it be de-militarized and that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has categorically rejected both conditions after having been encouraged by American and European support for the Arab-world demands that Israel surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish state in the Six-Day War in 1967, including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Government sources told Yisrael HaYom that during Defense Minister Barak's visit, "The Americans will hear decisive statements regarding the possibility of freezing construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel will be prepared to listen to a freeze only if it is temporary and if the Americans will explicitly state" that it will later approve building in communities with a high concentration of Jewish residents. Israel has stated for public consumption that good relations with the U.S. are important, but any freeze, even temporary, is likely to meet stiff opposition from Shas and Likud party ministers. Shas leader Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) said, "This kind of thinking is incorrect. The discussion needs to be not only about 'settlements' but also about obligations of the PA." The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) is thoroughly opposed to any restrictions on building for Jews but is willing to vacate certain hilltop communities, also called "outposts." Pinchas Wallerstein, a long-time leader in Yesha, wrote in a local newspaper in Samaria this week that if an outpost was built on Arab land that cannot be purchased by Jews, the Yesha Council would agreed to transfer it to another location on condition that the current building freeze is removed. He charged that the new American government is trying to take "Barak Hussein Obama's pound of flesh for the Arab world towards which he now sets his sights." President Obama stated in his Cairo University speech earlier this month that "the U.S. does not view the settlements as legitimate." he has issued repeated calls for a halt to building for Jews, Even the Washington Post, which usually sides against Israeli policies in Yesha, is concerned with the Obama administration having painted itself a corner in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Jackson Diehl, the newspaper's deputy editorial page editor, wrote Monday morning: "The administration made the mistake of insisting that an Israeli settlement 'freeze' — a term the past three administrations agreed to define loosely — must mean a total stop to all construction in the West Bank and even East Jerusalem. "This absolutist position is a loser for three reasons. First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for; they claim to be waiting for the settlement "freeze" even as they quietly savor a rare public battle between Israel and the United States. Second, the administration' s objective — whatever its merits — is unobtainable. No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze, and no coalition could be assembled from the current parliament to impose one.
This article appeared in Arutz-7,
|
|
AFTER U.S. PRESSURE, BARKAT TO HALT 70% OF EAST JERUSALEM DEMOLITIONS
Posted by Ralph Levy, June 29, 2009. |
|
My Comment: makes you wonder why the sudden change??
The article below was written by Nir Hasson and appeared in Haaretz
|
|
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat is set to announce a plan to freeze demolition orders on around 70 percent of unauthorized construction in the east of the city, Haaretz has learned. The municipality would also negotiate compensation terms with families evicted from the remaining 30 percent. The plan represents a departure from earlier statements, in which Barkat spoke out against illegal construction by Palestinians in East Jerusalem. According to various estimates, Jerusalem has some 20,000 unauthorized buildings, home to around 180,000 people. The demolition of each house requires considerable legal efforts and a heavy police presence, amid fears that protests by residents and housing activists can escalate into riots. In recent years, the municipality did not have the time or resources to demolish more than 100 houses a year. "Since the mayor took office, the municipality has been working on housing planning in the east of the city, which includes increasing construction opportunities in some areas, expanding housing in others and stopping illegal construction in areas where no construction is allowed," the mayor's office said in a statement. "The reality on the ground is being taken into consideration in the planning process when possible. City Hall will present the plans when the time is right." Upon taking office in November, Barkat spoke out several times against unauthorized construction, which soon provoked a clash between him and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In March, Barkat told reporters that Clinton's statements against house demolitions in East Jerusalem were "air" and that avoiding demolitions could "send the wrong message out to lawbreakers." He was quoted by The Associated Press as saying he rejected "the claims we're throwing people out of their homes. If you're building a house without the appropriate permits you need to be prepared to suffer the consequences." Sources close to Barkat said they were "astonished" at the forcefulness of the American reaction to what they perceived to be a purely municipal matter. The deputy mayor for East Jerusalem affairs, Yakir Segev, who is preparing the plan with Barkat, said it was the permits policy that pushed residents to build illegally, as only 18 permits were issued in 2008. "To get a construction permit in East Jerusalem you have to be more than a saint," said Segev. On the other hand, he said the municipality simply did not have the means to enforce all the demolition orders, and that there was no formal way to resolve the crisis. Gray houses Sources at City Hall told Haaretz that these two factors prompted the municipality to begin working on a new solution. The program was inspired by the Goldberg Committee's report, which recommended the legalization of certain unauthorized Bedouin villages in the Negev. In the Jerusalem plan, retroactive construction permits will not be handed out, but homes will be listed as "gray houses" — they will stay illegal but all legal actions against them will cease. Their new status will allow City Hall to collect municipal taxes, which will be invested in a separate municipal company to improve East Jerusalem, while the residents will be able to legally sell their houses if they wish. Owners of houses that do not receive formal status will have the chance to take part in negotiations on voluntary eviction with compensation. Barkat is currently seeking a project manager for the program. Sources in the municipality said the role had been offered to former Meretz MK Ran Cohen, but Cohen declined. Ralph Levy blogs at Politics1_Politics1 and can be reached by email at stargate_time@yahoo.com |
|
EUROPEAN FUNDING FOR THE NARRATIVE WAR
Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, June 29, 2009. |
|
European efforts to play a major role in Arab-Israeli peace discussions have again been overshadowed, this time by US President Barack Obama's initiative. To raise Europe's visibility, the rate of official visits has increased, and a number of academic conferences on Europe's role are taking place. For example, yesterday the Hebrew University began a three-day conference with the ambitious headline "Strengthening the Forces of Moderation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Role of the European Union After the Gaza War." For diplomats and policy-makers, a "frank and honest exchange of views" on the problematic European track record in academic settings could be very helpful in correcting decades of misjudgments. For example, during the Oslo process, the European Union and its member states were convinced that Yasser Arafat was a "force of moderation," providing him and his corrupt Fatah cronies with suitcases of money, justified as necessary to "grease the wheels" of the peace process and Palestinian state building. Instead, the cash went to foreign bank accounts and terror. In Europe, there have been very few independent analyses of these and other diplomatic and policy failures. Fearing embarrassment and worse, officials rejected calls for an independent investigation, until the European Parliament forced the European Commission to hold an inquiry (known as the OLAF report). But years later, this report remains top secret, meaning that few if any lessons were apparently learned. Given this record and the difficulties that Europe has in analyzing itself, serious academic research and conferences can play a very positive role. Unfortunately, many of these discussions of European policy feature speakers and officials who prefer to preach to Israelis rather than investigating their contribution to failure. In parallel, important issues related to policy failures are conspicuously absent from such conferences.
ONE SUBJECT consistently avoided in the quasi-official research and conference framework is the massive European funding for radical nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) whose activities fuel the conflict instead of "strengthening the forces of moderation," as proclaimed in the title of this conference. Through the "Barcelona program" and aid schemes, the European Commission and member governments provide tens of millions of euros every year to Palestinian, Israeli and other NGOs. The ostensible objectives include promoting democracy, peace, development and human rights, but the results are often counterproductive and fuel the conflict. These NGOs lead the demonization and delegitimization of Israel, through labels such as "apartheid" and "war crimes," based on the strategy adopted at the 2001 Durban Conference NGO Forum. For example, European NGO funding is the primary engine behind the "lawfare" assaults against Israeli military and civilian officials — a form of soft-war aggression through the courts which accompanies the "hard war" of terrorism. The current case in Spain (chosen for its lenient universal jurisdiction policies) is led by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which is funded by the European Commission, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and other governments. Indeed, PCHR is a central force in the NGO demonization and political warfare against Israel. These European-funded "lawfare" cases are part of the much wider process, conducted through highly political NGOs in Israel that seek to overturn the government's policies — groups like B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Machsom Watch, Bimkom, Ir Amim, Adalah, Mossawa, etc. (The EU claims to fund these NGOs under the guise of limited projects, but the amounts often constitute the bulk of the total operating budget.)
AN EXAMINATION of the activities of European funded NGOs demonstrates that they do not contribute to "strengthening the forces of moderation." Many are active in promoting anti-Israel boycott campaigns, one-state proposals (meaning the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state) and submitting tendentious claims to UN "investigatory" committees. A serious discussion of these issues would ask questions like: How does this happen? Who guides these decisions? Why are European government funds for NGOs used to undermine compromise, mutual acceptance and the two-state solution that Europe claims to support? The chaos in EU funding for NGOs and frequent overlaps add to these problems — there is no coordinator or central data source. European transparency regulations are ignored in this area, and no records or protocols are available for NGO allocations under European Commission programs. The names and possible conflicts of interests of the policy-makers are hidden from public scrutiny. Evaluation processes, if any, are secret, making it difficult to explore constructive changes. When NGO Monitor was unable to obtain the most basic documents and threatened a lawsuit under the EU's own transparency rules, European officials sent a CD containing about 50 documents, most of which had all the relevant information deleted including the names of NGO partner organizations and the evaluation criteria. It was impossible to decipher the few meaningless statements and figures that remained, making constructive evaluation impossible. These issues should be high on the agendas of discussions and conferences, such as the one taking place at Hebrew University. Unfortunately, these "difficult" subjects and conflicts are largely avoided. Comfortable but misleading headlines, such as "Strengthening the forces of moderation," take precedence over the open examination of European support for "lawfare," the "right of return" and Palestinian rejectionism. Gerald Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. |
|
IDEOLOGUE-IN-CHIEF
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 29, 2009. |
|
The article below was written by Caroline Glick and it was
today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246296529986&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com My comment written as message to Caroline, I agree with most of what you wrote here but not with your conclusion. He is, in a sense, Carter-like. He came out of nowhere, the electorate refused to look at who he really was and they elected an idea and got an unfulfilling real person, he is really too inexperienced to maintain the position and it all got exposed after he was elected president. But Carter was a much lower tech president in a much slower world and the art of communication is very different today. Carter had little experience or capability in communication and this is, of course, where Obama excels. He has a whole network of communicators around him who constitute a massive safety net, pinned up by the likes of Soros and lots of big money. They talk ideologies that the public, by and large, does not perceive or begin to understand. Did you ever walk out of a lecture and hear the other students say "Wow, that must have been really good, I didn't understand a word he said". The voters, the administration, the money, they are all too invested in him to "allow" him to fail. Finally, this communications thing is very malleable. I don't believe we will see the total failure in Washington that we saw under Carter, we will see a bigger and bigger, deeper and deeper hole being dug and Obama and his administration like spiders doing a dance on a web strung across the top, trying to stay level with the ground around them. Either the next president will have to climb out of a deep deep hole to re-float the ship of America freedom and democracy, if he is capable, or if he is not up to the task we are seeing the beginning of the demise of the American era. All in all, Obama has too many people, too invested in him, to allow abject failure. That is another article I've been wanting to write titled "Not With a Bang but a Whimper". We are used to seeing history through the lens of our history textbooks and that was all about memorizing dates. Things happened on specific dates that we could list on our tests. So the fall of the Roman Empire "happened" this era began and ended, that era began and ended. Someone must have snapped their fingers and it was done. We have even begun to see the Holocaust as an event that began and ended, we barely have the perspective that allows for the build up and the lengthily destruction of that evil empire. We are loosing context, cause and effect, as we have for most of history unless we are the professor who specializes in that particular era. In fact, when we hear that professor speak it is an epiphany that it was such a complex progression and that in the current parlance, it was so nuanced. (I hate that word because the way most people use it implies that it only applies to the issue they are discussing and the world itself is not completely "nuanced", but that is another whole rant). Anyway, back to bangs and whimpers, we are taught and view the world as a series of bangs and we expect things to happen in bangs. So people are watching for the American bang and all they are getting is a series of whimpers. We are seeing the demise of America in a series of whimpers and we do not recognize it because it is not what we expect to see. Historical perspective will eventually expose the bang and I wonder how many people will recognize it then. Paul |
|
For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections. Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it." While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom — which is what they are actually fighting for — most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement. Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates — presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice — to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies. After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business. Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran." No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime — which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs — reach such an agreement.
IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests. So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors. Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics. Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei — whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" — who sets Iran's foreign policy. While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993. Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.
TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy. Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military — backed by Congress and the Supreme Court — ejected Zelaya from office. And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya." His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America. Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential." But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms. FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests. While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed — as it has in North Korea — or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week. Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence. So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended? The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies. For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics. Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass. And then they will sink him. Contact Paul Rotenberg by email at pdr@rogers.com |
|
OBAMA IS DANGEROUS TO ISRAEL
Posted by Shoula Horing, June 29, 2009. |
|
It seems obvious by now that President Obama seeks a clash and confrontation with Israel in order to improve U.S. relations with the Arab and Muslim world. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that the U.S. president is picking a public fight with a supposed ally over the recycled and mostly mythical controversy that construction for natural growth inside already-existing Jewish settlements is the major obstacle to peace in the Middle East? But the warning signs indicate a much more dangerous scenario for Israel. It appears that President Obama's public confrontation and dictates are not only to pressure Israel to withdraw to the suicidal borders of 1967, but he is attempting to change a 40-year-old pillar of U.S. foreign policy of supporting and allying with Israel in the Middle East. President Obama seems to have adopted the point of view held for may years by those who are called " Arabists" in the tradition of former President Carter, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and ex-Sec of State James Baker, who believe that the reason there is no Middle East peace is that the United States has failed to become engaged in Middle East diplomacy and failed to pressure Israel to capitulate to Arab and Palestinians demands, including a settlement freeze and the two-state solution. Of course, those who are prone to take the Arab side have long believed that U.S. alliance with Israel is to blame for the conflict between the Arab/Muslim world and the U.S., resulting in anti-American hatred and terror. They advocate good relations with the strategically important, numerically superior, oil-rich Islamic nations of the Middle East at the expense of the United States' special alliance with Israel. Political sources close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's senior political consultant, David Axelrod, are behind the clash between the administration and Israel. Israel historically has depended on the White House to balance the weight of the State and Defense departments, whose officials usually lean toward the Arab side. Israeli officials say that under Obama, the White House has become the main problem. Weakest link President Obama chose the settlement dispute because he perceived it as the weakest link in Congressional and American Jewish support for Israel, as both have been exposed for years to the Arab propaganda campaign of misinformation and historical revisionism. In his Cairo speech, Obama claimed that the settlements are" not legitimate and undermine efforts to achieve peace." This is the first and only administration since Carter to repeat the illegitimacy claim, which has no basis in international law. In 1967, Israel entered the West Bank in a war of self-defense after being attacked by Jordan. This is why, when it adopted Resolution 242 in November 1967, the U.N. Security Council did not call Israel to withdraw from all territories it captured. Rather, 242 allows Israeli presence in some of the West Bank territories. The previous occupier of the West Bank had been Jordan, which conquered the area in 1949 in an aggressive conquest. Jordanian sovereignty in the territory was not recognized by the international community, apart from Pakistan and Britain. Prior to the 1949, the governing document for legal rights in the West Bank was the 1922 League Of Nations Palestine Mandate, given to the British in order to establish a Jewish home in Palestine. There was never an Arab or Muslim state called Palestine or any other name in any area west of the Jordan River; only a Jewish one. Palestine was a geographic name for the area given by the Romans 2,000 years ago after they destroyed the Jewish state called Judea. It seems that, legally, Israel has a better title to the area than Jordan or any other future Palestinian entity. Negligible issue The claim that settlement activity is an obstacle to peace because it will diminish the territory of a future Palestinian entity is baseless. First, the amount of territory taken up by the built-up area of all 121 settlements in the West Bank, with 245,000 residents, is estimated to be just 1.7 percent of the territory. Most of the settlements are located in major blocs, very close to the 1949 armistice line. Many of them are suburbs of Jerusalem, such as Gush Etzion, Maale Adumim and Ariel. The argument that a settlement will undermine a future territorial compromise lost much of it force after Israel dismantled settlements in the Sinai in 1982 as part of its peace treaty with Egypt and unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers and dismantled all settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Moreover, for the last five years, since the advent of the "Road Map" international peace plan, all Israeli governments, including the present one, have adhered to guidelines that were discussed with President Bush but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements; no Palestinian-owned land would be expropriated or otherwise seized for the purpose of expanding exiting settlements; public funds would not be earmarked for encouraging settlements; no new outposts would be built; and construction would be confined to within the boundaries of existing settlements for "natural growth." So the public fight initiated by the Obama administration with a democratic ally was not over physical expansion of settlements into disputed territories but over a negligible issue such as construction for "natural growth" inside existing settlements for a population growth, This encompasses things like adding a room to a house or a floor to a house when a baby is born, or adding another classroom to a school or kindergarten. For the last five years, the major settlement blocs are becoming more populated, but not geographically larger, which does not affect Palestinian life, interfere with Palestinian mobility or agricultural activity and does not take land that Palestinians owned or used. It has been understood in the last decade by both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush that, in any final peace treaty, Israel will keep the major close-in blocs of settlements and compensate the Palestinian accordingly with land swaps from within Israel itself. President Clinton agreed to that in 2000 at Camp David and in 2001 at Taba, Egypt. President Bush agreed to this principle in a 2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Stating that "in light of new realities on the ground ... it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." The two-state solution In his Cairo speech, Obama's reiterated his position that the only solution to the Middle East conflict is the so-called two-state solution. But in fact, whenever an Israel government has offered the Palestinians a sovereign, Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, Palestinian Authority leaders rejected the offer and never even made a counteroffer. In 2001 in Taba, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to Arafat — in the presence of President Clinton — an independent Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank with a divided Jerusalem. Arafat rejected the offer and started the second intifada, a campaign of terror which resulted in the death of over 1,000 Israelis. In December, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, made Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — in the presence of President Bush — an unprecedented peace proposal in which Israel would retain only 6.5 percent of the West Bank, and, in return, the Palestinians would receive full territorial compensation from inside Israel. Jerusalem would be divided on a demographic basis, with the Palestinians having sovereignty over the Christian and Muslim quarters in the Old City, with the Temple Mount — the holiest site of the Jews — to be entrusted to a special international regime. Olmert also accepted the principle of a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and offered to settle thousands within Israel. But the so-called moderate Palestinian leader rejected this offer to end the "occupation" and achieve a two-state solution. It seems the Arab world still has only a one-state solution for the Middle East. It is a "final solution" that eliminates Israel altogether. Pressure will intensify Now, even though Netanyahu has explicitly agreed to the concept of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state, a true and secure peace for Israel will not occur under Obama's watch. Instead, unfair pressure, public confrontations, dictates and blame will intensify against Israel. A "two-state solution" might appease the Arab/Muslim world, but it will endanger Israel's security. In a recent poll, just 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of President Obama to be pro-Israel while 50 percent considered the policies of Obama to be more pro-Palestinian. Eventually, the majority of Jews in the U.S. who voted for Obama will have to decide who they need and support more — Israel and its people, or Obama.
Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an
attorney, a national speaker and a radio host in Kansas City, Mo. Her
e-mail address is Shoula1@aol.com
|
|
SHARIA RAPIDLY INNUNDATING THE UK
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 29, 2009. |
|
This was posted yesterday by Freedom Fighter on the JoshuaPundit website
|
|
Ever since the UK caved in[1] and allowed sharia courts legal jurisdiction in civil matters, the face of used-to-be-Great Britain has changed remarkably, as sharia courts metastasize and dispense Islamic justice[2] behind closed doors.. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts. Intimidation? Death threats? Unfair to women? No, really? I can't imagine what else the British government expected when they allowed British justice and common law to be bypassed in favor of a 7th century barbarism that only contributes to British Muslims being separated from the country's mainstream. It's a green light to Islamist separatists like The Muslim Council Of Britain to essentially create a state within a state. A prediction: don't be surprised if our Dear Leader, the self-proclaimed Defender of the Islamic Faith[3] makes a push for a similar layer of sharia courts in America. Remember, you heard it here first. Footnotes [1] http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bye-byebritain.html [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/
[3] http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
AMERICANS & RADICAL ISLAM: WHO IS BIASED?; OBAMA'S ABSURD DECREES; "NATURAL GROWTH" & ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDING
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 29, 2009. |
|
CHINA & INDIA MAKE AMERICA'S MISTAKES China demands that an international treaty on global warming exempt India and China, now creating the most greenhouse gases. China argues that since the U.S. developed by burning fuel, China and India should have that privilege. The U.S. did not know it was harming the environment. Now China does know that it harms the environment. Its pollution sickens its own people and spreads abroad. I think that the Chinese position is reckless. President Bush was correct to reject the Kyoto accords, for they embodied China's position. China and India are making America's worst domestic mistake. They are building roads and buying cars. That will use up the world's fuel sooner, warm the globe sooner, and pollute more. People will spend time in traffic, instead of on more efficient mass-transit or working near home. How old-fashioned!. Since the end of the gasoline era is in sight, it may well be in their lifetimes, those Chinese will have cars without fuel. Meanwhile, they drive up our Con Ed bills. AMERICANS & RADICAL ISLAM: BIAS & OBJECTIVITY Interesting story, the NY Times reporter escaping from Taliban captivity! He enters war zones to get the other side's story. They kidnapped him. Why? They didn't demand money or political concessions. We do know that totalitarian Muslims fear independent journalism. They often don't care how sympathetic or willing to listen the reporters are. If the reporters are Westerners, Radical Muslims may turn on them. This isn't a case, then, of grievances. This is a case of barbarism against civilization. I estimate that Radical Islam is 90% wrong and civilization is 90% right. Radical Islam's whole cause is wrong, but civilized countries aren't angelic. They may exploit or make unfair demands. Example: the U.S. armed Saddam with weapons of mass-destruction against Iran. The U.S. must learn to refrain from such callous, self-defeating expediency. At least civilized countries don't promote hatred of other faiths, their conquest, their murder, and imposition of backward dictatorship upon them. Some readers mistake my arguments against military and political Islam for bias against religious Islam, and object to it. But I don't object to the religious aspects of Islam, they are not my business. I object to political and military attempts to impose Islam on others. I treasure freedom, warts and all. If bias concerns those readers, why don't they object to the bias by Radical Islam? They can see only one side, the least meritorious one. They also jump to conclusions from a single article of limited scope, and complain that I omitted other sub-topics. The other topics usually are in some of my 360 other articles. OBAMA POLICY ON IRAN & ISRAEL MORE ABSURD President Obama is making it increasingly clear that he is not
going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Therefore, his
demand that Israel jeopardize its national security and national
identity to the Arabs, in return for U.S. action to stop Iran, becomes
increasingly absurd
This policy never was logical. Neither was it challenged by the conventional media and conventional politicians, however illogical the policy. Those parties almost always get it wrong, but those are the ones whose views get most heard. Not enough people have learned to get their information from a variety of sources including non-conventional ones. To start a string on Obama's policies on Israel, click here: (Obama duplicityon Israel, Iran) HAMAS STOLE & ABUSED MORE HUMANITARIAN AID Hamas seized thousands of tons of medical equipment, moved it to warehouses or used it for its gunmen, and sold the rest to citizens. Hamas also seized 46 ambulances donated to the Palestinian
Authority in Gaza. After stripping them of medical supplies, It
repainted them and used them as troop transports
Compare the Radical Muslims' actual depravity with their false accusations of same against Israel. The Radical Muslims think evil of the Jews because they are taught to but also, in my opinion, because that is how they act, so they expect others to act likewise. For more on Hamas' callous abuse of its own people, click here:
U.S. SEEKS EGYPT'S HELP Under-Secretary of State Burns said that the U.S. seeks Egypt's help on a variety of issues. "The peace process between the Palestinians and Israel, the scene in Iraq and Sudan as well as a number of issues of bilateral concern were discussed" (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/8). It would be about time that Egypt helps. I remember when it helped terrorists escape U.S. pursuit. Egypt is a dictatorship that favors jihad against Israel, not peace. Egypt has helped block action against Sudan's genocide. The U.S. tends to get burned by reliance upon Muslim "allies" — remember the CENTRO alliance? The U.S. called S. Arabia an ally, while it was the main sponsor of jihad. The U.S. had better be careful. So should everyone else. The U.S. does not always act in good faith. Will Egypt deal in good faith? For ideas on that, click here:
For a piece showing we can't rely on Egypt, click here:
NEW ABBAS & OBAMA DEMAND OF ISRAEL The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and President Obama have devised a new demand of Israel. The P.A. will claim that its retrained forces have lived up to their end of the bargain, so Israeli forces should withdraw from all checkpoints and P.A. cities. The P.A. will further demand that the IDF not be let back in. The bargain was that the P.A. would show that it can eradicate
terrorism, in return for removal of IDF forces. The P.A. did not
fulfill its task. Terrorism was not eradicated. The P.A., itself,
continues to advocate bigotry and terrorism. Few terrorists have had
success, not because of P.A. police, but because of IDF raids and
checkpoints. Whenever Israel reduces its raids and checkpoints,
terrorism ramps right back up
The P.A. and Abbas remain dedicated to jihad and approving of terrorism when practical. Jihad overall is anti-American. If Obama endorses the P.A. position, the proof would mount that he is anti-Israel, anti-peace, and anti-American, in fact if not entirely in theory. For those who just started reading my articles, I made similar criticism of President Bush and his mentor, Secretary Rice. This is not a partisan issue. The State Dept., which guides our Presidents, doesn't care about political parties but about its biases and its turf. To help gauge Abbas' sincerity and flexibility in negotiation, click
here:
NATURAL GROWTH" & ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDING This is taken from Israel's plan to boost the economy of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Area C is controlled by the P.A., Area B by Israel. "These projects, conducted based on a master plan meeting Western standards, including amenities such as gardens etc., enable Palestinian villages in area B to legalize previously unauthorized construction spilling over into area C, expanding the boundaries of these villages, and enabling them to develop within these expanded boundaries. It should be noted that these projects have made it possible to cancel demolition orders previously issued for these areas and leave existing construction in place." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/10). Why doesn't the U.S. object to that natural growth and illegal construction? Why doesn't Israel? Israel discriminates against Jews, just as does the U.S. against the Jewish "settlers." To help evaluate State Dept. sincerity on settlements, click here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
DRENCHING LITTLE SRULIK
Posted by LEL, June 29, 2009. |
|
This was written by Sarah Honig as a Another Tack column in the June 25, 2009 Jerusalem Post |
|
When I grew up, got to meet and even strike up a friendship with my childhood idol Dosh (the late Kariel Gardosh), I asked him which, to his mind, was his most enduring political caricature. For that, he replied, we need to return to December 1956, approximately a month after the Sinai Campaign and the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Dosh noticed that while the international community was seething about Israel's feisty self-defense, it wasn't overly perturbed about the human rights and self-determination brazenly crushed beneath heavy military armor right in Central Europe. 
Dosh produced far more dramatic and memorable cartoons, but he estimated that the situation portrayed in this one would always stay topical. The hypocrisy, Dosh recalled, was hardly surprising but nevertheless galling, particularly the shamelessness of it. So he compressed it all into one frame. In the background a house labeled Hungary is going up in flames. In the foreground UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjold, in firefighter gear, wields a hose labeled UN. But he's not dousing the blaze. He's drenching little Israel — Dosh's iconic sandal-clad Srulik — who stands soaked, angry and perplexed as he's subjected to more wet punishment. Dosh produced way more dramatic and memorable cartoons, but he estimated that the situation portrayed in this one would always stay topical. He predicted that Israel would always be the world's whipping boy, thrashed for the misdeeds of others and used for diversionary tactics. Instead of dealing with urgent crises and genuinely alarming dangers, the powers-that-be will rage at Israel to draw attention away from their own dereliction and cowardice. "The old czars," Dosh noted, "used to say, 'Beat the Jews and save Russia.' Today it's 'beat the Jews and save the world.'" He reckoned "this would stay true even when nobody remembers Hammarskjold."
IF DOSH only knew how right he was. Today he'd probably have produced a very similar pen-and-ink commentary, but with Iran burning and Barack Obama extinguishing — Israel. The more things change, the more they stay the same. As pro-democracy demonstrators are killed in Teheran and as its ayatollahs further their designs to arm themselves with nukes, the leader of the free world harps on Israeli settlements. You can almost understand where he's coming from. Iran is a tough customer, and crazy too. It's tempting not to rile it and to deflect criticism by focusing on some lonely remote outposts in the middle of Judea and Samaria's barren moonscape. Not only isn't Israel scary like Iran, it'll broadmindedly collaborate in an effort to appease its detractors. How facile it therefore is to claim that peace and bliss on earth hinge on tearing down a few Jewish tents, rickety lean-tos, ramshackle sheds and decrepit trailers. It's true heroism to take them on in the guise of securing global propriety. It's plain to see that no greater peril plagues humanity — if we only avert our gaze from Iran, that is. Accordingly, to stress the need to downplay the Iranian fuss, Obama gave his people a lesson in moral relativism: "It's important to understand that, although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised." Not unexpectedly, Obama informed the unenlightened masses that he won't take sides:" I take a wait-and-see approach... It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections." Of course it's one thing to entertain such notions, but quite another to broadcast them out loud. All sorts of perceptions may prevail in the Oval Office and shape policy, so long as they're not ballyhooed. Blabbermouth statecraft, however, is a bad idea. Noisy hype doesn't go unnoticed, especially not in the nuance-sensitive Mideast. Obama may arrogantly consider himself superclever, but his overtly declared nonintervention is equivalent to intervention. His error is eerily reminiscent of the series of egregious errors toward Teheran during the term of Jimmy Carter, the past-president most like Obama, though hardly as radical.
IN HIS MEMOIRS, Ayatollah Khomeini's first foreign minister Ebrahim Yazdi writes that "the shah was doomed the minute Carter entered the White House." The novice president indiscreetly sent all the wrong signals, beginning with an exceedingly public cold-shoulder to the shah. The mullahs were heartened and exuded confidence. Increasingly shaken, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi sought to ingratiate himself to Carter by relaxing restrictions on opposition agitators. That further emboldened the religious fanatics and spawned unrest. Carter admonished the shah against quelling the disturbances by force. Willy-nilly, Carter's bungling was instrumental in installing a reactionary, repressive theocracy in Teheran. Under the banner of freedom, Carter helped the forces of medieval darkness. The shah was a goner and the ayatollahs repaid Carter by holding 52 American embassy staffers hostage for 444 days until he was replaced by Ronald Reagan. Carter's indisputable legacy was the bloodshed of the Iran-Iraq War, the carnage at the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center and Israeli Embassy, the burgeoning of Hizbullah and Hamas, the co-option of Syria/Lebanon and Gaza into Iran's evil sphere, massive worldwide terror-mongering and lately nuclear ambitions and rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map. During the entire embassy standoff fiasco, strikingly ineffectual Carter dithered piteously. Yet he compensated for inaction on one front by hyperactivity on another. As per the Dosh depiction, he turned the water-jets on Israel.
CARTER'S ENTIRE diplomatic energy reserves were misspent on pressuring Menachem Begin at Camp David, and quite ruthlessly. His latent anti-Semitism would finally manifest itself with the publication of his Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. His misguided liberalism in international affairs led Carter to bolster the worst despots in our time while lashing out at one of the most intrinsically democratic of societies anywhere — Israel. Unrepentant, Carter hobnobbed with Gaza's terror-kingpins last week and spuriously censured Israel for treating Gazans "more like animals than human beings... Never before in history has a large community been savaged by bombs and missiles and then deprived of the means to repair itself... This abuse must cease. The crimes must be investigated. The wall must be brought down, and the basic right of freedom must come to you," he told Hamastan's ayatollah-proxies, without a word about Israel's pullback from Gaza, the uprooting of 21 settlements and the atrocities that Gaza subsequently unleashed on Israel. Carter is Obama's mentor and Obama is the new Carter. Their motto is: In democracy's name be kind to democracy's most rabid enemies and be nasty to embattled democrats. Hence, while it's "not productive" for Obama to meddle in Iran, it's imperative he meddle in Israel. Deja vu. As in Carter's administration, a lopsided artificial balance must be struck in pseudo-sophisticated statesmanship. In other words, no matter where fires flare uncontrollably, the fire hoses will be aimed at Israel. This is why Dosh's nearly 53-year-old caricature remains ever-relevant — just as he predicted.
Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com
|
|
MOUSAVI, AHMADINEJAD, AND ISRAEL
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, June 28, 2009. |
|
But, some background first... One would think, with all the hatred towards Jews and Israel spewing forth out of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs' mouths, that Iran has always been the bitter enemy of the Jewish nation. Not so...in fact, the Kurash Prism is an ancient Iranian document which gives testimony to Cyrus the Great's decree allowing the Jews to return to Judea, freeing them from their captivity in Babylon in 539 B.C.E. It corroborates the Jews' own Biblical account beautifully in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And then there is the Book of Esther, again, in the Hebrew Bible as well, again testifying to this age-old relationship between these two ancient peoples. Jews were grateful to their powerful Iranian liberators and served in their armies throughout their empire. At the fortress in Elephantine, Egypt, for example ancient documents related to this were discovered along with a synagogue built there for Jewish soldiers serving under the Iranian ruler. Centuries later, when Judea fought for its freedom and independence against the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E, it was Iran, again, which came to the Jews' aid. And centuries later still, on the eve of the Arab explosion out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E., ancient documents record a Jewish army aligning itself with Iran against the hated Byzantines. So, what happened? Well, for one thing, there was that not-so-little thing briefly mentioned above...the Arab conquest. After Muhammad and his successor imperial, Caliphal armies burst out of the Peninsula in all directions, both Israel/Judea/Palestina and Iran fell to the Arabs' jihad in the spread of their Dar ul-Islam. In the Middle East, especially, often internal differences due to ethnic and national conflict are reflected in religious expression. The Khorasani and other mawali–disgruntled Iranian converts to Islam — thus became followers of the martyred 'Ali...Shiites...in opposition to the brand of Islam of their Arab conquerors, the Sunni Umayyads. They supported the Abbasids, who would soon conquer the Umayyad seat of Sunni Arabism in Damascus. Baghdad would next become the new capital of Islam. Struggles between the Shi'a and Sunni continued, but by the 16th century the former became the adopted religion of state by Iran's Safavid Shahs. While the fate of Jews under both branches of Islam was fragile, to say the least, in some ways it was even worse at the hands of the Shi'a. Thus, as the centuries progressed in a henceforth Muslim Iran — and a Shia one, at that — Jews would soon find themselves in an awkward position whereby their very lives and livelihoods depended upon a powerful, more secular political ruler (Shah) who could act more on their collective behalf against the powerful force of the hostile religious establishment, the ulema and the mullahs. While some pre-Islamic problems are noted in the Book of Esther, the fate of Iranian Jews had far more ups and downs clear up to the present time due to the situation brought on with the Arab Muslim conquest of the land. And since Jews were largely dependent on the political power of the Shahs, if the latter were unjust or whatever, the masses — stirred up by the mullahs — frequently took it out on the Jews. Okay...let's jump to the present. Recently, Iran held a presidential election in which the mullahs' front man, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supposedly defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi. Major demonstrations against Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have broken out by numerous people who feel that the election was stolen. The mullahs' Revolutionary Guards have given warning that their patience is wearing thin. Whatever the differences in foreign policy which might exist between the two candidates (probably not many), the protests are mainly over internal matters...freedom, in all of its true democratic forms, as the main example. And this, my friends, is the real reason for folks like Ahmanejad's professed hatred of the Jews and the Jew of the Nations... Undemocratic, oppressive dictators always make sure that they have at least one great, external bogeyman to channel internal frustration, unrest, and violence against. Who better than the world's scapegoat and whipping post par excellence...the Jew? Hopefully, more and more Iranian people will start to see through this
injustice as they rethink that age-old relationship between their own
nation and that of the Jews.
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:
This article appeared on the Last Crusade website:
|
|
IS OBAMA A PRESIDENT OF A DEMOCRACY OR A KING/DICTATOR?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 28, 2009. |
|
Americans thought they were electing a President for a democratic nation. Little did they know they were about to elect a King to rule over all Americans. Kings have their own self-centered agendas, often believing their rule is one of destiny, chosen by their gods. To what gods has Barack Hussein Obama pledged his allegiance? Who will be his chosen friends and new allies in the world? Many have wondered about Obama's true agenda. Where does his heart and soul lie? Perhaps he is, as claimed, a true Christian or, in his other self, he is the Muslim as he was born. While Obama's words for Israel speak of "peace", his actions and those he has gathered around him speak of an agenda that sides with Islam's goal to eradicate the Jewish State from the Earth. Perhaps Obama is not an evil man but, his soul has bonded (as if they are his true blood brothers) with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, among others — while they act as enemies of the democratic nations of America and Israel. Some will think that Obama made a Faustian bargain with the devil to claim his destiny as King of America. In doing so, he has taken on the obligation of rule in his mind by divine right. Obama would not be the first ruler/dictator whose supreme arrogance led him to believe he was doing his god's work. We have seen such self-delusion in Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Ayatollahs, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Hafez al Assad — even back to ancient times. Perhaps it starts merely as ambition but, that ambition grows uncontrollably and soon there stands a man who believes the gods smile upon him — That he is to be lord and master over a whole nation, perhaps even the world. But, to fulfill his destiny he has to take up the sword against the One G-d and His chosen people, the Jews. Such dictators propagate the belief that the nation of Israel must be cut down, along with the Jewish people IF Obama and his followers are to lead the world — or at least America. Perhaps, not so strangely, the nations and civilizations who attacked Israel at any point in historical time to conquer the Jews in order to add the One G-d of the Jews to their panoply of gods have all vanished. Only the Jews have remained a a people for over 3000 years. Now Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people in their ancient homeland and with their ancient language. We observe in our own time that the more American Presidents move against the Jewish State, the more catastrophes are visited upon America — including hurricanes, volcanoes, great heat or cold, drought, plagues of dire illnesses and now the financial melt-down of the American economy. It takes either a very brave man or a fool to challenge the G-d of the Jews. One can, of course, be both a brave man and a fool. When Obama made his speech in Cairo deferring to the Muslim world, it was obvious that another catastrophe would inevitably follow soon. We now watch in horror as the Iranian Republican Guard and Security Forces viciously slaughter their own people who are demonstrating unarmed in the streets. Eyewitnesses describe the Hamas and Hezb'Allah Palestinians beating and breaking of bones of innocents. The young people protesting the fraudulent election call these Arabic-speaking Palestinians "animals" and "thugs" for their virulent attacks. This people's resistance to their country's fraudulent election may spark a revolution in Iran from the radical Islamic dictatorship — despite the Ahmadinejad government's violent attacks. Such a real peoples' revolution could likely send a message to the other 56 Islamic nations to similarly rise up against repressive Muslim rule. We observe North Korea preparing more accurate missiles and rockets with greater range — accompanied with nuclear tests. All this prepared potential for a Nuclear Holocaust is proceeding in several countries now (especially Iran and North Korea) — under Obama's watch — as he ramps up his adversarial attacks only against the Land of Israel and the Jewish people — in obsequious deference to Islam. I know there is more, perhaps worse, coming. Whether it will be called Armageddon among other catastrophic prophecies, only time will tell. America is a great, noble and generous country. Her people are extraordinary when it comes to rescuing other nations from tyrants. Regrettably, all that can change in the hands of a regime where her leader, along with others, believe they can run the country without the interference of America's legal Constitution. That attitude is prevailing as friends and allies are betrayed and America's Treasury is raided as if a Coup d'etat has already been implemented and Obama "owns" the Treasury with all that pours into it as either taxes or confiscation. Perhaps the destiny Obama seeks as an articulate amateur are the failures he is stimulating. The talk in Washington among the insiders is that Obama will no longer listen to anyone, believing he is the messiah who can therefore do no wrong. Hopefully, America and Israel can survive his one term in office. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
OBAMA'S MOVE AGAINST JERUSALEM GETS CLEARER
Posted by Susana K-M, June 28, 2009. |
|
This comes from the June 26, 2009 One Jerusalem website: http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/obamas-move-against-jerusalem.php
|
|
This week Obama's favorite think tank, The Center for American
Progress, issued a report
The study's premise is that the Old City of Jerusalem is a problem. This means that the State of Israel must give up control of the Old City. (It should be noted that reports of the Center of American Progress have repeatedly stated the thinking of the Obama Administration. One Jerusalem brought the Center's influence to public attention and it was the basis for our predictions that Obama would give a speech to the Muslim World and try to negotiate with Iran's mullahs.) The Center's report on Jerusalem focuses on what entity should replace the State of Israel as the administrator of the Old City, i.e. The Temple Mount, Churches, etc. It does not entertain the idea that Israel should continue in this role. It does not acknowledge that since the State of Israel wrested control of the Old City it has been secure and open to all people. This reality was certainly not the case from 1948 to 1967 when Jewish population was forcefully ejected from the Old City and its synagogues and schools destroyed. In other words, Obama begins with the premise that the current successful situation must be replaced to satisfy the Palestinians. The plan they highlight creates a third party administrator of the Old City. This, of course, will be a failed experiment. At best it will create a situation that the Old City will be the center of dispute and conflict. For one, Israeli security will be replaced by some international body: The Ant-Israel United Nations? Obama's determination to bend over backward to satisfy the political whims of Israel's enemies is clear, disturbing, and dangerous. It must be stopped. If you want to be part of saving Jerusalem from Obama we urge you to take a few minutes to bring this blog post to the attention of friends, relatives, and supporters of Israel. Urge them to sign our petition to keep Jerusalem united under the State of Israel so they can stay informed about what is happening and they can participate in action items we will bring to your attention during the coming months. To sign the petition, click here. If you care about the future of Jewish controlled Jerusalem now is the time to get involved. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PLEASE GIVE $10 — OBAMA'S OUTPOST!!!
Posted by Buddy Macy, June 28, 2009. | |
Your contribution of $10 will be greatly appreciated! Send your $10 to
Please forward this to your list, NOW!
| |
|
Background: News Item — Arutz-7, June 5, 2009. (IsraelNN.com) A new settlement point was erected Friday next to the Samarian Jewish community of Kokhav Ya'akov. From Fundable.com
The plan is simple:
Why is what we are doing important? As Obama leads the world to demand an Arab State in the middle of the Land of Israel, we must all send a very strong message that the Jewish People and all supporters of the Land of Israel will not allow for its destruction! In addition this project will help strengthen the morale of the courageous Jewish youth that go out and rebuild over and over again. Why $10 and not more? We understand that Obamas Outpost will be destroyed many times. Do to the difficult economic times we do not want to make any serious financial demands on anyone. However if thousands of us make that small $10 donation it will become a very hefty sum and no one will feel the loss personally. As a community it will help strengthen our resolve. PLEASE NOTE:
Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com |
|
TWO ARTICLES ON PALESTINIAN ISSUES
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 28, 2009. |
|
1. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRIME MINISTER SALAM FAYYAD'S RESPONSE: A NARRATIVE HE DARES NOT SPEAK
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian counterpart, Salam Fayyad. Fayyad's June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis. Fayyad is prime minister for one reason only: to please Western governments and financial donors. Lacking political skill, ideological influence, or strong support base, Fayyad does keep the money flowing since he's relatively honest, moderate, and professional on economic issues. But his own people don't listen to him. Most PA politicians want him out. International pressure keeps him in. So here's the Fayyad paradox. If he really represented Palestinian stances and thinking, there'd be some hope for peace. Since he's so out of tune with colleagues, though, Fayyad sounds sharply different from them. And even he's highly restricted by what's permissible in PA politics, limits which ensure the PA's failure, absence of peace, and non-existence of a Palestinian state. His first problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA's overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. Make no mistake: this is a mutually exclusive choice. If Hamas merged with the PA the resulting would be far too radical to negotiate a solution, not to mention being en route to becoming dominated by Tehran-allied radical Islamism. Moreover, to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can't come closer to making a deal with Israel. But that's not all. In veiled — an appropriate word here — language, Fayyad says Palestinians must avoid "politicizing" the Gaza issue so that any sanctions continue against the Hamas regime there. By not opposing the suicide bombers, Fayyad follows suicidal policies. By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip and so doesn't need to accept PA leadership. By supporting Hamas's ability to attack Israel without costs, the PA ensures its Islamist rival can appear to be the more effective fighter against Israel, thus undermining the appeal of PA leadership or of any peaceful solution. Second, while not directly endorsing terrorism and violence — in contrast to most of his colleagues and the PA's own institutions — Fayyad argues that Israel holding any Palestinian prisoners in jail is "a violation of international law." In other words, if a Palestinian attacks or murders Israelis, Israel has no right to imprison him. What option does it have? Only to set them free to try again. Here, too, he supports and glorifies cost-free terrorism. Indeed, only a few days before, some of his top officials sat in the audience of a show in which the ruling Fatah party bragged that it was the proper Palestinian leader because it was more effective at anti-Israel terorrism than Hamas. Third, Fayyad argues that it's not the PA's job to convince Israel by its behavior or to negotiate bilaterally on the basis of mutual concessions and compromises. Instead, as other PA leaders have openly stated recently, the PA's strategy is to get the world to pressure Israel to give it everything it wants. While presenting his speech partly as a response to Netanyahu, Fayyad confronts none of the Israeli leader's points, merely dismissing his position as a vague, which it certainly wasn't." (Ironically, in contrast to most Western observers, Fayyad acknowledges that Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution six years ago). But it's Fayyad who is vague — Netanyahu gives a list of specific Israeli conditions; Fayyad does nothing of the kind. In fact, he does something peculiar. According to him, Netanyahu is presenting an "Israeli narrative" about the conflict, while Palestinians say they have their own "narrative," but Fayyad says he won't talk about it! Why is he so vague rather than giving his own case? Because he cannot do so. The Israeli narrative as laid out by Netanyahu is clear: Jews want and merit a state; the conflict is due to an Arab refusal to accept that state's existence. This Israeli narrative does not prevent a two-state solution, one state for each people. The Palestinian narrative, to this day, is that Jews have no such right to a state and that all the land is rightly Palestinian, Arab, and (for most) Muslim. This Palestinian narrative does prevent a two-state solution, and its continuity — even reinforcement by Hamas most of all but also by the PA — is the cause for the peace process's failure and the fact that it will continue to fail. That is what Fayyad cannot admit. Indeed, the main Palestinian strategy debate is merely about the most effective way of wiping Israel off the map. He does claim that Palestinians' "main aspiration" is to have their own homeland, which he promises will live in peace, cooperation, and respect with its neighbor. But he cannot say it would resettle all Palestinian refugees within its borders, won't bring in foreign troops, will end the conflict permanently, or will provide Israel with security guarantees. It will certainly never recognize Israel as a Jewish state even while the PA's own constitution defines Palestine as an Arab and Muslim state. Fayyad might prefer such an outcome, but that's not the Palestinian position and he knows it. Fayyad says the PA has done a good job and that "the citizens sense this progress." Why, then, is the PA afraid to hold elections, even in the West Bank? It is no secret that the PA isn't popular and fears Hamas's appeal. He speaks of building a strong economy, dealing with poverty, developing social services yet gives no sense of how this might be done. Even given massive international subsidies, the PA's management remains poor, riddled with corruption and incompetence. Fayyad can do nothing to reform it since the political elite isn't with him and he has no power over the warlords and their gunmen who are often the real powers in the West Bank. Finally, he predicts a Palestinian state within two years. Yet he has no way to make this happen except to prove that the real reason the peace process hasn't succeeded is the misconception "that it is always possible to exert pressure on the weaker side in the conflict as if there is no limit to the concessions that it could offer." In other words, the reason why peace has not been achieved is because the PA had to make all the concessions. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Israel withdrew from most of the territory, allowed 200,000 Palestinians to come in, backed the formation of the Palestinian Authority as the power ruling the territories, cooperated in the establishment of security forces, agreed to billions of dollars in international subsidies for the PA, and so on. And what concession did the Palestinians make? They said to international audiences — though not in their own media, mosques, schools, or internal statements — that they accepted Israel's existence and sometimes — but far from always — when it suited them, stopped some terrorist attacks. That's it. Yet, even aside from the fact that the one-sided process favored the Palestinians, doesn't Fayyad see the irony in his words? He advocates precisely the same approach he claims has caused the peace process to fail. He views Israel as the weaker side — in relation to the West — and yet thinks those other countries will force it to make concessions without limit. By feeding the PA's false belief that the West will pressure Israel into giving them a state in the borders they want, without concessions, restrictions, or even PA implementation of past promises, the U.S. and European governments are doing a very effective job in sabotaging any possibility for peace. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian counterpart, Salam Fayyad. Fayyad's June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis. Fayyad is prime minister for one reason only: to please Western governments and financial donors. Lacking political skill, ideological influence, or strong support base, Fayyad does keep the money flowing since he's relatively honest, moderate, and professional on economic issues. But his own people don't listen to him. Most PA politicians want him out. International pressure keeps him in. So here's the Fayyad paradox. If he really represented Palestinian stances and thinking, there'd be some hope for peace. Since he's so out of tune with colleagues, though, Fayyad sounds sharply different from them. And even he's highly restricted by what's permissible in PA politics, limits which ensure the PA's failure, absence of peace, and non-existence of a Palestinian state. His first problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA's overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. Make no mistake: this is a mutually exclusive choice. If Hamas merged with the PA the resulting would be far too radical to negotiate a solution, not to mention being en route to becoming dominated by Tehran-allied radical Islamism. Moreover, to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can't come closer to making a deal with Israel. But that's not all. In veiled — an appropriate word here — language, Fayyad says Palestinians must avoid "politicizing" the Gaza issue so that any sanctions continue against the Hamas regime there. By not opposing the suicide bombers, Fayyad follows suicidal policies. By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip and so doesn't need to accept PA leadership. By supporting Hamas's ability to attack Israel without costs, the PA ensures its Islamist rival can appear to be the more effective fighter against Israel, thus undermining the appeal of PA leadership or of any peaceful solution. Second, while not directly endorsing terrorism and violence — in contrast to most of his colleagues and the PA's own institutions — Fayyad argues that Israel holding any Palestinian prisoners in jail is "a violation of international law." In other words, if a Palestinian attacks or murders Israelis, Israel has no right to imprison him. What option does it have? Only to set them free to try again. Here, too, he supports and glorifies cost-free terrorism. Indeed, only a few days before, some of his top officials sat in the audience of a show in which the ruling Fatah party bragged that it was the proper Palestinian leader because it was more effective at anti-Israel terorrism than Hamas. Third, Fayyad argues that it's not the PA's job to convince Israel by its behavior or to negotiate bilaterally on the basis of mutual concessions and compromises. Instead, as other PA leaders have openly stated recently, the PA's strategy is to get the world to pressure Israel to give it everything it wants. While presenting his speech partly as a response to Netanyahu, Fayyad confronts none of the Israeli leader's points, merely dismissing his position as a vague, which it certainly wasn't." (Ironically, in contrast to most Western observers, Fayyad acknowledges that Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution six years ago). But it's Fayyad who is vague — Netanyahu gives a list of specific Israeli conditions; Fayyad does nothing of the kind. In fact, he does something peculiar. According to him, Netanyahu is presenting an "Israeli narrative" about the conflict, while Palestinians say they have their own "narrative," but Fayyad says he won't talk about it! Why is he so vague rather than giving his own case? Because he cannot do so. The Israeli narrative as laid out by Netanyahu is clear: Jews want and merit a state; the conflict is due to an Arab refusal to accept that state's existence. This Israeli narrative does not prevent a two- state solution, one state for each people. The Palestinian narrative, to this day, is that Jews have no such right to a state and that all the land is rightly Palestinian, Arab, and (for most) Muslim. This Palestinian narrative does prevent a two-state solution, and its continuity — even reinforcement by Hamas most of all but also by the PA — is the cause for the peace process's failure and the fact that it will continue to fail. That is what Fayyad cannot admit. Indeed, the main Palestinian strategy debate is merely about the most effective way of wiping Israel off the map. He does claim that Palestinians' "main aspiration" is to have their own homeland, which he promises will live in peace, cooperation, and respect with its neighbor. But he cannot say it would resettle all Palestinian refugees within its borders, won't bring in foreign troops, will end the conflict permanently, or will provide Israel with security guarantees. It will certainly never recognize Israel as a Jewish state even while the PA's own constitution defines Palestine as an Arab and Muslim state. Fayyad might prefer such an outcome, but that's not the Palestinian position and he knows it. Fayyad says the PA has done a good job and that "the citizens sense this progress." Why, then, is the PA afraid to hold elections, even in the West Bank? It is no secret that the PA isn't popular and fears Hamas's appeal. He speaks of building a strong economy, dealing with poverty, developing social services yet gives no sense of how this might be done. Even given massive international subsidies, the PA's management remains poor, riddled with corruption and incompetence. Fayyad can do nothing to reform it since the political elite isn't with him and he has no power over the warlords and their gunmen who are often the real powers in the West Bank. Finally, he predicts a Palestinian state within two years. Yet he has no way to make this happen except to prove that the real reason the peace process hasn't succeeded is the misconception "that it is always possible to exert pressure on the weaker side in the conflict as if there is no limit to the concessions that it could offer." In other words, the reason why peace has not been achieved is because the PA had to make all the concessions. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Israel withdrew from most of the territory, allowed 200,000 Palestinians to come in, backed the formation of the Palestinian Authority as the power ruling the territories, cooperated in the establishment of security forces, agreed to billions of dollars in international subsidies for the PA, and so on. And what concession did the Palestinians make? They said to international audiences — though not in their own media, mosques, schools, or internal statements — that they accepted Israel's existence and sometimes — but far from always — when it suited them, stopped some terrorist attacks. That's it. Yet, even aside from the fact that the one-sided process favored the Palestinians, doesn't Fayyad see the irony in his words? He advocates precisely the same approach he claims has caused the peace process to fail. He views Israel as the weaker side — in relation to the West — and yet thinks those other countries will force it to make concessions without limit. 2. PALESTINIAN LEADERS PREFER ADVOCATING — EVEN WHEN
THEY'RE NOT PRACTICING — TERRORIST VIOLENCE
Volcanoes are classified historically as active, dormant, and dead. The second group is merely inactive at present but could blow any time. As a terrorist organization, Fatah, the leading group in the Palestinian Authority (PA) which supplies nearly all of its leaders, is dormant, not dead. The unfortunate reality is that the ideology that favors the total destruction of Israel as a higher priority than getting an independent Palestinian state is still dominant; all the mechanisms of terrorism are still in place; incitement goes on daily. It's a very good thing that these are not active and it is important to try to keep them that way. But the real PA and Fatah are far from the diplomatists' dreams and the journalists' description of the group as "moderate." This is a problem not only because it blocks any hope of a negotiated peace, but it also ensures the group's ineffectiveness. While Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a pretty genuine moderate, he is also rather alone in that category. What can Fatah and the PA offer better than Hamas? In theory, the answer is a simple one: a dedication to obtaining a state, living in peace, raising living standards, and providing West Bank Palestinians (the ones it rules) with a better life than Gaza Strip Palestinians (the ones Hamas rules). There are, however, daily reminders by these same leaders — Fayyad
excepted — that this is not the primary focus of Fatah and the PA. An
interesting video
The televised show was put on by Fatah in order to demonstrate why it is better than Hamas. With top Fatah and PA officials prominently seated in the audience, the event is a mock debate in which Fatah "proves" it is better than Hamas. How? By getting Western aid? By having better schools? By holding out the likelihood of a Palestinian state where refugees can be resettled? No. By more effectively killing Israelis. Here's the transcript of the key section: Fatah student taunts Hamas: "Since Hamas seized power, we haven't heard of any martyrdom operation [suicide-bombing]." And what happened in Ramallah? Two unarmed Israeli reservists who were driving got lost, wandered into Ramallah, were taken into custody by the PA police, and then turned over to a mob which tore them apart and murdered them in cold blood. This is one of the greatest achievements Fatah offers to prove its superiority. The other main Fatah point is that Hamas is "chicken" because it no longer fires as many rockets and mortars at Israel as it did before the attack. Of course, Fatah can't win on that point either since it wasn't firing any at all. And of course the implication is that Hamas should prove it is macho and an appropriate leader for the Palestinians by attacking Israel more. Aside from the extremism and anti-peace views this approach indicates it is simply a losing argument for Fatah and the PA. Hamas can easily out-terrorism Fatah. If that is the criterion there is no doubt who will win in this competition. Here is the problem with the argument, so often heard, that Fatah and the PA are "moderate," often accompanied by the speaker saying, "If I were them...." or "If they were smart...." Well, if Fatah and the PA were led by Western Europeans or Obama supporters we would indeed be better off. They'd say: All Hamas can offer is more decades of bloodshed, whereas we can get Western support, get a state really fast, resettle all the refugees there, get billions of dollars in compensation money, raise living standards, and end the violence. But they never say that to their constituents. Why? Because that isn't their set of priorities. For Fatah and the PA the competition in violence and martyrdom, the seeking after total victory, the refusal to make concession or compromise isn't only an immoral argument, it is also an inevitably losing one against both Israel and Hamas. It is, however, the policy they prefer because this is what the vast majority of them believes in and they also fear that if they were to adopt a real moderate policy they'd lose popular support. To debate the latter point is most interesting — the Fatah/PA leaders may not be right to think that — but those doing such debate are outsiders. The actual leaders know what they themselves think and will do.
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 |
|
'PROOF' OF KENYAN BIRTH TWICE SCRUBBED BY EBAY
Posted by WND, June 28, 2009. |
|
This is by Drew Zahn and appeared yesterday in WND. |
|
Editor's note: Since publication of this story, the auction item has been removed for the third time. None of the item identification numbers in this article remain valid. An eBay seller who previously promised to deliver a certified copy of President Obama's actual birth certificate — from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya — has twice had his listing removed from the popular auction website. In a third listing, however, the seller calling himself "colmado_naranja" has explained why the birth certificate was twice yanked by eBay administration. "The first cancellation was done in what eBay describes as being in the interests of keeping my account safe," the newest listing claims, referring to the now scrubbed item # 160344374585. "eBay was under the impression that a third party had accessed and compromised my account, that this third party put up the Barack Obama African birth certificate auction and that I had no knowledge of the said listing." 
As WND reported, colmado_naranja's original listing claimed, "President Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961." The seller, who according to the eBay rankings has completed dozens of transactions on the behemoth auction site without difficulties, further said this birth certificate is the real deal, obtained while he was traveling in Kenya. "Kenyans were amused at how gullible Americans could be when it came to obvious things like the fact that Kenyans overtly admit to Barack Jr.'s Kenyan birth, yet the Americans continue to believe that they know better," colmado_naranja wrote. "I delved further and found that a birth certificate was on file at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa." According to the third, and newest, listing, however, even after calling eBay customer service and restoring the original auction under a new item number, the birth certificate sale was scrubbed again, a second time, for another reason altogether. Colmado_naranja's second listing of the birth certificate, item # 160344928067, had already generated significant attention this morning. WND readers emailed, stating the bids had topped $7,000, even as high as $10,000 for the alleged Kenyan document. Even those critical of the questions surrounding Obama's birth and eligibility to serve as President noticed, as members of the message board Democratic Underground claimed to have reported the auction to eBay administration as a "forgery and offensive item." _ At some time around 10:30 ET this morning, however, the second auction listing was scrubbed as well. In the third listing from colmado_naranja, the seller explains, "This time their reasoning for the cancellation was that birth certificates and other forms are government ID are prohibited on eBay." Nonetheless, the auction lives on. Under its now third eBay number, 160345002984, the item up for sale is listed as a "story" and specifically states the document is a gift to the winner, not the object of bidding itself: "I'm now auctioning my story (true story) of how I obtained U.S. President Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate," the listing states. "The winner of this auction will not bear copyrights to my story. However, along with my story the winning bidder will also take home U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama's Kenyan (African) birth certificate. Certified birth certificate. I am giving the birth certificate to the bidder that wins this auction, which is for my story." Just to be certain, the listing restates, "You are not bidding on Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate in this eBay auction." Neither photos nor any verification of the seller's claims are available at this point. In the original listing, the seller explained, "I am not posting any photos of the birth certificate here on eBay. I have not seen this birth certificate anywhere on the Internet, to post it here on eBay would lead to a flood of facsimiles on the Internet. This would inadvertently decrease the value of the certificate as well." WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?" Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. 
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The campaign followed a petition that has collected almost 400,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question. The eBay birth certificate seller is a self-proclaimed "collector of old Dominican and Cuban money" and has worked in the Congo. "This spring I traveled through Kenya and its capital Nairobi. I was overwhelmed by the 'iconicized' face of U.S. President Barack Obama that displays itself throughout the country. I had lunch at a small eatery and noticed that the club sandwich with fried plantains was now known as 'Obama's Plate of the Day,'" the seller wrote on the initial auction page. "As an American I was bombarded with questions in English (English is national language of Kenya) on my feelings and opinions of a Kenyan governing the United States of America. The first several times I responded in saying that not enough time had elapsed since Barack Obama's appointment as president of the U.S.A., and that I'd have to hold my official opinion until at least January 2010, a year in office might be sufficient for me to judge his ability to govern the U.S.A. The seller also cited the fact that Obama has not release his "Hawaiian" birth certificate. His administration, the seller says, "in an attempt to put the birth certificate issue to a rest, has presented the American public with a fake, forged, fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate." The seller indicated a willingness to respond to questions about the item, for which bidding was set to begin at $1,000. But the seller said questions would be evaluated and may not get a direct response. The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate — which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician — is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny. Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Drew Zahn is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.
|
|
SETTLERS SUCCESSFULLY SUE MAARIV FOR LIBEL; AHARON BARAK; JEWS
BELONG IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA; ANTI-FUR LAW STOPPED
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 28, 2009. |
|
1. This story is just so delicious that I cannot resist posting it. In fact it is so wonderful and encouraging that not a single Israeli newspaper, radio or TV show, other than the Righist Makor Rishon, had the courage to report it. It seems that a Jewish settlement filed a libel suit against Maariv, Israel's second largest print daily, and won. Maariv had falsely reported in a news story that the settlement of Maale Rehav'am in the West Bank was sitting on land illegally expropriated from Palestinian Arabs. That turned out to be a lie. Residents of the settlement successful sued. The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered Maariv to pay 13,000 NIS in damages to the settlers and issue a public apology. The whole settlement has 30 people living in it and it is one of those that Obama is demanding that Israel evacuate. So let us hope this case serves as a grand legal precedent: Tell a lie about settlers and pay! 2. For years I have been claiming in postings, blog entries and articles that the ex-Chief Justice of Israel, Aharon Barak (he is not a relative of Ehud) is an anti-democratic anti-Israel leftist extremist moonbat. Barak was the leading proponent in Israel of the anti-democratic doctrine of 'judicial activism,' which should be called judicial tyranny, under which non-elected judges make up laws and dictate governmental policy about just about everything. Barak also insisted that anyone who happens to sit on the Israeli Supreme Court should issue rulings based on 'enlightened opinion,' which means whatever Aharon Barak personally thinks in any given week, and that those same sitting judges should perpetually select other judges by themselves to sit on the Supreme Court and other courts, regardless of what the Israeli voter wants. When I would slap around Barak in my postings, many people objected that I was showing disrespect to Israel's Chief Justice, and was exaggerating his anti-democratic tendencies. Last week Barak had the kindness to step forward and prove that I was correct, and in fact showed I was underestimating his political biases and dislike for democracy. Last week, Barak took off his muzzle, now that he is retired, and launched a malicious broadside against Israel, Zionism, and 'settlers.' The most outrageous thing he said was that the Jews were plotting to throw the Arabs into the sea. The truth of course is that the Arabs are trying to throw the Jews into the sea, but Orwellian inversions are the favorite tactic of leftist cranks. Barak also criticized Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria as an 'occupation,' and said the Israeli presence there leads to human rights offenses and racism elsewhere in Israel. Barak's presence on the Supreme Court produced anti-democratic restrictions to freedom of speech and to the trashing of any form of checks and balances on the court's 'activism,' and led to an explosion in anti-Jewish racism by Israeli Arabs and Jewish leftists. There are numerous news reports on the Barak outburst, but try these:
3. LA Times runs a pro-settlement column!:
No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem. After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to "freeze" the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases." We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line "in past agreements have been categorized as illegal." I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology. Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel? Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem. In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh — and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 — is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh. I am a revenant — one who has returned after a long absence to ancestral lands. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine ... shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." That "land" was originally delineated to include all of what is today Jordan as well as all the territory west of the Jordan River. In 1923, Britain created a new political entity, Transjordan, and suspended the right of Jews to live east of the Jordan River. But the region in which I now live was intended to be part of the Jewish National Home. Then, in a historical irony, a Saudi Arabian refugee, Abdallah, fleeing the Wahabis, was afforded the opportunity to establish an Arab kingdom where none had existed previously — only Jews. As a result, in an area where prophets and priests fashioned the most humanist and moral religion and culture on Earth, Jews are now termed "illegals." Many people insist that settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But that convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district. Its second clause makes it clear that it deals with the occupation of "the territory of a high contracting party." Judea and Samaria and Gaza, which Israel gained control of in 1967, were not territories of a "high contracting party." Jewish historical rights that the mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza. Obama has made his objections to Israeli settlements known. But other U.S. presidents have disagreed. President Reagan's administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal. Support for that position came from Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, who determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria did not constitute "occupation." It also came from a leading member of Reagan's administration, the former dean of the Yale Law School and former undersecretary of State, Eugene Rostow, who asserted that "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or West Jerusalem." Any suggestions, then, of "freezing" and halting "natural growth" are themselves not only illegal but quite immoral. Yisrael Medad is head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. 4. Well, the main headline involving political clashes between the 'Chareidi' ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem and the rest of the population there these days is about a parking garage operating on Shabbat. However there is another bizarre confrontation that has been less noticed. It was triggered because of an idiotic attempt to prohibit imports of fur into Israel. Ronit Tirosh, a backbencher member of the Knesset from the Kadima Party, decided to try to drum up some votes for Kadima among animal rights nuts and people who think fur is murder. The problem is that a lot of the black-coated ultra-Orthodox guys wear fur 'streimels,' those archaic round fur hats that were in fashion in Poland 400 years ago and that some of the Chareidim think make them look more pious. Trust me, Moses and King David did not wear streimels. But dubious taste in haberdashery aside, there was no reason to antagonize the Chareidim with a silly anti-fur law designed to appease animal rights nuts. After suggesting that the Chareidim just use synthetic furs, Tirosh and her cronies seem to be backing down now. Which is good, because I have a confession to make. I have a streimel made out of fur. Actually it is a Davy Crocket hot with a raccoon's tail down the back of it, and I only wear my streimel on Purim and once in a while to spook my students. But on this I am with the Chareidim — and am telling Kadima politicians: Hands off my Tennessee-fur Streimel! Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
NAKBA NONSENSE
Posted by Martin Sherman, June 27, 2009. |
|
Nakba commemoration unrelated to exercise of legitimate individual freedom. Adherence to the doctrine of democratic governance is not a suicide pact. Neither is it obligation to self-destruct by means of terminal stupidity. Belief in democratic principles does not require one to forego the distinction between friend and foe, between ally and adversary. Sadly this something of which many Israeli MKs — including Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan of the Likud — seem to have lost sight, in their opposition to the proposed law prohibiting public commemoration of the 1948 Arab defeat — a.k.a. the Nakba. The attempt by Israeli Arabs to institutionalize public commemoration of the Nakba has nothing to do with the exercise of legitimate individual freedom of expression in a healthy and vibrant democracy. For as much as it is a ceremonial manifestation of mourning over the consequences of Arab defeat, it is also — ipso facto — a ceremonial manifestation of disappointment at Jewish survival. These two aspects are inseparable sides of the same coin. It is in essence a collective declaration of regret and sorrow that the Jews were not wiped out as a national entity. Much nonsense has been written recently by Nakba apologists. For commemoration of the Arab "disaster" is not analogous to individuals or groups protesting some (real or imagined) evil or defect in their society which should be removed or repaired. It is not a demand to right a wrong that society or the state inflicts on particular categories of citizens. Rather, it is an implied rejection — in toto — by an entire community of the state and society in which it resides, a collective refusal to come to terms with their very existence, with their intrinsic nature, and with the most elemental foundations upon which they are based. Let us make no mistake: The demand for the commemoration of the Nakba is not motivated by a desire to mark any sense of personal loss but by a sentiment of national loss; not by a feeling of grief on a private level but by identification with tragedy at a national level; and not by a desire restore losses at an individual level but for restitution of honor at a national level. And the only way to address this grievance is by the obliteration — or at least the negation — of the Jewish nation-state. Clamor for commemoration It must not be forgotten that anyone who was personally touched by the events that comprised the Nakba would today be close to 70 at the very least. They certainly do not make up the bulk of those demanding public lament of the Arab military debacle. The clamor for commemoration does not arise from dispossessed, deprived refugees but fully enfranchised citizens who are neither impoverished, nor persecuted or homeless — as the ample homesteads found in abundance throughout most Arab villages in Israel clearly testify. Indeed, had there been no Nakba, the personal socio-economic conditions of most Israeli Arabs would in all likelihood be far worse than it is today — as comparison with of the surrounding Arab countries, not endowed with extravagant oil reserves, such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt, will irrefutably show. These facts demonstrate how ludicrously inappropriate the examples provided by some Israeli public figures who have endeavored to argue in favor of permitting public Nakba memorial ceremonies. One of the more inane of these attempts was made recently by Yair Lapid in a piece entitled"The Right to Hate." His major argument was an inapt attempt to liken the act of burning the American flag by an obscure (an arguably eccentric) individual, which was sanctioned by the US Supreme Court, to widespread organized political activism aimed at negating the founding values of the State, lamenting the defeat of its enemies and perpetuating the adversarial narrative of "Return.". Unwittingly, Lapid lets slip that he see Israel's Arabs on a par with neo-Nazi skinheads and frenzied mobs in Gaza. He writes: If someone doubts our right to exist — be it on the hills of Umm al-Fahem or in Munich's beer halls, in Gaza's crowded streets or in the thick woods of Babi Yar — it's their problem. He thus blithely blurs the distinction between Israeli citizens allegedly loyal to the state, and its most rabid enemies. Proponents of the law could hardly ask for a stronger endorsement. Transgressors should not be imprisoned And when he asks "Since when do we need Arab approval?" he betrays just how much he misunderstands the issue and how badly he misses the point. The proposed law preventing Nakba commemoration is not about acquiring Arab approval but preventing Arab incitement. For in quoting the previously mentioned US Supreme Court decision, Lapid conveniently omits to mention that one of central considerations was that the court concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace. Can he honestly say that this is so in the case Nakba memorial ceremonies? Can he honestly assure us that the chances that such events will lead to "breaches of the peace" are negligible? That political agitators will not exploit such occasions to keep an open wound festering and to prevent it healing with the passage of time? Indeed, Lapid would do well refer to another ruling of the US Supreme court, which although passed in 1919 still is considered a central pillar in current judicial thinking in the US: "...the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic. . . ..When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr) There is clearly something deeply flawed in a society that permits a significant segment within it to express grief at the success of that society's success to prevail over its enemies' intent to destroy it. That is why the proposed law is not infringement of democratic rights but a refreshing reflection of national sanity and santé. However, on one matter the opponents of the law have got it right: Transgressors should not be imprisoned. Rather, they should be stripped of their Israeli citizenship — at least in cases of repeated offenders. Indeed, this should not be a problem — for why should they object to being relieved of membership of a collective they obviously find so obnoxious and objectionable that its very existence is deemed a "catastrophe"?
This article appeared June 8, 2009 in YNET
|
|
ISRAEL IS 2009 CZECHOSLOVAKIA: THE CZECHS WEREN'T INVITED TO MUNICH, EITHER
Posted by Nurit, June 27, 2009. |
|
Israel's not invited to talks to negotiate her fate. The symptoms that the world sees Israel as 2009 Czechoslovakia are mounting...anti-Semitic and anti Israel nations and organization who favor the Arabs have decided that they are the best parties to negotiate the fate of Israel and the peace process between Israel and its foes! In these negotiations NO ONE is on Israel's side. To whom does this make sense but to Israel's foes?! This below comes from the Fresnozionism.org website
|
|
Foreign ministers of Group of Eight countries urged Israel to halt all settlement construction in the West Bank Friday, during a meeting in Italy largely focusing on recent events in Iran. They also called on Israelis and Palestinians to renew direct negotiations over all disputed issues. Also meeting Friday on the sidelines of the summit is the Mideast Quartet — the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — to try to help move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward... A range of Arab League nations will join in a follow-on session Friday afternoon. Israel was not invited; the Italian Foreign Ministry said that decision was taken by the Quartet, not Italy. The BBC reports that the Quartet has also asked for Israel "to stop all West Bank settlement building activity and to open its border crossings." Palestinians have demanded this as a precondition for resuming negotiations. It's almost too easy to point out that in 1938 the Czechs were not invited to the Munich conference either. Of course this meeting will not produce a document with such immediate impact on Israel as the Munich diktat had for Czechoslovakia, but the sense of powerful nations deciding the fate of a small one in consultation with its enemies remains. If a Martian asked me why the 'Quartet' — the UN, EU, US and Russia — is particularly suited to bring about a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, I would not be able to answer. The UN is dominated by Muslim and third-world countries and has been particularly hostile to Israel for decades. The EU's member nations have important economic relationships with Arab oil producers, and also have political and psychological reasons for tilting toward the Palestinians. The EU quietly funds many NGOs whose output is significantly biased against Israel. Russia, a traditionally antisemitic nation, has economic ties with Iran and also feels threatened by Israel's nuclear capability. This leaves the US as the sole member of the Quartet that might be expected to support Israel, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration has few — if any — power centers opposed to the anti-Israel forces in the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon (which has undergone significant changes since the early part of the previous administration). Add to this the fact that President Obama himself seems to be taking a tack designed to improve relations between the US and the Muslim world, and one wonders who will represent Israel's interests in this group. Contact Nurit by email at nurit_g@ca.rr.com |
|
KRAUTHAMMER ON OBAMA: BE FOREWARNED ON WHAT IS HAPPENING
Posted by Wake Up America, June 27, 2009. |
|
A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. You would do well to read and pass this along to EVERYBODY that loves his country. This is VERY serious for the direction of our country. The ramifications are staggering for us and our children. This is what my friend said: "Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free." Below is my friend's summary. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There's a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late. |
|
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a 'cool customer' who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's 'behind the mask'. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time. 2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES! 3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to 'level the playing field' with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada. 4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid. 5. He's surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they're going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama's not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says. 6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies! 7. He's now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not 'come due' until after he's reelected in 2012. He'd like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. (Remember Dr. Krauthammer is a Psychiatrist) 8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're 'pining' for another Reagan, but there'll never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she's to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states' rights. 9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We're spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above. 10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed. Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of 'change' caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising is was as close as it was. 11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it'll be a dogfight. It'll all be about the economy. Contact Wake Up America at Wakeupamericans@comcast.net |
|
CONTRA: SAUDI MEDIA TAKE THE LEAD AGAINST IRAN'S REGIME
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 27, 2009. |
|
The Washington Institute Policy Watch Paper #1545 by David Pollock and Mohammad Yaghi was entitled "Saudi Media Take the Lead Against Iran's Regime." This below is a retort by Ali Alyami written to David Schenker of the Washington Institute. Dr. Ali Alyami, a human rights activist, is the Executive Director of The Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CDHR). As written by Steve on the Rants And Raves blogsite: "Dr. Alyami strongly agrees with many people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and many others, who say that the West is in denial and must wake up to the terrible danger they face from Islamic dangerous ideologues." |
|
Mr. Schenker, This is a pure propaganda for the Saudi absolute monarchy. If you think the extremist Wahhabis in Riyadh, are or will be any better, for anyone, than the Mullahs in Tehran, you will be in for multitude of regrettable surprises. Look at their past and present policies and practices and then tell me why you think things will change for the better in the long or short terms. The Saudi princes are extremely clever and the same can not be said about a lot of people, anywhere. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
NO MEDDLING WITH IRAN ... BUT OH, THOSE SETTLEMENTS!
Posted by LEL, June 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by P. David Hornik and it appeared today in Pajamas Media.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/ |
|
This week President Obama got tougher with the mullahs — but not by much. He spoke of being "appalled and outraged" by their brutality, but also of "respect[ing] the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and ... not interfering with Iran's affairs." Yet, concurrently, Obama's administration kept up its tough confrontation with Israel over the settlements issue. A meeting in Paris between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and George Mitchell, the Obama administration's Middle East envoy, got postponed, apparently because of too much unresolved tension over settlements. Instead, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is heading to Washington to perhaps work out the issue in meetings with Mitchell and other officials. Netanyahu, in his June 14 speech at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, seemingly made major concessions to Obama. He reversed his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state alongside Israel — saying it would have to be demilitarized, a situation known from the historical record to break down easily. And on settlements he said — and has since clarified — that Israel would build no more new ones nor set aside any further land, and would only allow natural growth within the boundaries of already-existing settlements. But it's still not enough for the administration, which keeps calling for a[1] complete construction freeze in the settlements. With attention now focusing on the fine points of this drama (Does the administration mean no more kindergartens in the settlements? That families will have to live cramped or send some of their kids to dwell elsewhere?) what is often forgotten is how much Israel has already conceded on this issue, and how biased towards the Palestinian side the issue has already become. The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, has an official status as disputed — not occupied — territory whose ultimate disposition is supposed to be decided in negotiations. UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted months after the 1967 Six Day War,[2] calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" — not from "the" or "all" the territories, and nowhere does it refer to settlements. Indeed, Eugene Rostow, the late U.S. legal scholar and diplomat who played the leading U.S. role in negotiating 242,[3] wrote in 1991 that: [T]he Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip ... has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors ... the Jews have the same right to settle [in the West Bank] as they have to settle in Haifa. Israel has actually built no new settlements in the West Bank since 1999. Although since then population growth has been considerable, it has all been within already-existing settlements. Netanyahu has promised to continue that policy with no further territorial expansions of settlements. The built-up parts of the settlements today constitute[4] about 1.7 percent of the West Bank. Needless to say, extensive Palestinian building continues unhampered in much of the remaining 98 percent. And the land whose great bulk Israeli policy seems to have conceded before final-status negotiations have even begun is not any old land. It is, first of all, Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, the origin of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian civilization built on it. Second, it is land that mostly, according to the 1967 Joint Chiefs of Staff study (see[5] here for the map) and all other systematic U.S. and Israeli military assessments, needs to remain in Israeli hands for Israel to remain defensible. Meanwhile, it is hard to see how continued building or "natural growth" within the 1.7 percent would pose a problem for Palestinians — yet the Obama administration is making a major, contentious issue even out of this. It is often claimed, especially by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that Israel has an obligation for a settlement freeze unde[6]r the road map. That document does state that "Israel also freezes all settlement activity" — but only at the very end of a paragraph that lists these antecedent obligations of the other side: [T]he Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence. ... Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation ... to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Only then, according to the road map, does the Israeli settlement freeze kick in. Yet at a time when Palestinian terror continues and anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic incitement remains endemic in the West Bank and Gaza, the Obama administration keeps exerting relentless pressure on Israel for a settlement freeze and none (or so little the radar doesn't pick it up) on the Palestinians to even begin conforming with road map language. All in all, the U.S. pressure on Israel on this issue is one-sided, harsh, and obsessive, and shows none of the deference to Israeli sovereignty that Obama is still taking pains to demonstrate to Tehran. All this flows logically from Obama's Cairo speech, in which he balanced criticisms of the Muslim world with alleged equivalent sins of the Western world while singling out Israeli settlements as intolerable. Israel will likely have to choose between buckling still further, compromising its rights and jeopardizing its security, or bracing itself for ongoing, possibly ruinous discord with its ally.
Footnotes [1] complete construction freeze:
[2] calls:
[3] wrote: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml [4] about 1.7 percent:
[5] here: http://www.acpr.org.il/books/33-Zero-editorial.pdf [6] road map: http://www.un.org/media/main/roadmap122002.html P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/ |
|
THE 'RAPE' OF ISRAEL
Posted by Moshe Dann, June 27, 2009. |
|
Two years ago, Haaretz's chief editor David Landau advised US Sec of State Condoleezza Rice to "rape Israel," to force it into making concessions. Rice tried to follow Landau's suggestion, but her efforts were not matched by her boss, President Bush. Now, that policy seems to be led by President Obama himself. Assisted by Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Dan Kurtzer, and others, Pres Obama seems intent on taking Israel down. In addition to the usual left wing Jewish organizations, the Reform Movement's PAC, Americans for Peace Now, a collection of marginal anti-Israel organizations have also lined up for the gang rape. The analogy is appropriate: A stronger power forces his will upon a weaker victim regardless of what is fair, moral, and without any concern for the trauma he inflicts. The rapist (in this analogy) does what he thinks is good for himself. He wants what he wants. When rape occurs in a family situation the rapist is often aided and abetted by a family member, often the wife/mother, either to please the rapist, or — in denial — to pretend that it wasn't happening, or carelessness bordering on neglect. That a family member is involved in the rape makes the act even more traumatic, since it involves the ultimate betrayal. President Obama and his Jewish (and some Israeli) facilitators may believe that what they are doing is for Israel's own good. That might be acceptable if they explained how it works. Would a second Arab Palestinian state run by terrorists enhance Israel's security, promote peace with Israel and in the region, resolve the issues of Jerusalem, and millions of "Palestinian refugees"? Would the Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and acknowledge facts of Jewish and world history? Would the proposed state include Jews with full rights, as Israel includes Arabs with full rights? Nowhere in Obama's agenda are these questions raised or answered. Nowhere is there a hint of how his plan will be carried out, nor concern for what might happen if things don't go according to his visions. That's understandable, since his policy, like sexual aggression, is single minded. His Jewish and Israeli enablers, like family members who participate in rapes, no doubt believe that what they are doing is in the name of Love. They might even argue that rape is better than murder, that forcing Israel to surrender and survive, albeit crippled and more vulnerable, is preferable to isolation, attack and invasion. Raping Israel might be convenient for some, temporarily, even a perverted rescue from more dire consequences that would assuage any feelings of guilt. As long as the victim remains alive and available, however, the rapist will return. There's nothing like conquest to whet the appetite for more. Finally, the most difficult aspect of rape is when there is compliance, when the victim, because of her fear and desperate need to please and be loved, allows the rape to occur. Many Israeli politicians and pundits believe that Israel's survival depends on American and international good will. They will do anything to achieve it, including denying national interests and integrity. Battered by accusations of causing humiliation, suffering and oppression, "the occupation," they surrender. Hungry for acceptance and temporary security, they acquiesce. For those whose "wet dream" (as Landau described it to Rice) is the destruction of Jewish homes and communities "in order to advance 'the peace process,'" to reward Arab terrorists with a state of their own, the consummation of rape may satisfy them for a while; it's no consolation for those being violated, nor will it prevent the next savagery. The author, a former asst professor of History, is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. This appeared June 26, 2009 in American Thinker
|
|
OBAMA TELLS JEWS WHERE THEY CAN LIVE
Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by Joseph Farah and it appeared May 29,
2009 in World Net Daily (WND)
|
|
Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy." Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank. I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel — let alone their own country. Of course, that would never happen with "a more balanced approach to the Middle East. "It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all. I know you haven't heard it put like this before. I don't really understand why. There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world. Israel is being reduced to "Auschwitz borders." Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state. Again, I ask, "Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn't even tolerate the mere presence of Jews? "Can anyone answer that question for me? Obama and Clinton — and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States — have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state. I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world. Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea? Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated — even condoned? Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims? Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority? That's what we do when we forbid "settlement construction," repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities. This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No. Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors. All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims — welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights — and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely. But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again. I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult. I say, "No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can — and if they can live. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
NETANYAHU FOLDS UNDER US PRESSURE TO PULL OUT OF WEST BANK TOWNS BEFORE PEACE TALKS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 27, 2009. |
|
Perhaps I am mistaken but, I find extremely articulate politicians too often without a brain in their heads. I observe Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fumble away the Jewish nation with grandiose statements about how he was going to Europe to make Israel's case. Too bad he was too late and the Americans got there before him. A deep thinker would have known that the scurrilous team who surrounds President Barack Obama would have easily pre-planned to ambush Netanyahu. One is reminded — again — of then PM Yitzhak Shamir at the Madrid International Conference of 1991 when he was out-maneuvered by then Secretary of State James Baker III and those pejoratively called his "Jew-Boys", i.e., Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer — later to include Martin Indyk. But, President Obama has his "Jew-Boys" too: Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and the notorious Jew-haters from past administrations who have re-entered the White House 'clout clique' through its ever revolving door and are now advising him: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Baker (again) and Jimmy Carter — all Thinking, Thinking — "How do we subvert the Jewish State of Israel?" I could not help but wonder if Netanyahu was well aware of their continual scheming plots? Did he agree to collaborate in a plan to give away Jewish cities, towns and Land and yet pretend he was 'merely' outmaneuvered? Tough Luck but, Bibi could say "It wasn't my fault!" In Obama we see another articulate speaker in the process of bankrupting America by taking over and virtually nationalizing the banks, insurance agencies, auto industries, et al. Obama has covered over his maneuvers with a flow of smooth, deep words — with no viable solutions. Obama speaks of Islam as if it was a sane, peaceful religion, even the radical forms of Islamist Terror/Blood cult with its virulently anti-West, anti-Judeo-Christian values, which teaches its children as young as 3 years old to kill themselves while killing Jews, Christians — any infidel (non-Muslim). That's definitely an act of child abuse by the Muslim clerics and the parents who kow-tow to their orders. Obama acts as if Islam is wholly compatible with Democratic values of freedom. The people of Iran know better. How do these various charlatans mesmerize their publics and cheat them out of their own rights? While Obama steals the American nation and disposes of its Constitution, does Netanyahu collaborate with those greater plans, led by the ring-in-his-nose put there by an American President, in cahoots with those of the Muslims and Arabs who adhere to the blood cult of Terrorism? The peoples of each of these two democratic nations may have been cheated out of their own sovereignty and the rights they deserve. The corruption and the gross stupidity of some of these leaders will likely result in a great war in which their nations will be filled with the dead and dying. No doubt, these leaders will be horribly punished in this life and the next but, that will make no difference to those who must die, be grievously wounded or suffer the death of their loved ones for their leaders' betrayals. How sad that what could have continued to be thriving civilizations may too soon be reduced to rubble. This below is a June 25, 2009 DEBKAfile Special Analysis entitled "Netanyahu Folds Under Us Pressure For Pulling Out Of West Bank Towns Before Peace Talks." |
|
Despite his pledge to keep security considerations uppermost in his dealings with the Palestinians, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu is buckling under pressure from the US administration aimed at softening Israel up ahead of Middle East peace talks. This pressure turned Netanyahu's first official visits to Rome and Paris sour. He had hoped to outmaneuver the Obama administration's insistence on a total settlement freeze by winning the support of friendly Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy for a compromise formula, which would be presented as a European-Israel deal. To achieve this, he promised the Italian and French leaders that Israeli forces would soon be pulled out of West Bank Palestinian towns. But he failed to anticipate that the Obama administration would outflank him and get there first. So his arrival in Rome and Paris was preceded by Italian and French officials parroting the Washington line on a settlement freeze, including East Jerusalem When he met Berlusconi Monday, June 22, the Israeli prime minister saw that he had already talked to Obama on the phone and promised that the Italian boot would toe the American line. In Paris, he found the same trap had been laid at the Elysees. In these circumstances, Netanyahu should never have gone through with his visits to Italy and France. And defense minister Ehud Barak should call off his trip to Washington Monday for the interview with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell which the prime minister postponed. He has little hope of persuading the administration to change its tune or head off the impending clash between his administration and the Obama White House. Netanyahu's promise to the Italian and French leaders to pull the IDF out of the West Bank cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jericho and Qalqilya, has meanwhile gone on record, for no gain in Rome in Paris. But he can no longer capitalize on this major concession for a quid pro quo from the Palestinians. The IDF has also been ordered to reduce to the number of checkpoints on the West Bank to 10 active facilities to allow the Palestinians to travel from town to town free of holdups for searches — another concession to US demands. These concessions are tantamount to the handover of the main West Bank towns to Palestinian security control. It is the most sweeping redeployment of Israeli security forces since their unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria four years ago as part of Ariel Sharon's disengagement policy. To make the gesture palatable to the Israeli public — who have not forgotten that years of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks from the West Bank were finally stemmed by the IDF presence in terrorist city strongholds — Netanyahu told the army spokesman to announce Thursday, June 25, that the measures were being given a one-week trial run before being finalized. However, once in place, these measures will be practically impossible to withdraw. The Obama administration has thus cornered the Netanyahu government into giving away valuable assets to the Palestinians before negotiations have even begun. This diplomatic dexterity has not been displayed in Washington's dealings with Iran. |
|
HOW TO HELP THE PALESTINIANS
Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 26, 2009. |
|
This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a
veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian
affairs for nearly three decades. He studied at Hebrew University and
began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated
newspaper in Jerusalem. He writes on Palestinian Arab affairs for the
Jerusalem Post and is a columnist |
|
The leaders of the Palestinian Authority do not want the international community to hear anything about massive abuse of human rights and intimidation of journalists that its security forces are practicing almost on a daily basis in the West Bank. They do not want the world to see that, with the help of the Americans and some Europeans, they are building more prisons and security forces than hospitals and housing projects for the needy. They want the US and the rest of the world to continue believing that peace will prevail tomorrow morning only if Israel stops construction in the settlements and removes a number of empty caravans from remote and isolated hilltops in the West Bank. The Palestinians do not need a dictatorship that harasses and terrorizes journalists, and that is responsible for the death of detainees in its prisons. In the Arab world we already have enough dictatorships. The Palestinians do not need additional security forces, militias and armed gangs. In fact, there are too many of them, both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. American and European taxpayers' money should be invested in building hospitals, schools and housing projects. Investing billions of dollars in training thousands of policemen and establishing new security forces and prisons will not advance the cause of peace and coexistence. There is no doubt that many Palestinians would love to abandon the culture of uniform and weapons in favor of improved infrastructure and medical care. As for the international media, it's time to abandon the policy of double standards in covering the Israeli-Arab conflict. For many years, the mainstream media in the US and Europe turned a blind eye to stories about financial corruption under Yasser Arafat. The result was that Arafat and his cronies got away with stealing billions of dollars that had been donated to the Palestinians by the Americans and Europeans. Back then, many foreign journalists said they believed that the stories about financial corruption in the Palestinian areas were "Zionist propaganda." Other journalists said they would rather file an anti-Israel story because this way they would become more popular with their editors and publishers. Recently, a Palestinian TV crew was stopped at a checkpoint in the West Bank, where soldiers confiscated a tape and erased its content. This incident, hardly received any coverage in the mainstream media in the US and Europe. The reason? The perpetrators were not IDF soldiers, but Palestinian Authority security officers. And the checkpoint did not belong to the IDF; it was, in fact, a Palestinian checkpoint. The story of the detention of the TV crew — which, by the way, belonged to Al-Jazeera and the erasure of the footage did not make it to the mainstream media even after Reporters Without Borders, an organization that defends journalists worldwide, issued a statement strongly condemning the assault on the freedom of the media. "Journalists must be able to work freely," Reporters Without Borders said. "The erasure of this video footage proves that the Palestinian security forces try to cover up their human rights violations. This incident should be the subject of an enquiry by the Palestinian Authority." Walid Omari, the head of the Qatar-based satellite TV station's operations in the West Bank, told Reporters Without Borders that his crew was preparing a report on the death of a detainee at the Palestinian Authority detention center in Hebron that might have been the result of torture. "We were the only ones to investigate this case and we did it despite strong pressure from the Palestinian Authority," Omari said. Al Jazeera's Hebron correspondent went with a cameraman to the victim's home in the village of Dura, where they interviewed the family and filmed the body. As they were returning to Hebron in a vehicle displaying the word "Press," they were detained by Palestinian Authority security forces at a checkpoint and taken to a police station, where the video footage they had just recorded was erased. They were allowed to go after an hour. One can only imagine the international media's reaction had the TV crew been detained by Israeli security forces. Anti-Israel groups and individuals would have cited the incident as further proof of the "occupation's brutal measures" against the freedom of the media. Moreover, it is highly likely that Israeli human rights organizations like Betselem would have dispatched researchers to the field to investigate the incident had IDF soldiers been involved. Yet foreign journalists and human rights activists working in Israel and the Palestinian territories either chose to ignore the story or never heard about it simply because it was lacking in an anti-Israel angle. One can also imagine how the media and human rights organizations would have reacted had a Palestinian died in Israeli prison after allegedly being tortured. Haitham Amr, a male nurse, was detained by the Palestinian Authority's US-backed and trained General Intelligence Force on suspicion of being affiliated with Hamas. He was one of more than 700 Palestinians who are being held without trial in West Bank prisons that are run by security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. These security forces, which are being referred to by many Palestinians as the Dayton Forces [a reference to ret. US general and security coordinator Keith Dayton], claimed that Amr was killed after he jumped from the second floor of a building where he was being held in Hebron. The family and human rights organizations insist that Amr died as a result of severe torture. If the Palestinian Authority really had nothing to fear, why did it send its police officers to detain the TV crew and confiscate the tape? Is the Palestinian Authority trying to hide something? True, Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salaam Fayad hold more moderate views than Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal. But Abbas and Fayad do not enjoy enough credibility among their own people, largely due to their open ties with Israel and the West. The security and financial support that the Americans and Europeans are giving to the Palestinian Authority is nothing but a bear hug. That is perhaps why they chose to ignore the story about the male nurse whose family says was tortured to death by security officers who receive their salaries from US and European taxpayers' money. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
THE ISSUE IS NOT SETTLEMENTS; IT'S PALESTINIAN OBSESSESSIVE HATRED OF JEWS
Posted by Saul Goldman, June 26, 2009. |
|
The issue is not our right to build settlements in the West Bank. The issue is that the Palestinians, after having not only rejected the UN Partition Plan and having tried to beat up on one of the partners to this contract, now come back and demand the original terms to an agreement that they rejected. I would imagine that any reasonable person would say that there is now a new deal on the table if they are serious about peace. Rabin's understanding of Oslo even Olmert's understanding of a two state solution that is negotiated between partners to a diplomatic deal is not what Obama is about. It seems that his "demands" are not only shrill and antagonistic but "imperial" in that he chooses to ignore the facts that two parties must negotiate in civility. And by ignoring these principles, he clearly sides with people who in their education, culture and propoganda prepare their children for continued hate crimes. Until then Netanyahu has every right to expand settlements in order to show the Palestinians the penalty for not engaging in peaceful negotiations. Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net |
|
B. O.'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 26, 2009. |
|
Now let's see how they manipulate this one. Very Interesting questions More questions, and this time some good questions. Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi? So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
Q: What passport did he travel under? A: There are only three possibilities.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport that would
provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in
Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian
passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever
previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being
adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter,the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
IRANIAN DISSIDENTS CALL ON ISRAEL TO HELP GET THE NEWS OUT
Posted by CPocerl, June 26, 2009. |
|
This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared in
the New Media Journal
|
|
Iranian anti-regime activists are hoping for an Israeli technological hand to help them fight the Islamic Republic. As of now, hundreds of protesters have been killed by the regime, which is evidently using Arabic-speaking armed thugs from Hezbollah to help perpetrate the violence. "Dear Israeli Brothers and Sisters," writes Iranian dissident Arash Irandoost, "Iran needs your help more than ever now. And we will be eternally grateful. Please help opposition television and radio stations which are blocked and being jammed by the Islamic Republic (Nokia and Siemens) resume broadcast to Iran. There is a total media blackout and Iranians inside Iran for the most part are not aware of their brave brothers and sisters fighting and losing their lives daily. And the unjust treatment and brutal massacre of the brave Iranians in the hands of the mullah's paid terrorist Hamas and Hezbollah gangs are not seen by the majority of the Iranians. Please help in any way you can to allow these stations resume broadcasting to Iran. "And, please remember that we will remember, as you have remembered Cyrus the Great's treatment of you in your time of need," Irandoost concludes, signing his blogged call for help "Your Iranian Brothers and Sisters!" In an interview with Israel National News, Iranian expatriate pro-democracy activist Amil Imani said that Irandoost's message represents the sentiments of much of the youth in the streets in Iran. They have a strong belief in the technological know-how of the Israelis to overcome the Iranian regime's attempts to block communications. "This is going to be the most massive, impressive revolution of the 21st century," Imani said, "and we're seeing it live." However, he added, it is now too dependent on Internet communications, so the protesters are very much in need of outside assistance to fight the technological and information war. More generally, Imani said, the Iranian people are lionizing any leader of any nation who comes out strongly against the Islamic Republic at this time. Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
PRESIDENT OBAMA BLAMES ISRAEL FOR PALESTINIAN SUFFERING, AND OFFERS A DISHONORABLE PLAN
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, June 26, 2009. |
|
This was written by Charles Krauthammer. Contact him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com |
|
Obama the Humble declares there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating." An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone — Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them — not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns — even before negotiations. To what end? Over the last decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements — and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself. That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why turn towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians? This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the last decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 — and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress. Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a President who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. It's farcical to suggest that the peace process is moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren — when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode — waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave — before he'll do anything to advance peace. In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations — Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1947, Yasser Arafat in 2000, Abbas in December 2008 — rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel. In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders — Fatah and Hamas alike — built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts. |
|
ABBAS REFUSES TO REALLY NEGOTIATE; CONFERENCE ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM; PA POSITION ON PEACE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 26, 2009. |
|
HAMAS WIFE PREFERS IDF TO ABBAS' FORCES Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police raided the house of a Hamas
suspect. The suspect's wife said they broke in without warning,
whereas Israeli forces ask, first. The P.A. police were reckless, even
damaging a Koran, whereas Israeli forces try not to damage personal
possessions. She said the Israelis are more polite
The woman's honest opinion contrasts with UN views on Israeli
behavior in Gaza, as you can find if you click here:
Israel is a tolerant society. Muslim Arab society is undergoing some modernization but still is based largely on primitive oppression, intolerance, deception, sexual neurosis, the shame-honor neurosis, and on imperialism and brutality emphasized by Radical Islam: female circumcision, beheading, amputation, stoning, and other capital punishment including "honor killing" for minor refraction. Their famous charm and hospitality does not compensate. TERRORIST ATTEMPT TO INFILTRATE ISRAEL A dozen al-Qaeda terrorists tried to cross from Gaza into Israel. They had horses laden with explosives and booby-trapped cars. They fired mortars as if hoping to divert IDF forces from infiltrators to searching for mortar launchers. The Israelis injured some of the terrorists and closed off the crossing into Israel. Hamas gets credit for reducing its firing of rockets, but it is building better rockets and it has increased attempted infiltration (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/8). Israel gets blamed for closing the crossings. To see a solution to infiltration, click here:
ABBAS REFUSES TO NEGOTIATE WITH ISRAEL President Obama asked both the Palestinian Authority and Israel to
negotiate with each other. Netanyahu agreed unconditionally. Abbas
refused unless Israel first agrees to P.A. statehood and to stop
building in
Draw your own conclusion about who wants peace and who deals honestly. CONFERENCE ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN ISRAEL On May 18, Ben-Gurion University held a day-long conference on academic freedom and responsibility. Of the many speakers, only one seemed a non-leftist. [What does that indicate about the state of academic freedom there?] The near-consensus was that professors have a right to promote their views and hire instructors not for their qualifications but for their ideology, while critics do not have a right to monitor this and question whether such behavior and the results fulfill the University's function. If instruction is based on opinions and not scholarship, what is its value, why should it be left unmonitored or allowed, and why grant professors tenure and not rotate their jobs among office clerks? The conference view was that leftist professors may seek, without standards of scholarship, to indoctrinate students against Jewish sovereignty, without private and public underwriters of universities being informed of it. Thus the conference did not take up academic freedom, it advocated academic irresponsibility. Two billion dollars a year is spent on higher education in Israel. No transparency allowed? Conference sentiment opposed public effort against mismanagement of funds reported by the State Comptroller. Why should donors to what they think are Zionist universities not know that their money really supports anti-Zionism? The conferees tried to evade this issue, making the conference self-serving. Exposes of anti-Israel academic abuse has caused donors to reduce contributions to Ben-Gurion University. [Unlike Israeli universities, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. are "...managed by boards of governors, not by their faculty. The governors have fostered world-class excellence by insisting that funds be used efficiently to attract the most talented scholars in every field, and dictating the ruthless weeding out of the merely competent. However, there was no place at the conference table for this point of view." Most Israeli university social studies departments pursue the agenda of Israel's post-Zionists: They seek to persuade "Jewish Israelis that their own state and nationalism are illegitimate." [Like the NY Times, they don't present the facts, they seek to mold public opinion.] Prof. Neve Gordon added silliness to malevolence. He contended that Israel lacks academic freedom, because the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) lacks academic freedom, because the IDF closed some of its colleges for promoting terrorism. Is terrorism protected by academic freedom? What has academic freedom in the P.A. to do with academic freedom in Israel? [When P.A. colleges are open, what would happen to students to denounced terrorism and upheld peace? They'd need life insurance. They don't have academic freedom, because they have a religious dictatorship.] Finally, the noted Prof. Amnon Rubinstein set some realistic standards for what academic freedom should not cover: (1) Activities that harm the institution, such as its boycott; (2) Activity to harm the country, such as its boycott and divestment; and (3) Hate propaganda based on historical falsification. In a slap at the other conferees, Prof. Rubinstein suggested a university duty to harbor a diversity of opinion (Dr. Yitzchak Klein, www.isracampus.org). That would be a worthy goal for American universities focused only on ethnic diversity. Students have a right to an objective education and to know what quality of education is being offered. Monitoring could go too far. It hasn't there. What has gone too far is the enthronement of non-factual, anti-Zionist, ideological indoctrination. I see two levels in this controversy: (1) Instruction should be based on the facts, so students are informed enough to reach their own conclusions; and (2) Diverse opinion may then follow but not be imposed. Israeli ideologues ignore the facts, just give opinion, and their opinions reflect almost no diversity. The modern world is too dangerous militarily and financially for a country to allow education to be entire subjective and monopolized by one view, a subversive one at that. For more on freedom to discuss the Arab-Israel conflict, click
here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
IS ISRAEL NEGOTIATING WITH U.S. OR WITH P.A.?
Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, June 26, 2009. |
|
The U.S. State Department had a tough time this week explaining to a reporter why the Obama administration is talking with Israel about the creation of a Palestinian Authority state instead of letting the two parties themselves negotiate. A journalist asked spokesman Philip Crowley, "The problem here is that it seems to be that the negotiation that's going on is between the United States and Israel.... The U.S. and Israel are friends and allies and there isn't a — there is no need for a peace deal between — the need here is for a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, not for an agreement between the U.S. and Israel over settlements. Is that correct?" Crowley tried to explain that one of the first priorities of U.S. President Barack Obama since he took office has been to advance the peace process. In answer to persistent questioning over the issue of an agreement on construction in Judea and Samaria being worked out between Israel and the PA and not the U.S., he relied, "Our interest is to facilitate the parties to restart a negotiation that leads to a comprehensive agreement. Again, as [U.S. Middle East envo George Mitchell said, we want to get back into a formal negotiation. And we are working hard right now to create the conditions that would allow that to happen. We recognize that positions held by Israel today and positions held by the Palestinians today may be at odds." Mitchell and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cancelled their planned meeting in Paris this week in order "to clarify" the issue of building for Jews in Judea and Samaria. The State Department also told a reporter this week that the building freeze desired by President Obama also applies to large Jewish neighborhoods near the heart of the capital. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is to meet with Mitchell next week, and Thursday's announcement by the IDF, which is halting counterterrorist operations in four major PA cities, is considered a move to appease the Obama administration. This article appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.IsrealNationalNews,com) |
|
THE TWO STATE SOLUTION IS A VICTORY FOR THE PROXY WAR AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Sultan Knish, June 25, 2009. |
|
When Hitler wanted to carve up Czechoslovakia he began by demanding the Sudetenland, inhabited by the Volksdeutsche, ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia. The world thought this was entirely reasonable and Czechoslovakia was forced to give in. Of course Hitler did not simply want the Sudetenland, anymore than he simply wanted the Rhineland. He was after a much vaster program of conquest. 
By coining the term "Volksdeutsche" Hitler created an artificial identity for large numbers of Czechs, Poles and citizens of other Eastern European nations. He used that identity to create regional fifth columns that engaged in terrorism and then used them as justification to invade and seize other nations. Only by the time his ambitions reached Poland did Western Europe wake up to realize what their appeasement toward Nazi Germany had wrought. By the time it was all over nearly 80 million were dead, a continent lay in ruins, Eastern Europe was in the hands of the Communists and Western Europe's Great Powers would never come into their own again. "Palestine" like Volksdeutsche is an artificial identity created in order to maintain a fifth column and use them to conduct a proxy war against Israel, by the same Arab Muslim powers who had tried and fail to defeat Israel on the battlefield. The tactic of course long predates and postdates Hitler. Alexander the Great made use of it in his conquests. The Russians used it only last year when they wanted to invade Georgia. But in the post-WW2 era it has most effectively been employed against Israel. The absurdity of taking a Greco-Roman name for the region and trying to turn it into two things it never was, a nation and an ethnic identity, would have been inconceivable without heavy backing from both the Soviet Union and Western liberals. But by painting the genocidal urge of both Arab Marxists and Islamists as a drive to liberate "Palestine", the proxy war by Arab terrorists backed by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and more recently by Iran, was successfully repackaged by an oppressed people to liberate a land that never existed. As "Volksdeutsche" gave Hitler the right to carve up and eventually annex Czechoslovakia, "Palestine" has given the Muslim world and assorted leftists the right to carve up and destroy Israel under the pretext of aiding the "Palestinian People." In 1937, Awni Abd al-Hadi told the Peel Commission stating, "Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.... Our country for centuries was part of Syria," As late as 1980 the Jordanian Prime Minister stated, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture." In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, head of the second largest militia within the PLO and once considered a potential successor to Arafat, stated the premise of the proxy war quite frankly; 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. Arafat himself expressed the same basic idea in his infamous U.N. speech in 1988, saying, "The State of Palestine is an Arab State; its people are an integral Part of the Arab nation." Hamas' Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahour repeated it in an Economist interview in 2008; He certainly would not now "accept the reality" of Israel, as some of his senior colleagues have hinted. It may, instead, become "an eternal issue", he says, looking ahead to a distant future when, "like your European Union", the Arab nation will form one state across its historic lands, joining up with other Muslim nations such as Turkey. "We [Palestinians] were never an independent state in history," he notes. "We were part of an Arab state and an Islamic state." That "Great Arab State" or "Great Islamic State", or Caliphate, has always been the endgame. Palestine is to the Caliphate, what the Sudetenland was to Hitler's Thousand Year Reich. Israel is a stubborn little non-Arab non-Muslim state that stands in the way of the great dream of the Caliphate, a vast Muslim empire stretching across the Middle East into Turkey, Asia and even the heartland of Europe itself. The fury directed at Israel from the Muslim world is in direction proportion to Israel's obstruction of this messianic vision of an Islamic Arab ruled Ummah stretching across the entire globe and fulfilling the vision of Mohammed. It was never about "Palestinian rights", because not only is there no Palestinian people, but the refugee camps were themselves created by the Arab world as a first stage for the proxy war. They began by alternately luring and badgering Arabs out of Israel during the War of Independence, for example; "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." And naturally as renegades they would have been treated the same as the Jews, or perhaps even worse, during what was then seen as the "inevitable conquest" of Israel by the neighboring Arab states. At the very least that would mean the loss of property and land. At most it would mean outright massacre. Once out they became refugees, kept in camps, and maintained as displaced persons, to serve as fodder for both terrorist recruitment and world outrage against Israel. As succinctly stated by UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway in 1958, "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die." After two lost wars, the "open sore" was transformed into a new Palestinian nation that had never existed but was being suppressed by Israel. Palestinian Terrorism became global, as part of a proxy war conducted by Arab states against Israel, itself part of a proxy war being conducted by the USSR against the West. With the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has shed its Arab Marxist colors in favor of Arab Islamist ones, replacing Fatah, once backed by Arab Socialist regimes in Egypt, Syria and Iraq, in favor of Hamas, backed by Islamist regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Two State solution is the Sudetenland solution, carving up Israel and creating a sovereign and legally independent terrorist regime at war with Israel... inside Israel. With weapons flowing from around the Middle East and Pakistan through open borders, the real job of destroying Israel will finally begin. Supporting the Two State solution means quite simply supporting the endgame of the proxy war against Israel. The solution has nothing to do with Palestinian rights or stabilizing the Middle East. There is no "tough love" in it, as Obama insists, or love of any kind. It is simply the final phase in the destruction of Israel, which itself is only one phase in the creation of a global Islamic empire. Advocating the Two State solution means advocating genocide and ethnic cleansing. It means destroying the Middle East's only democracy to make way for a monstrosity that would be the worst of the Taliban writ large across the region and the globe. It means stoning, amputation and a thousand uncounted brutalities. And most of all it brings WWIII or a global clash of civilizations that much closer. There are two kinds of people who support the Two State Solution. Those who know what they support and those who do not.
This article is archived at
|
|
ISRAELIS, U.S. JEWS DIFFER DRAMATICALLY ON OBAMA
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday
in the Jewish Press
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com |
|
Have American Jews abandoned Israel in favor of President Obama? This is a central question in the minds of Israelis today. In a poll of Israeli Jews conducted in mid-June by the Jerusalem Post, a mere 6 percent of respondents said they view Obama as pro-Israel. In stark contrast, a Gallup tracking poll in early May showed that 79 percent of American Jews support the president. These numbers seem to tell us that U.S. Jews have indeed parted company with the Jewish state. No American president has ever been viewed as similarly ill disposed toward Israel by Israelis. With only 6 percent seeing the administration as friendly, it is apparent that distrust of Obama is not a partisan issue in Israel. It spans the spectrum from far left to right, from ultra-Orthodox to ultra-secular. But with his 79-percent approval rating among U.S. Jews, it is clear the American Jewish community is quite sympathetically inclined toward Obama. Appearances of course can be deceptive. And it is worth taking a closer look at the numbers to understand what they tell us about American Jewish sentiments regarding Obama and Israel. First, however, we should consider what it is about Obama that makes nearly all Israeli Jews view him as an adversary. The Jerusalem Post poll showed a massive divergence between Israeli Jews and Obama on the issue of Jewish building beyond the 1949 armistice line. The Obama administration has refused to budge in its hard-line demand that Israel end all Jewish building in north, south, and east Jerusalem as well as in Judea and Samaria. For its part, the Netanyahu government has refused to bow to this demand. Seventy percent of Israeli Jews support the Netanyahu government's handling of the issue with the Obama administration and 69 percent oppose a freeze on Jewish building. Beyond Obama's agitation on the issue of Jewish construction, Israelis are dismayed by what they perceive as the generally hostile approach he has adopted in dealing with the Jewish state. This approach was nowhere more in evidence than in his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4. It wasn't just Obama's comparison of Palestinian terrorism to the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, the American civil rights movement and antebellum slave rebellions that set people off. There was also Obama's inference that Israel owes its legitimacy to the Holocaust. It is that claim — Obama repeated it during his visit to Buchenwald — which forms the basis of the Islamic narrative against Israel. It argues that Jews are not indigenous to the Middle East, and that the only thing keeping Israel in place is European guilt about Auschwitz. Not only do Israelis of all political stripes reject this as factually false, they recognize it is inherently anti-Semitic because it ignores and negates 3,500 years of Jewish history in the land of Israel. With Israeli distrust of Obama so apparent, and so easily explained, two questions arise: How has Obama managed to maintain American Jewish support despite his unprecedented unpopularity in Israel? And what is the likelihood that when push comes to shove, American Jews will stand with Israel against the president they so admire? Obama's great success in maintaining support among American Jews owes much to the fact that most American Jews do not pick up the same messages from Obama's statements as do Israeli Jews. Whereas Israeli Jews recognize that it is morally obscene, strategically suicidal and historically inaccurate to suggest that Israel has no rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and that Jews have no right to live there, American Jews do not intuitively understand this to be the case. Consequently, while Israeli Jews recognize Obama's calls for a total freeze in Jewish construction in these areas as inherently hostile, most American Jews do not. Beyond this, for the past 15 years, Holocaust education — more so than Zionist education or Jewish religious education — has become the hallmark of American Jewish identity. As a consequence, American Jews may not see anything objectionable in Obama's inference that Israel owes its existence to the Holocaust. If the divergence in U.S. Jewish and Israeli attitudes toward Obama is simply a consequence of a lack of American Jewish awareness of the significance of Obama's positions and policies for Israel, then the disparity in views can be easily remedied by a sustained issues awareness campaign by Israel and by American Jewish organizations. For many of Israel's core American Jewish supporters, such a campaign would no doubt go a long way in energizing them to challenge the administration on its positions vis-à-vis Israel. But there are other factors at work. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2008 survey of American Jews, some 67 percent of American Jews feel close to Israel. These numbers, while high, are not significantly higher than similar support levels among the general U.S. population. (A survey of general American sentiment toward Israel conducted this month by the Israel Project shows that support for Israel has dropped by 20 percent in the past nine months — from 69 to 49 percent. Presumably, Jewish American support for Israel has also experienced a drop.) More significantly, the AJC survey showed that in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential elections, only three percent of American Jews said a candidate's position on Israel was the most important issue for them. Indeed, according to survey after survey of American Jewish opinion over the past decade, U.S. Jewish support for Israel, while widespread, is not particularly deep. This sentiment lends to the conclusion that American Jews will not abandon or temper their support for Obama simply because he is perceived as being hostile to Israel. The picture, then, is a mixed bag. Support for Israel against Obama will likely rise as a consequence of a sustained educational campaign among American Jews about the issues in dispute and their importance for Israel's security and national well-being. But even in that event, it is unclear how dramatic the shift would be. Given the shallowness of U.S. Jewish support for Israel, no doubt many American Jews will not care enough to reassess their positions on either Israel or Obama. The one bit of encouraging news in all this is the persistence of support for Israel relative to Palestinians among rank and file Americans. Palestinians are supported by a mere five percent of Americans. No doubt it is this disparity that is motivating leading Democratic politicians — most recently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez from New Jersey — to publicly distance themselves from the administration's Mideast policies. If U.S. Jewish leaders and pro-Israel activists can educate just a fraction of the American Jewish community, and motivate them to stand with Israel in a significant way against administration pressure, this will likely motivate still more lawmakers and politicians from both parties to maintain support for Israel against the administration. Certainly it will help convince Israelis we haven't been abandoned by American Jewry. And that in itself would be no mean achievement. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
JIHADIST FORUM THREAD DISCUSSES IF AND WHEN ONE MAY EAT THE FLESH OF U.S. SOLDIERS
Posted by Cpocerl, June 25, 2009. |
|
This comes from Memri and is archived as No.# 2420 at
|
|
A recent thread on the Al-Falluja jihadist forum discussed the case of whether a Muslim who has nothing else to eat may kill an infidel in order to eat him. The discussion was prompted by a recently published book by Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, one of the most influential jihadist sheikhs active today. The following is a summary of the discussion thread. The full text of this report is available to subscribers. Contact www.memri.org for information. On June 13, 2009, a member of the Al-Falluja forum who uses the moniker "Al-Maqdisi's Student" wrote a post based on this passage [in full report] titled "Is it permitted to eat the flesh of American soldiers? A quote from the illustrious Sheikh Al-Maqdisi, may Allah preserve him." He began by recounting an exchange between the early Muslim commander Khalid b. Al-Walid and the Byzantine commander at the battle of Yarmuk (in the year 636 C.E.) The Byzantine commander said to Khalid that the Muslims had only gone out from their land due to hunger, and offered to buy them off. Khalid responded: "It was not hunger that drove us out of our land, as you say; we are a people who drink blood, and we know that there is no blood more delicious than Byzantine blood. That is why we came." Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SHALIT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 25, 2009. |
|
It is now three years since Gilad Shalit was grabbed by terrorists who had tunneled under the fence at the border of Gaza. He is presumed alive, but Hamas, which is holding him, has not permitted visits by the International Red Cross, as prescribed by international law — and a Hamas spokesman is now saying nothing is assured but Israel has to do an exchange in any event. A letter from his parents was sent to him via Jimmy Carter, who met with Hamas officials very recently; a return letter is awaited. PM Netanyahu and DM Barak have both pledged to devote themselves to the effort to secure the release of Shalit. At the beginning of June, Netanyahu appointed former senior Mossad operative Haggai Hadas as the new envoy to take over indirect Shalit negotiations with Hamas. In the vast few days there have been rumors flying regarding an imminent deal; the original source for this was the Palestinian Maan news agency — which said Shalit was about to be turned over to the Egyptians, as a first step in a negotiated release. Our government is denying this. I confess a bewilderment as to what, precisely, the Netanyahu government could (or would) do, that would satisfy Hamas, when Olmert's readiness to release even some Hamas prisoners with blood on their hands (not all) was not enough. But I am not privy to inner negotiations and have no guess as to what other factors might be involved. The Jerusalem Post is calling for an investigation of why, in the last three years, we have not mounted a serious effort to rescue him. ~~~~~~~~~~ We are continuing to see a tremendously schizoid situation with regard to the relationship between Hamas and Fatah (the PA). There is still talk, however diminishing, of working towards a unity government. Khaled Abu Toameh has reported that the PA said this week that they would release hundreds of Hamas detainees as a gesture towards reconciliation with Hamas. But it was only two weeks ago that PA police arrested 36 members of Hamas in what was seen as an action that further deteriorated Hamas-Fatah relations. And it was just yesterday that Palestinians from the area of Kalkilyia in Samaria told the US radio network NPR that there was PA fear of a Hamas coup in Judea and Samaria similar to the one that had taken place in Gaza two years ago. Said Fatah representative Ahmed Shreen: "The Hamas leadership wants to take over [Judea and Samaria] and the proof is that they [PA police] have discovered large weapons cache right here in Kalkilyia in Hamas areas. What I am worried about is that while we are talking in Cairo, Hamas will be planning the coup." ~~~~~~~~~~ On Tuesday, Israel released Abdel Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, from prison — where he had been since Hamas's abduction of Shalit. Dweik is affiliated with Hamas, which was victorious in the last legislative elections in the PA. There was speculation that this was evidence of a coming deal with Hamas on Shalit, but authorities claimed, no, that it's just that his term was almost up. (Why release him even a day early?) At any rate, Hamas is now saying that Dweik should be acting president of the PA. I've been wondering what took so long here. If you remember, Hamas claimed that Abbas, who had completed a four-year term as president in January — four years being the term specified by the PA constitution — no longer legally held the office. Abbas claimed that the president and legislature — also according to the PA constitution — are supposed to be elected together, and as he began a year early because of Arafat's death, he had a year to go. Now, with Dweik — who as speaker of the parliament is next in line — out of jail, Hamas is doing a more direct challenge. This is a further indication that "reconciliation" is not on the way. ~~~~~~~~~~ A statement today by Hamas politburo head in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, sheds further light on the current Hamas-Fatah dynamics and the role being played by the US. He praises Obama's "new language" towards Hamas: "It is the first step in the right direction toward a dialogue without conditions, and we welcome this." In any event this shouldn't surprise us, but especially now that we know Carter met with State Department personnel before meeting with Hamas is this not unexpected. However, said Mashaal, this is not enough. What the US must do is pull out General Dayton, who is in charge of training PA forces in Judea and Samaria — presumably to take out Hamas terrorists. This, explained Mashaal, is counterproductive to reconciliation efforts. One would think so. ~~~~~~~~~~ We heard from Dov Weissglas — who was chief of the prime minister's office for Ariel Sharon — recently, with regard to the fact that there was an understanding between the US and Israel that permitted development for natural growth inside existing settlements. Now Elliot Abrams, who was in charge of Mid-Eastern Affairs for the US National Security Council during the period in question, and was involved directly in meetings with Weissglas, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Hillary is Wrong About the Settlements." Says Abrams, in return for his pulling out of Gaza completely, as well as from four communities in northern Samaria, the US worked out an understanding on the issue of settlements with Sharon that: "There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line (of any given existing settlement), no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements. ~~~~~~~~~~ PM Netanyahu, in Paris, was subjected to a good deal of pressure by French President Sarkozy with regard to the settlements. I just love the way the Europeans (as did Obama) make declarations about how they are solidly supportive of our right to security, and then proceed to push a situation that threatens our security. Netanyahu was supposed to meet with US envoy Mitchell in Paris, to discuss the settlement issue, but the meeting was called off, apparently mutually. They are not ready to talk yet. ~~~~~~~~~~ Herb Keinon, in the Post, has offered a cogent analysis of what Obama is achieving, or failing to achieve, by his adamant insistence on a total freeze on building in settlements. On the one hand, quite simply, Obama may be doing this to garner credibility with the Arab world. This may not be palatable to us (in fact, seems enormously inequitable), but it makes sense as a strategy. However, if Obama's goal is to foster movement in "peace negotiations," what he is doing is severely counterproductive. By making negotiations dependent upon something Netanyahu cannot and will not deliver, he has effectively forestalled the possibility of negotiations. Keinon points out that Abbas doesn't really want to negotiate with Netanyahu anyway. What Obama has done is given him the excuse to not do so. ~~~~~~~~~~ From my perspective, of course, while there is no reason or justice in making us and not the PA the stumbling block, a situation of no negotiations sits just fine indeed. And so Obama may, very inadvertently, be doing us a favor. ~~~~~~~~~~ Interestingly, Shaul Behr, in his blog, has expressed a similar thought. Better not a friend in Washington, he reasons. For then there are no illusions, "and no need to pander." "Obama has truly surpassed all my expectations for alienating Israelis. It really is amazing how he has swung Israeli public opinion since his inauguration: when he started out he had 31% of Israelis thinking he was pro-Israel, versus 14% who felt he was pro-Arab, and 40% felt he was neutral. The latest opinion polls have only 6% still thinking he's pro-Israel, 36% neutral, and fully 50% now feel he's pro-Arab. You gotta hand it to the guy — that is really amazing work. Not only has he debased himself by groveling in front of the Muslim world with his cringing apologetics in Cairo, but he has succeeded in completely alienating Israelis to the extent that only 6% of us feel that he's on our side! "To me, this is very good news. He now has absolutely no leverage to extract any more stupid unilateral concessions out of us."
~~~~~~~~~~ I recommend "A call for American boldness in Iran," by Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum:
~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" This is a special piece of good news for me as it involves a personal connection. Three of my granddaughters in Beit Shemesh attend Orot Banot — a religious nationalist school for girls that runs through sixth grade. Yesterday, I attended the graduation of the eldest, Rachel, which was held right here in Jerusalem. School graduations in Israel tend to be elaborate programs, with dramatic and musical elements — and this was no exception. Part of what was offered for guests was a dance sequence by the girls. As it happens, one of the girls in the class, Chen, is in a wheelchair. She was brought out on stage and placed in the very center. In her hands was a hoop that had streamers attached, and as the girls danced around her she waved the hoop high — essentially the star of the routine. My daughter than told me about the annual class trip. Tiyulim (trips of various sorts — including some extended, in outdoor areas) are routine for Israeli schools, and it is traditional to do one at the end of the year. Chen was brought along in her wheelchair. But there was some hiking done in terrain where the wheelchair could not be managed. And so the school had hired two men to carry Chen on a stretcher, so that she would not be left out. Lastly, this: Various girls were given solo speaking parts to introduce segments of the program, and so forth. Rachel had such a part. So did Chen, brought to sit next to the podium with a teacher at her side. She struggled a bit in speaking her part and when it was over and she was being wheeled off the stage, she burst into tears. Then I saw girls from the sidelines rush to be with her, embrace her, and comfort her. Does it get better than this? A source of great pride. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
RABBI VOLPO'S HALACHIC RULING
Posted by Jake Levi, June 25, 2009. |
|
THE FACTS:
Therefore, we rule, with the power of our Holy Torah, as follows:
We hereby put our signatures to the above, during the week of Parshas Shlach, with the blessing that "'We should go up at once; for we are well able to overcome it.' Rabbi Shalom Dov Volpo
|
|
Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
ISRAEL'S RELIABLE FRIEND: THE PRESIDENT PROPOSES BUT CONGRESS DISPOSES
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 25, 2009. |
|
President Obama and his advisors pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to avoid intensive contacts with Congress. They claim that such contacts would undermine the Presidency, and would therefore damage US-Israel relations. However, refraining from such contacts would demote Congress into a "Supporting Actor", and thus would be an insult to the American People, to its representatives on Capitol Hill and to the US democracy, which regard Congress as a "Co-Starring Actor." In the long run, it would degrade vital Israeli interests and weaken US-Israel relations. In 1992, I was told by then Majority Leader, Senator George Mitchell: "Doesn't Israel realize that the US is not a monarchy and that the President is strong but not omnipotent?!" And, in fact it was Congress — and not the President — that stopped US military involvement in Vietnam (Eagleton Amendment), Angola (Clark Amendment), Nicaragua (Boland Amendment), forced the USSR to let the Jews go (Jackson-Vanik Amendment), approved emergency aid to the former USSR (Aspen-Nunn Amendment), toppled the White regime in Pretoria (Anti-Apartheid Act), provided Israel with emergency assistance following the 1991 Gulf War in defiance of Bush/Baker, etc. Recent Israeli governments have underestimated the power of Congress, as a result of the highlighted global profile of the President. Still, a US President is powerful, but — unlike Israeli Prime Ministers — he is not the chairman of his party and not the leader of his congressional slate. He does not anoint the Speaker, majority leaders and committee chairs. And he does not determine which bills should pass in Congress. The President is one of three arms of government, which are equal in power and independence. He is constrained by the decentralized Federal system, by an effective Separation of Powers and by an elaborate system of checks and balances, which are designed to prevent tyranny. The President initiates and executes policy, but Congress — which is featured in the first article of the US Constitution — possesses the "Power of the Purse" and the authority to change, suspend and initiate policy, prevent senior presidential appointments and add and eliminate government departments and agencies. While the relative presidential weight increases during national security crises, the relative weight of Congress is upgraded during financial crises. The confrontational/defiant nature of the President-Congress relationship, constitute a significant watchdog over US democracy. Israel's government assumes that the Congressional Democratic majorities provide President Obama with a "free ride." However, Senator Robert Byrd, President Pro-Tempore of the Senate has persisted in quipping at Democratic and Republican presidents: "Legislators are the servants of the Constitution, not the servants of the President." Former Speaker, Democratic House Member Tom Foley, advised President Clinton in 1993 not to take House and Senate Democratic majorities for granted: "We won't be able to support all your ambitious policies, because our political life expectancy (running every two years) is different than yours (running every four years)." Clinton ignored the advice and caused the Democratic Party crash in the November 1994 election. The loyalty of the 535 federal legislators — who represent districts and states more than political parties — is first and foremost to their constituents, to the Separation of Powers and to the independence of the Legislature and only then to the President. Therefore, over 30 Democratic House Members supported the impeachment of Clinton, many Democrats opposed Clinton's free trade initiatives, caused Obama to rescind the appointment of anti-Israel pro-China Chas Freeman, forced Obama to boycott the UN Durbin II Conference and are not automatic supporters of Obama's proposals to close down the Guantanamo jail, to bail out Wall Street and the Detroit car makers, dramatically increase the national debt, etc. As the November 2010 congressional elections approach, and as economic recovery is further delayed, the more dependent Obama becomes on a willing Congress and the more independent and defiant will the legislators become. In 1891, six years before the First World Zionist Congress, in defiance of the US Department of State, 400 US dignitaries co-led by the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee signed the "Blackstone Memorial," which called for a Jewish national home in the Land of Israel. In 1922, 26 years before the establishment of the Jewish State, The US House and Senate unanimously passed a Joint Resolution, reaffirming congressional support of a Jewish State between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The enhancement of Israel's critical interests and the demonstration of respect towards the US democracy, behoove Israel's Prime Minister to cultivate ties with Congress — the most authentic representation of the US public, equal in power to the President, a bastion of support for closer US-Israel ties, which appreciates the unique covenant binding the US and the Jewish State: Democracy, shared Judeo-Christian values, mutual regional and global threats and joint strategic interests. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il This article appeared in YNet. |
|
OBAMA & THE MILITARY'S MORAL DILEMMA
Posted by Cpocerl, June 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Robert Klein Engler and published June
18, 2009 on
Chron Watch
Robert Klein Engler lives in Oak Park, Illinois. His book, Contra Obama, is available from Lulu.com. |
|
There is now reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama meets the U.S. Constitution's requirement of "natural born" citizenship. This means that there is also reasonable doubt that he is qualified to be President of the United Sates and commander in chief. The Kenyan citizenship of his father, the age of his mother, the lack of a [long form] birth certificate, the ambiguous nature of a Certification of Live Birth, the possible forgery of birth documents, the inability of the press to view passport and college records, and even his own statements, all add to the uncertainty many have about Mr. Obama's qualifications to be President. Even the often quoted "proof" by Janice Okubo only adds more gasoline to the fire of doubt. She said: "Therefore, I as director of health for the State of Hawaii, along with the registrar of vital statistics ...have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record..." Notice that she does not say that this document proves that Mr. Obama was BORN in "Hawaii." Until proof of U.S. citizenship is presented beyond a reasonable doubt, it is reasonable to say that Mr. Obama is probably a usurper to the office of President. Yet, for many Americans, this is irrelevant. They believe that holding the office is proof that one is qualified for the office. Even if the Supreme Court declared upon the examination of the evidence that Obama does not meet the Constitution's qualifications to be President, what can be done? The chief justice of the court is not going to the Oval Office with a broom and sweep it clean. The same can be said for many other American institutions. The people have voted. The man is popular. What Constitution? We prefer the thrill up our leg. These are some of the arguments put forward to support the current regime. The Military and the Constitution There is one American institution, however, that has a moral responsibility to support the U.S. Constitution. That institution is the U.S. military. The Constitution is the bedrock upon which military order and discipline is founded. Colonel Anthony E. Hartle claims in his book ''Moral Issues in Military Decision Making,'' that "When military members pledge to the support and defense of the Constitution, they commit themselves, by logical extension, to the principles and values that form the basis of its provisions." In their paper, ''Divided Loyalties: Civil-Military Relations at Risk,'' DiSilverio and Laushine write: "The commissioning of military officers is another source of legal support for the Constitution as the primary legitimate authority." "The commission from the Commander-in-Chief states, 'this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by me, or by the future President of the United States of America.'" DiSilverio and Laushine continue: "The requirement to follow orders also applies to those officers appointed over the subject officer. As Anthony Hartle contends, the fundamental law of the United States is the Constitution, and the commission confirms the supremacy of the Constitution..." "Hartle goes on to say that if a President were to issue an unlawful order, military officers would be obligated to disobey it, and that this obligation derives its moral basis in the commissioning oath." This same obligation to disobey also holds against an order issued by an unlawful or usurper President. Add to this, all entering the U.S. military take the following oath: "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..." The writer of the ''Natural Born Presidency Blog'' reminds us that, "Military personnel are subject to a world unlike anything a CIVILIAN would ever understand. It is an anachronistic, rule oriented, self contained society which doesn't react amiably when confronted with a breakdown of good order and discipline." Then he cautions us. "It should be noted...a significant gray area exists regarding whether an ineligible President can render a 'lawful order.' There exists a strong probability the court will reinterpret the Constitution to allow Mr. Obama to hold the office. If such occurs, the military, as a WHOLE, will nod affirmative..." If a person is clearly not a natural born citizen, then it is hard to imagine how Congress or the Supreme Court can make him one. Furthermore, members of the U.S. military have a moral obligation NOT to follow his orders. As Hartle states, "this obligation derives its moral basis in the commissioning oath." If Obama is not qualified to be President from the start, then he simply is not President. The only gray area is in the hearts of his supporters. He cannot even resign. He can only be removed. To complicate matters even further, The Uniform Code of Military Justice may be invoked to get at the truth. Writing in the Huffington Post, Martin Lewis wanted to use this Code to remove George W. Bush from office. If he is right, we can turn the tables and use his argument against Mr. Obama. Lewis writes, "Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says...'Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.'" Removing Obama from office, in Lewis' words, "would not be an action to undertake lightly...However, given the current imperilment of U.S. troops...you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor, and to the U.S. Constitution." The Constitution is a document with some flexibility. However, the military is an institution that abhors flexibility. Discipline, order, and the chain of command are not flexible. Neither is the line between life and death, honor, and victory. The Chicago Connection Barack Obama claims to be a Chicagoan. He is no more a native Chicagoan than Sammy Sosa, who allegedly took illegal performance-enhancing drugs to play baseball. In spite of this, there is a Chicago connection to the moral issues raised by Obama's uncertain natural born status. In 1815 the land that was to become Chicago was Federal Territory. Fort Dearborn, located by what is now Michigan Avenue and the Chicago River, was commanded by Captain Heald. Captain Heald was ordered to evacuate the fort by General Hull, who commanded Fort Detroit. What documents we have about Chicago's early history tell us that Lieutenant Helm and Captain Wells, who came up from Fort Wayne, tried to discourage the evacuation. Some historians believe that the order itself was vague and allowed for mitigating circumstances. It seems that there were enough supplies at the fort to outlast a siege. The native forces outnumbered the U.S. forces almost ten to one. What to do? Question a vague order and save your command, or have a drink and press forward to Ft. Wayne? Opinions differ as to the character of Captain Heald. Some argue that he was a conservative yet inept a career officer. Regardless of his character, he chose to follow orders, and evacuated the fort on the morning of August 15, 1812. The result of the evacuation was the Fort Dearborn Massacre. It occurred on the shore of Lake Michigan about a mile and a half from the fort. The moral dilemma faced by these Ft. Dearborn officers, at what was then a relatively unknown outpost, is no different from the moral dilemma faced by U.S. military officers today. In light of the reasonable doubts concerning Obama's status as Commander-in-Chief, what to do? Captain Heald and Lieutenant Helm survived the massacre, but Captain Wells did not. Nor did Ensign Rohan, a young officer stationed at Ft. Dearborn. Ensign Rohan was the first graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point to die in battle. Duty, Honor, Country The motto of the U.S. Military Academy is "Duty, Honor, Country." These words are imbedded in the academy's coat of arms. It is the duty of an officer to be a moral agent and to support the Constitution. Honor and country mean nothing if duty is ignored. The crisis in military discipline and order created by the doubts that swirl around Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen can be easily resolved. A simple birth certificate showing birth in Hawaii, along with college and passport documents released to the public, is all it takes. Up to now, Obama has done little to dispel once and for all the reasonable doubts about his status. He has created, instead, the greatest "moral issue in military decision making" in the country's history. Given doubts about Obama's natural born citizen status, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a moral duty to investigate Obama's qualifications to be President. They must then report their findings to those under their command and the American people. Anything less looks like a violation of their oath and a disregard for the Constitution they swore to defend. If we expect a soldier to die for the Constitution, then he must expect his officers to live by the Constitution. This is not an issue of legitimate succession to office of Commander-in-Chief, but an issue of usurpation. The moral duty here for military officers is clear: Demand proof, or serve without honor, or resign. Citizens and servicemen alike should be mindful that once the Constitution is made void, the United States disappears. Who wants to fight and die for nothing? Ensign Rohan did not die for nothing. Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
MOVIE REVIEW — 'THE STONING OF SORAYA M.'
Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), June 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Pam Meister, editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org. |
|
A young woman is killed by a stray bullet in the streets of Tehran during the current political uprising in Iran. Her name is Neda. Her death, caught on video and seen around the world via YouTube, became a symbol for everyone in Iran who is a victim of the oppressive regime of the Khomeinists, those responsible for the Islamic revolution three decades ago and who have turned the nation of Iran into the dictatorship of today — its so-called electoral process a joke to anyone with a conscience. The death of another young woman also becomes symbolic of the oppression of the people of Iran. However, her death transcends one nation and represents the oppression of women throughout the Middle East and everywhere Sharia law is the law of the land. And unlike Neda of today, her death was not mercifully quick, nor was it a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her death was slow, painful, and brought about by one man's desire to be rid of a burden, assisted by others who are easily swayed, easily bullied, or easily fooled — or some combination of the three. I'm not giving anything away when I tell you that the young woman, Soraya, is stoned to death — the name of the film is, after all, The Stoning of Soraya M, which opens in limited release around the nation on Friday, June 26th (see the theater list at the end of this review). But despite knowing what was coming, I was still stunned. Shocked. Horrified. Saddened. Angered. These are just some of the words that come to mind when watching this powerful film. Directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh (The Path to 9/11) and written by
Nowrasteh and his wife Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, Soraya is based on the
1995 true story book of the same name by Freidoune Sahebjam. Sahebjam,
an Iranian journalist who was sentenced to a death fatwa in abstentia
for his reporting on the crimes of the Islamic Republic, continued to
return incognito to Iran to investigate sensitive issues surrounding
the Tehran Islamic Regime. It is during one of his covert trips that
he meets, purely by chance, Soraya's aunt Zahra (played by Shohreh
Aghdashloo). Zahra is determined that the tragic farce played out in
the name of Sharia "justice" shall not be confined to the walls of her
small village, to be buried and forgotten. She is determined that the
world shall know of the horror that played out there just the day
before she meets Sahebjam (played by Jim Caviezel), who is stranded in
the village as he waits for his car to be repaired by the local
mechanic. Seeing a tape recorder in his bag, Zahra manages to pique
his interest despite his initial skepticism, and she tells him of the
final days of Soraya (played by Mozhan Marnò).
BEAUTIFUL CINEMATOGRAPHY BELIES THE UGLY HUMAN NATURE ON DISPLAY. The stark location of the village — due to the movie's offensive nature to Islamists, filming took place in a remote village in an undisclosed Middle Eastern country — matches the bleak lives of the women who fare worse under the new Islamic regime. Pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini are everywhere, lest anyone forget who's now in charge, and women move about the village covered by their chadors, lest they offend anyone by showing themselves. Soraya is married to Ali (played by Navid Negahban), who has tired of his wife after 20 years of marriage and yearns for a younger woman — a 14-year-old. The problem lies in his inability to support two wives, and he is trying to divorce Soraya. For her part, she is unhappy being married to the cruel and unfaithful Ali, but won't divorce him because she won't be able to support herself or her two daughters, whom Ali would happily throw out in the street with Soraya — keeping their sons with him, of course. When the family is eating dinner, Ali is verbally and physically abusive toward Soraya, and it's obvious that his two sons have been indoctrinated into what Ali tells them is "a man's world. Never forget that, boys." Because Soraya won't go along with his plans for a divorce, Ali must come up with another arrangement, and he begins to weave an evil plot of deception that eventually ensnares the whole village. He relies on the frailties of human nature to help him attain his goal, including greed, jealousy, and anger. Key players in this terrible scheme are the Mullah (played by Ali Pourtash), Ebrahim, the mayor (played by David Diaan), and Hashem, the village mechanic (played by Parviz Sayyad). When writing the script, the Nowrastehs stayed true to the real-life characters, but felt they needed to add shading to the characters of the men in order to more broadly reflect how different people react under extreme peer pressure and mob rule. "Frankly, we humanized many of the male characters to show their inner conflicts and dilemmas, whereas in the book they are all evil to the core," said Cyrus. Each of these men has a reason for his complicity, and while some of their reasoning is almost understandable, it doesn't make it any easier to accept. Ali, however, remains untouched by the Nowrastehs. His evil cannot be airbrushed. Something seen often throughout the film are characters fiddling with prayer beads, especially Ali and the Mullah, who act together as ringleaders in this travesty. It's an action that is representative of the false piety that calls upon them to "cleanse" the village of the "defilement" allegedly brought upon it by Soraya. During the stoning, the Mullah tells the men present that "with each stone you throw, your honor will return." This is why such murders are called "honor killings," as they are meant to restore the honor of the family when a woman brings "shame" upon it (usually in a sex related manner).
ONE OF THE MOST COMPELLING SEQUENCES IN THE FILM happens as Soraya prepares to die, saying goodbye to her daughters and passing on what little worldly goods she has to them. Meanwhile the men and boys of the village prepare for the stoning by digging a large pit and collecting stones that will be hurled at the immobilized Soraya less than an hour later. It's hard to believe that the stoning scene (achieved by a combination of puppetry, stunt performers and CGI) was scaled back from the reality of stoning deaths, the type of which continue to occur around the world today. For guidance, director Nowrasteh not only read the detailed scene in the book, but watched frightening, covert footage of real stonings. He said, "All I can tell you is that compared to what I saw and read, the scene in the movie is far less graphic than it could have been." Regardless, there is enough violence and attendant emotion to justify bringing a box of tissues, including when Soraya's sons are exhorted to stone their own mother, "Go ahead, boys. For God." One question remains: if the men are so sure that their actions are justified and sanctioned by God, why do they try so hard to keep Zahra from telling the itinerant journalist about it? First-rate performances are delivered by a first-rate cast. Except for the parts where Zahra is relating her tale to Sahebjam in English, the entire film is in Farsi with English subtitles, which aids the viewer in immersing himself in Soraya's world: a world where supremacist religious fanaticism and misogyny collide with stomach-turning results. This is a film that should not be missed. As we left the screening room, I heard one woman say, "The timeliness of this is frightening." This is true, but unfortunately, such honor killings happen around the world where Sharia law rules, not just in Iran. It's time for the disinfection of sunlight to do its work on this most shameful state of affairs. Due to the film's graphic nature, I would not recommend it for anyone under 17 (hence R the rating). Rated R (cruel and brutal violence)
LIST OF THEATERS AND OPENING DATES: ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW JERSEY
NE W YORK
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS
WASHINGTON STATE
WASHINGTON DC
|
|
FATAH BOASTS ABOUT LYNCH MURDER OF TWO ISRAELI SOLDIERS IN 2000
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, June 25, 2009. |
|
As PMW reported earlier this week, PA (Fatah) TV marked the second anniversary of the Hamas takeover of Gaza by broadcasting a public Fatah event that focuses on vilifying Hamas. One part of this performance features a graphic video of Hamas members brutally beating a Fatah member in Gaza. 
Another part criticizes and mocks Hamas for the decrease in its terror operations against Israel, glorifies Fatah terror, and ends with Fatah boasting that they "arrested two soldiers in Ramallah," a reference to the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli reservists. In this scene actors portray a Hamas teacher and student supporters of Fatah and Hamas, debating which movement is greater. Significantly, the competition between Fatah and Hamas supporters is based not on who has built more Palestinian infrastructures, nor on who has promoted peace, but rather on who can take credit for more terror. The debate ends when a Fatah student trumps Hamas's boast of having kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by mentioning the "arrest of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah" by the PA-Fatah. This alludes to the lynching and gruesome murder of two Israeli reservist soldiers who accidentally entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled city in October 2000. While the picture of a Palestinian celebrating the killing by waving his bloody hands to the mob horrified the world, the murder remains a source of pride for Fatah. [Note: Seated in the front row at the event are Fatah leaders, including Muhammad Dahlan, former head of PA security; Kadura Faras, head of the PA Prisoners' Association; Nasser Al-Qidwa, former PA Minister of Foreign Affairs; Samir Al-Mashharawi, senior Fatah official; and others.] Click here to view the "terror competition" between Fatah and Hamas The following is a transcript of the act: Fatah student taunts Hamas: "Since Hamas seized power, we haven't heard of any Martyrdom operation [suicide-bombing]." Hamas teacher: "It's called 'fighter's rest'." Fatah student: "A Hamas fighter needs rest, but a Fatah fighter doesn't need rest?!" Hamas teacher: "Every fighter has the right to rest." Fatah student: "Why is it that when Fatah stops fighting, you [Hamas] say they're cowards, but when Hamas stops fighting, you say it's 'fighters' rest'?" Hamas teacher: "I don't know much about resistance [terror] and fighters..." Fatah student: "The first shot was fired by the PLO; the first Jihad was carried out by the PLO [audience applauds], with all the other factions — but Hamas always opposed. Hamas student: "What do you say about Hamas having kidnapped the [Israeli] soldier Shalit [still held hostage — Ed.]?" Hamas teacher: "Ahaaa!" Student: "By Allah, it's good." Hamas student: "Did Fatah ever capture a soldier?!" Fatah student: "It was the [other] brigades who captured him [Shalit] and sold him to you [Hamas]. It's a deal that you [Hamas] made for your own benefit, not for the [Palestinian] people's benefit. [Applause] Fatah student: Remember, in Ramallah the [PA-Fatah] police
arrested two soldiers — have you forgotten, teacher?!" [A
reference to the lynching in Ramallah in October 2000 — Ed.]
Itamar Marcus is director of PMW — Palestinian Media Watch
— (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara
Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is
PMW's North American representative. Contact Palestinian Media Watch
by email at pmw@pmw.org.il and visit the PMW Video Library at |
|
LEBANESE STEREOTYPING OF JEWS; PSYCHIATRY, ISLAMIST STYLE?; OBAMA'S
HARD TRUTHS AND FALSEHOODS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2009. |
|
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY DID NOTHING FOR PEOPLE The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has 16 years of autonomy to build schools, roads, courthouses, hospitals, and other institutions to serve its people. Neither Fatah nor Hamas has done so. They divert funds to war on Israel and to their private bank accounts. President Obama makes it seem as if the resulting suffering of P.A. residents somehow is Israel's fault. It's the fault of the Arabs' own, elected leaders (Charles Krauthammer in Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/5). Nevertheless, Obama wants to set those leaders up as sovereigns. What would that solve? For part of the explanation about P.A. neglect of its people, click
here:
LEBANESE STEREOTYPING OF JEWS In discussing President Obama's speech in Cairo, the Lebanese Daily Star referred to Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, as someone "whose pro-Israeli sympathies can't be questioned." IMRA asks why can't it be questioned. Mr. Emmanuel told the Israel lobby to come up with a better plan
before it criticizes U.S. policy. IMRA asks, better for whom
That newspaper in ethnically divided Lebanon assumes, as Muslim Arabs often do, that because Rahm Emmanuel is Jewish, he must be pro-Israel. That stereotyping is false. Several of my articles cite Israeli professors who call for boycotting or overthrowing Israel and even supporting Muslim terrorism. They are far from being pro-Israel and not far from being antisemitic. For another Lebanese controversy with Israel, click here:
IS U.S. POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL RACIST? The U.S. and other international elites tell Jews they may not live in certain areas of the Land of Israel. This is in addition to many Arab states having expelled their Jews and not allowing Jews in. The Obama regime tells Jews they may not build in such areas and must move out of them. It does not give similar orders to the Arabs. This is discriminatory (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/5 from Joseph Farah, 6/5). For Jews, Obama wants Jim Crow laws. But so did Pres. Bush. For more on U.S. discrimination against Israel, click here:
EGYPT SETS UP FARMS ABROAD Egypt has been setting up farms abroad to supply it with wheat. The
foreign countries include Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania, and Niger
Israel taught Egypt dry farming. For further irony about Egypt tutoring foreigner states in
agriculture, click here:
DRUZE MOVING INTO LEBANESE OPPOSITION? Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Druze, wants to join the opposition. His reasons are not ideological but practical. Already a third of
Lebanon's population, the Shiite numbers, wealth, and power are
growing. They buy up the land. They dominate the coastal area where
half the Druze live. Lacking reliable allies, the Druze cannot resist
Hizbullah any more. The Christian population is dwindling. The Sunnis
are becoming more radical, hence pose a danger to the Druze. Mr.
Jumblatt concludes that the Druze must learn to live with the Shiites,
although he does not favor their ally, Syria
The Druze are known for practicality, necessary for survival. Jumblatt sounds like the wise old American Indian chief who tells his bellicose young braves that they had better learn to live with the white man. That wasn't easy, either. If the Druze pull out of the governing coalition and ally themselves with Hizbullah, then Hizbullah would secure its dominance over Lebanon. I think that Israel's Left wing, led then by Foreign Min. Livni and PM Olmert, in their defeatist withdrawal from imminent victory over Hizbullah in Lebanon, sealed Lebanon's fate and undermined their own country's. It was a great blunder. Finishing and winning the war in Lebanon would have destroyed a big terrorist front and rescued Lebanon. That would have promoted peace, not premature withdrawal and losing the war. They left the terrorists able both to take over Lebanon and to threaten Israel more. Israel has no strategic sense, as it lets its enemies build up around it. Nor has the State Dept. any strategic sense, as it encourages that build-up out of a blind antipathy towards Jewish independence. How can one respect or admire the U.S., when it favors enemies over allies? For an explanation showing that the U.S. has not caught on to the
Iranian/Syrian/Hizbullah axis' power, click here:
PSYCHIATRY, ISLAMIST STYLE? In a Hamas TV film for women, an Egyptian psychiatrist calls
Israelis terrorists motivated by a love of money and by the Israeli
curriculum. He verifies and endorses the Holocaust
Let the psychiatrist debate Iran's Holocaust-denying President! As proof, the psychiatrist cites an alleged teaching not in the Israeli curriculum. The Israeli curriculum and media stress peace and tolerance, unlike the Egyptian, Jordanian, or Palestinian Authority curriculum, media, and mosques. Such are the adversaries who pursue the Jewish people — defamatory and vicious. For a short explanation of terrorist motive, click here:
OBAMA'S "HARD TRUTHS" FOR MUSLIMS President Obama vowed to tell the world's Muslims "hard truths." Instead, his remarks fighting extremists, equal rights for women, freedom of religion, and democracy were vague. He omitted policy proposals that would have to be taken seriously. He urged them to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that terrorists' "intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible." On gender equality, he ignored common Islamic "honor killings," female genital mutilation, and repression of women's legal and human rights. He compared Muslim women to discrimination against U.S. women, which is not comparable. He advocated religious freedom, but ignored Saudi religious repression. He praised democracy, but overlooked Arab tyranny. He misled people about Israel, too. Yes, he verified the Holocaust and denounced antisemitism [again without suggesting culprits and reform]. But he also upheld the Arab view that the Jews intruded into Palestine and that Israel developed from the Holocaust. He thus undermined the Jewish people's age-old, historical, regional roots and the legal recognition of the right to their homeland well before the Holocaust. Like the Arabs, Obama called Muslim Arab terrorism against Israel, "resistance." He equated the Palestinian Arab struggle against Israel to the U.S. civil rights movement and slave rebellions. That is not a hard truth, that is moral dishonesty. He did propose some policies. (1) End Jewish building in Judea-Samaria. He says that would bring peace. It cannot possibly do so. (2) Convert Iran's nuclear weapons development to nuclear electrical development. He says that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It cannot possibly do so. [Iran has equipment and fuel for making bombs. It could make bombs at will. Stopping Zionist development cannot win friendship from the Islamists — too bigoted. It would strengthen and encourage them to launch a final offensive.] Obama's policy toward Israel can be explained only by hostility.
His real purpose is to abandon Israel in favor of friendship with the
Arab world. His Administration harps on Jewish building but not Fatah
terrorism nor on N. Korean ties to Iran and Syria. The Israeli people
realize this (Caroline Glick in
Obama is duplicitous, facilitates war, and endangers civilization. He gets his lieutenants to go along with him. How long will he be able to get away with his deceptions and failures? How many millions will be killed, first? Now consider the opportunities Israel lost, by not annexing and resettling most of Judea-Samaria, to fortify its geographic position! Israel waited, but now the U.S. government has turned harder against it than even before. Israel was foolish not to devise its own strategy. It didn't have a strong enough Right wing. To see more flaws in Obama's policy on Israel, click here:
IRAN BECOMING IMPREGNABLE, WITH ITS MISSILES? Iran started to mass-produce a supersonic surface-to-air missile system. It can trace swift enemy aircraft and strike them 40 kilometers away, with a huge blast (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/6). Iran is developing quite a military. Iran considers itself a super power. SANCTIONS INEFFECTIVE AGAINST IRAN The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that "Iran continued to expand its uranium enrichment program despite three sets of UN Security Council sanctions meant to pressure Teheran into freezing such activities." Iran refuses to cooperate with IAEA inspection. Syria refuses, too. Each rogue state sees that the others get away with it
For more on sanctions, click here:
MORE OBAMA FALSEHOODS IN CAIRO He praised Islamic tolerance in Medieval Muslim Cordoba and Anadulus. Actually, Islamic rule discriminated against Christians and Jews. They were not allowed to worship in public or build new temples. They paid a special tax on non-believers. He claimed that Palestinian Arabs suffered trying to get a state. Actually, they had several specific opportunities, but rejected them. He said that a Muslim country, Morocco, was the first to recognize the United States. No, it was the Netherlands. He pegged the Muslim population of the U.S. at 7 million. Major studies estimate 1.3-2.7 million. [Islamist organizations claim the larger figure.] He promised frankness in his speech, but ignored Palestinian Arab and other Muslim persecution of Christians. He mentioned Darfur, but not that Arab states helping to block a UN remedy. He called Jewish houses in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem
illegal, although those were not sovereign territory when Israelis
moved in, and therefore do not fit the definition of "occupied"
For earlier articles covering more of Obama's dissembling, click
here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
LEADERSHIP WE CAN BE PROUD OF
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 25, 2009. |
|
Sihon gathered all his people together, and he fought against Israel. And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from the Arnon unto the Yabbok. (From this week's Torah portion, Chukat, Numbers 21:32-34) And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Yiftach: 'Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon even unto the Yabbok, and unto the Jordan; now therefore restore those cities peaceably. (From this week's haftarah, Judges 11:13)
Even today, international law places complete responsibility for the consequences of a war on the instigator. Territory that is captured by a country that was attacked becomes the sovereign soil of the victim of the aggression. Germany lost great tracts of territory in World War II, as did Japan to Russia. That is the way the world works and that is the way it should work. For some reason, these simple rules, understood world-wide, were not clear to the king of Ammon and are not clear to all the kings of Yishmael who fight against us today. Why don't these rules work for Israel? The answer is that we do not have a leader like Yiftach, who answers the nations in the Name of G-d. After the king of Ammon complained to Yiftach that centuries before, the Children of Israel had "stolen" his land, Yiftach had a very clear and simple answer: The G-d of Israel has driven the Emorites out before the Children of Israel and you think that you will possess their land? Whatever Kmosh, your god has inherited to you, that is what you shall inherit. And whatever Hashem, our G-d has inherited to us, that is what we shall inherit. (Judges 11:23-24)
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)
|
|
LADY HISTORY REPLIES SCATHINGLY TO OBAMA'S HIPPIE SPEECHES
Posted by N. Natan, June 25, 2009. |
|
Nowadays Lady History has become a jarring and hurried Teacher. Whereas, in the past, it took centuries before she condescended to unveil the infra-lines of force which had agitated and propelled peoples, at present, Lady History takes only a few days to make a magisterial striptease of True Reality. In Iran's case, a single week has sufficed to demonstrate crudely "in vivo" the immutable Koranic rigidity of Islamic society. And the least that we can say is that this Muslim opaque Reality, so abruptly unveiled by last Iran's feverishly eruption soon infected by an unrealistic hopes collapse, does not correspond at all to Obama's hippie "progressive vision" of Islam, as complacently publicized in his Unreality Show of Cairo. When considering the precise timing of succession of all these resounding events, one cannot be prevented to think that Obama did intimately hope that he would decisively influence Iranian elections, and, through their desired results, triumphantly display to the entire World the marvelous power of his rhetoric which had made him win the American Presidency. But, obviously, his eloquence does not reach the understanding of True Islam mass crowds and power structures. And all his admonishments, with such frightening sentences as: "The World watches Iran", clearly miss their target and contribute only to confusion and to tragic false hopes, as, for this precise example, the Great Ayatollah does not mind that the World watches, or does not watch Iran, as long as Allah may watch the Supreme Leader's accomplishments. Therefore, Obama, the new pupil in the class of Lady History, may now begin to learn the ABC, i.e. that True Islam crowds and structure powers listen to Allah, not to Obama: And learn also, by the way, that Judeo-Christian Democracy will never be compatible with Islam as defined by the Koran. Whether pupil Obama will, maybe one day, understand this moral infrastructure basic and primary Law is finally of rather unimportance. What will become exclusively important is that, in the following historical events to rush in sooner than expected, Barack Hussein Obama may have to go bow eighty degrees to Ayatollah Khameini, and beg him not to wipe off Tel-Aviv, if not for the sake of Israel, at least for the sake of World economy. Here again we can predict that impassive Ayatollah Khameini will answer the President of the USA that the World economy's fate lies in the Hands of Allah and in His Hands alone. Also, after thus grading Obama's lacunal knowledge, Lady History will severely enjoin her pupil to learn that we are now in the eye of the Ideologies Cyclone: Therefore Lady History will certainly ask Obama to get rid, in his exercise book, of some hypnotizing and convenient "UnTruths" which blur the necessary compass to navigate in the tense world maze: Untruth 1: The Israel-Palestinian "problem" is at the core of the confrontation between West and Islam. Al-Qaida, Talibans, Islamic Terrorists and Pirates, etc. could not care less about Israelis and Palestinians: For them, Israel problem is a conventional and efficiently emotional scapegoat and propaganda utensil. But, in reality, they are only interested in grabbing Power from the most powerful... As for Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah & co, the problem of Palestine is simple, or rather, there is no problem of Palestine: Allah willing, Israel must and will disappear, sooner or later: any other solution to this "problem" cannot work. Untruth 2: Economy and education problems fuel Islamic Terrorists candidates. Politicians and commentators have a very short sighted memory: the 9/11 attack on New-York was carried out by educated and university Muslims, and it is most probable that the next attacks on America will be carried out by the same sociological kind of Muslim activists. Unfortunately, the USA, probably by ignorance and lack of security concentration, do nothing really efficient to deter such attacks, despite most sophisticated complacent appearances. Untruth 3: Islam is a global, stable and cohesive peaceful Ideology. The antagonism between Shiites and Sunnites will soon be amplified by the innate dominance trend of IranTheocracy "Revolutions" to replace Petrodollars Autocracies, through Iran glorious "Religious Democracy model": Which means, de facto, to replace Shah, Kings, Sultans, Emirs, etc, by Religious Supreme Leaders, such as Ayatollahs, Mullahs, Ulemas, Imams, etc. Of course this fatal Struggle for Power will become more and more ruthless... Untruth 4: Moderate Islam (1 billion) will triumph over extremist Islam (a few). Moderate Islam dozes in some autocratic (openly or disguised) regimes through anaesthetizing True Islam roots. But, in the end, the vivid Ideological roots prevail invincibly, as continuously demonstrated by Islam History and Development: For example, where and when does take place the International Islamic Council of Ayatollahs, Ulemas, Mullahs, Imams, etc, who condemn, unanimously and irrevocably, bloody Jihad, and dare, thus, publicly contradict the Prophet? Meanwhile, despite Lady History's daily teachings of True Reality, America will go on spending, in the most inappropriate way, billions of dollars and thousands "regrettable" lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc, under a leadership painting complacently in glowing colors a ceaseless Unreality Show: So, the President of the USA will go on trumpeting triumphantly the alluring slogan "Down with Reality Truth!", whatever the price will have to be paid for having so absurdly ignored it! Natan is maverick Expert on War on Terror at ideology-war-observatory.blogspot.com and the Author of the new authentic History of the Temple of Jerusalem. |
|
DOCUMENTS SHOW SAUDI LINK TO EXTREMISTS
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 24, 2009. |
|
This is very sad. We live in a twisted world.
This article was written by Eric Lichtblau and it appeared in today's
New York Times
|
|
WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles. The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers' copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material. The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity. Allegations of Saudi links to terrorism have been the subject of years of government investigations and furious debate. Critics have said that some members of the Saudi ruling class pay off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country. But the thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents compiled by lawyers for the Sept. 11 families and their insurers represented an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence. Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed "support for terrorist organizations" at least through 2006. A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself. Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader. And a confidential German intelligence report gave a line-by-line description of tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers, with dates and dollar amounts, made in the early 1990s by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz and other members of the Saudi royal family to another charity that was suspected of financing militants' activities in Pakistan and Bosnia. The new documents, provided to The New York Times by the lawyers, are among several hundred thousand pages of investigative material obtained by the Sept. 11 families and their insurers as part of a long-running civil lawsuit seeking to hold Saudi Arabia and its royal family liable for financing Al Qaeda. Only a fraction of the documents have been entered into the court record, and much of the new material is unknown even to the Saudi lawyers in the case. The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups. Saudi lawyers and supporters say that the links are flimsy and exploit stereotypes about terrorism, and that the country is being sued because it has deep pockets and was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers. "In looking at all the evidence the families brought together, I have not seen one iota of evidence that Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks," Michael Kellogg, a Washington lawyer representing Prince Muhammad al-Faisal al-Saud in the lawsuit, said in an interview. He and other defense lawyers said that rather than supporting Al Qaeda, the Saudis were sworn enemies of its leader, Osama bin Laden, who was exiled from Saudi Arabia, his native country, in 1996. "It's an absolute tragedy what happened to them, and I understand their anger," Mr. Kellogg said of the victims' families. "They want to find those responsible, but I think they've been disserved by their lawyers by bringing claims without any merit against the wrong people." The Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment. Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, made up of survivors of the attacks and family members of those killed, throwing out the suit on the ground that the families cannot bring legal action in the United States against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to decide this week whether to hear an appeal, but the families' prospects dimmed last month when the Justice Department sided with the Saudis in their immunity claim and urged the court not to consider the appeal. The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that "potentially significant foreign relations consequences" would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed. "Cases like this put the U.S. government in an extremely difficult position when it has to make legal arguments, even when they are the better view of the law, that run counter to those of terrorist victims," said John Bellinger, a former State Department lawyer who was involved in the Saudi litigation. Senior Obama administration officials held a private meeting on Monday with 9/11 family members to speak about progress in cracking down on terrorist financing. Administration officials at the meeting largely sidestepped questions about the lawsuit, according to participants. But the official who helped lead the meeting, Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, has been outspoken in his criticism of wealthy Saudis, saying they have helped to finance terrorism. Even if the 9/11 families were to get their trial in the lawsuit, they might have difficulty getting some of their new material into evidence. Some would most likely be challenged on grounds it was irrelevant or uncorroborated hearsay, or that it related to Saudis who were clearly covered by sovereign immunity. And if the families were to clear those hurdles, two intriguing pieces of evidence in the Saudi puzzle might still remain off limits. One is a 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. The secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers, and the Saudis themselves urged at the time that it be made public. President George W. Bush declined to do so. Kristen Breitweiser, an advocate for Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims' families, the president told her that he was willing to make the pages public. But she said she had not heard from the White House since then. The other evidence that may not be admissible consists of classified documents leaked to one of the law firms representing the families, Motley Rice of South Carolina, which is headed by Ronald Motley, a well-known trial lawyer who won lucrative lawsuits involving asbestos and tobacco. Lawyers for the firm say someone anonymously slipped them 55 documents that contained classified government material relating to the Saudi lawsuit. Though she declined to describe the records, Jodi Flowers, a lawyer for Motley Rice, said she was pushing to have them placed in the court file. "We wouldn't be fighting this hard, and we wouldn't have turned the material over to the judge, if we didn't think it was really important to the case," she said. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
AMERICAN JEWS STILL REFUSE TO SEE THE LIGHT ON OBAMA
Posted by Mr La, June 24, 2009. | ||
|
This was written by Richard A. Baehr, the co-founder and chief political correspondent for the American Thinker. For his day job, he has been a health care consultant for many years doing planning and financial analyses for providers. | ||
|
Two recent public opinion surveys released in Israel and the United States demonstrate that the campaign by President Obama and members of his diplomatic team to criticize and isolate Israel over the issue of settlements in the West Bank is having an impact in both countries. In Israel, a survey sponsored by the Jerusalem Post revealed a stunning result: just 6% of Israeli Jews now regard the U.S. president as pro-Israel. Another 86% regard Obama as either pro-Palestinian (50%) or neutral between the two parties (36%). No American president has ever been viewed in Israel this way, and it has taken but five months for the Israelis to come to understand the new reality in U.S.-Israeli relations — that the special relationship and friendship between the two countries has ended, at least at the level of the U.S. president and his administration. A second survey conducted by the Israel Project to measure support for Israel or the Palestinians in the United States indicates that the withering criticism of Israel by the new administration has taken a toll on support for Israel in the U.S. In five months, support for Israel has dropped from 57% to 49% The administration has made three arguments in support of its new tougher approach with Israel: 1. The Israeli settlements are at the core of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This last argument fully encapsulates the Saudi "peace plan," which may be why the president bowed to the Saudi prince when they met. While it may not be good to appear to be pro-Israel, appearing to be pro-Muslim and pro-Saudi is just fine. Unfortunately for the Obama team, the current unrest in Iran has been inconvenient for their three-part fairy tale of the conflict; making nice to the mullahs and casting aside Israel has not made the mullahs more reasonable and open to the West. So too, it would be hard to argue with a straight face that al-Qaeda would have abandoned their 9/11 attacks if only Israel had frozen settlement growth. It is also inconvenient for Obama that the Islamic terror group Hamas, which controls Gaza, continues to reject any reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority, rejects Israel's right to exist anywhere, and rejects any end to the use of violence to achieve its goals. For Hamas, Israeli settlements that need to be abandoned include Haifa and Tel Aviv. Finally, it has been inconvenient that the administration's point person on Iran, Ambassador Dennis Ross, now moved into the White House to a new job, has specifically dismissed the linkage between the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear program. The administration has made a bet that by focusing on settlements, an issue that has been controversial both within Israel and among American Jews, it can divide and conquer. There are many liberal Jews who are totally in thrall to the Obama agenda on domestic issues and to Obama personally (psychiatric textbooks could be written on this latter item, but regrettably, they would need to be autobiographical). During the campaign, there was concern among some liberal Jews about Obama's history and long friendship with people hostile to Israel such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Professor Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and Samantha Power. To counter this, the campaign rolled out a chorus line of Chicago Jews who could swear for Obama's bona fides as to his love for both Israel and the Jews. For most liberal Jews, Israel is an issue — but not the issue. Abortion rights, separation of church and state, stem cell research, universal health care, saving the planet — these issues are what ignite real political passion for many liberal Jews, not support for Israel. When I appeared on a panel for the NJDC at the Democratic convention, people in the audience seemed annoyed that the subjects of support for Israel or the Iranian threat were even raised as issues. But the poll results from Israel have got to be worrying to the Obama team. Liberal Jews are a critically important fundraising group and voter bloc for Democrats. With the economy remaining very weak and Obama's national approval ratings sagging, the 2010 midterm elections and the presidential race in 2012 could be more competitive than were the Democratic sweeps in 2006 and 2008. Will some liberal Jews step back, uncomfortable with the perception that Obama is hostile to Israel? Has Obama crossed a threshold among Jewish voters, much as Jimmy Carter did in 1979-1980, leading to a greatly diminished level of Jewish support in his run for re-election (Carter won but 45% of the Jewish vote in 1980). To counter this perception, the lapdogs of the Jewish left — in particular, J-Street (a group whose real mission seems to be to reduce the power and influence of AIPAC) and the NJDC — are furiously spinning how Obama is still fond of Israel and the right choice for peace (which presumably is just around the corner if only Israel caved on the settlements issue). It is too early to tell if Obama's near daily haranguing of Israel has cost him any substantial Jewish support at home. Blindness, after all, is not cured by taking off an eye patch. And to be sure, Obama has more public relations skills and personal charm than Carter ever had, and a far more compliant canine-like obedient national media committed to protecting the Obama brand. But there is anxiety out there among some liberal Jews about Obama's cold hand to Israel, coupled with Iran's nuclear program, which despite all the current turmoil is full steam ahead at the moment. Some Democratic members of the House and Senate are clearly sensing there is a problem with a normally reliable constituency group. In recent days Senator Menendez of New Jersey and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have created some space between themselves and Obama by reiterating their traditional support for Israel. So far, there is no evidence that the Obama team (including Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell) is backing off its settlement mantra. As cautious as Obama has been in refusing to support the Iranians on the streets, he has been quite abrupt in his willingness to cast aside decades of ties between the U.S. and Israel. Israeli Jews have caught on that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Will American Jews wake up as well? EDITOR'S NOTE: There was an interesting encounter between two of the readers of the original article.
Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
AZMI BISHARA: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS 'PALESTINE'
Posted by Mr La, June 24, 2009. | |
|
This comes from Carl in Jerusalem, who blogs at israelmatzav.blogspot.com | |
|
I wonder how many of you remember Azmi Bishara, the former Knesset member who walked into the Israeli embassy in Cairo in April 2007 and resigned from the Knesset after he got word that he was about to be indicted for treason for helping Hezbullah aim rockets during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Bishara has not come back to Israel since. Here's an interview with Bishara (in Hebrew) from Israel's Channel
2 television that took place approximately ten years ago. A fuller
translation than what you are about to see will follow the interview
(Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
And here's a more complete translation than what you saw on the screen: In an Interview with Yaron London (Israel's Channel 2, recorded about a decade ago), Bashara said: "I don't think there is a Palestinian nation. I think there is an Arab nation, I think that this (the term "Palestinian nation") is a colonial invention. Palestine, up to the end of the 19th century was southern Syria. Yes folks, I keep telling you, there's no such thing as 'Palestine' or a 'Palestinian.' Even the Arabs themselves occasionally acknowledge that truth when their guard is down. Here's another example. In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians': 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. So why does everyone expect Israel to cut out half of its guts to create a real state for an imaginary people? Why does everyone expect Israel to endanger its own security to give a state to a people that does not exist? posted by Carl in Jerusalem
Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: THE RAMON CRATER IN THE NEGEV
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 24, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: A moment of silence for the death of a legend: Kodak announced this week it is discontinuing its revered Kodachrome slide film, which had fallen out of favor, first by newer films and later by the advent of digital technology. While the technical tools of photography will always impact the craft, it is the artist's vision which shapes the final product more than anything else. Fortunately for me, I received a gift in the fourth grade from a wonderful and prescient teacher who rewarded my prowess in the multiplication tables with a puzzle game called Hi-Q. The game required assembling seven odd geometric shapes into more than 200 different wholes. The game kept me busy for years and apparently I'm still playing as I seek to compose features of the natural environment into moving photographs. This week's image comes from Mitzpe Ramon, the giant crater in Israel's Negev Desert. The crater is vast, barren, dry, and intimidating and I was looking for a way to represent these qualities while also adding a touch of grace to the image. The desert teaches the visitor respect for nature and one can only appreciate its subtle beauty alongside that attitude of respect. I tried this image as a vertical, and although the triangles lined up nicely, that composition lost the expansiveness that is so definitive of the desert. I had been watching the clouds, but couldn't find any earthly complement until I stepped out in front of the small pile of rocks that make up the foreground and give depth to the image. They are a small detail, but a crucial missing link that completes the picture.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
UNSUSPECTING AMERICAN JEWS FUND ANTI-ISRAEL ORGANIZATIONS
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, June 24, 2009. |
|
Funded Groups work with Palestinian Authority, promote Iran nukes This was written by Samuel Sokol and David Bedein and
it appeared yesterday in World Net Daily.
Sammy Sokol is a writer for the Israel Resource News Agency. David Bedein is director of the Israel Resource News Agency. |
|
A U.S. organization has been receiving money from perhaps unsuspecting Jewish donors to support blatantly anti-Israel groups. American Jews wishing to donate money to Israeli causes routinely utilize local city Jewish federations as a middleman. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are sent to Jewish federations across the country with the expectation contributions will be used to aid worthy causes in Israel. Many U.S. Jewish federations as well as individual Jewish donors give to the New Israel Fund, or NIF, a Washington, D.C.-based foundation dedicated to fostering social change and progressive causes in Israel. The NIF budget comes from a combination of donors. These include the Ford Foundation, grant organizations such as the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation and the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, as well as various Jewish communal federations such as the Jewish Federation in New York, the Durham-Chapel Hill Federation and the Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids. However, while many of the programs run by the NIF are considered laudable in the pro-Israel community, such as work the group does with economically disadvantaged Ethiopian immigrants, the flagship grantees of the NIF are Israeli-Arab nongovernmental organizations that openly and unabashedly dedicate themselves to removing the Jewish character of the state of Israel. The NIF disperses hundreds of thousands of dollars for the core budgets of such groups as Adalah: The Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel, Mossawa: The advocacy center for Arab citizens in Israel and I'lam media center for Arab Palestinians in Israel. Supporting Iran's nukes I'lam was founded in the wake of the Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war, initiated in September 2000 after then-PLO Leader Yasser Arafat turned down an Israeli offer of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem. The first director of I'lam was Hanin Zoabi, recently elected as a member of the Israeli Arab Balad Party in the Knesset. Zoabi's party spawned Azmi Bishara, the Israeli Arab Knesset member who fled Israel after he was threatened with prosecution for allegedly aiding the Hezbollah terrorist organization. Balad officials routinely condemn Israel and at times openly present themselves as representing the state of "Palestine." In April, in Zoabi's maiden interview to the Jerusalem Post as a Knesset member, she declared her open support for Iranian nuclear weapons as a counterbalance to Israel. Zoabi, in her capacity as the director of I'lam, helped draft and sign the Haifa Declaration, which called for the negation of Israel's Jewish identity and for a "comprehensive change in Israeli policy, whereby Israel abandons its destructive role towards the peoples of the region. ..." In March, I'lam's so-called empowerment coordinator, Zaher Boulos, issued a "cry of solidarity with the Palestinian people who hold strong to the establishment of a Palestinian state that is independent with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of the refugees to their homes" at the annual conference of the Forum of Journalists, an I'lam affiliate of which he is also coordinator. The conference expressed "support for the Palestinian people in their struggle for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees." Also in March, I'lam issued a press release stating Israel cannot "liquidate the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Arab culture and will be the future capital of a Palestinian state, and tomorrow will be the focal point of the Arab and Islamic world and the progressive forces in the world." The terminology in I'lam's media publications resounds with terms such as "massacre" and "ethnic cleansing," as well as accusations of war crimes and the targeted murder of journalists. Last year, the NIF-funded organization held a conference in Ramallah with journalists from the Palestinian Authority which "aimed to develop and facilitate working relationships between Palestinians journalists in Israel and in the West Bank, and to discuss the role of the Palestinian media on both sides of the Green Line" as well as "exploring strategies for Palestinian media practitioners in addressing Israeli, European and U.S.-American media." I'lam's official statements are representative of the rhetoric employed by some of the NIF's grantees. I'lam posted on its website a statement declaring, "The (Israeli) soldiers are the grandchildren of the Nazis' victims, the Nazis' survivors. They have come here to consume food quickly and consume life quickly. This is the true image of Israel." The statement was made in the context of accusing Israeli soldiers of a "massacre" against Palestinian civilians. The connection of I'lam to the PA is reflected by its current staff. Sanaa Hammoud, the current director of I'lam, was a senior official of the PA's Negotiations Support Unit in Ramallah and served in Jerusalem as a senior communications adviser for the Palestinian leadership. Wadea Awawdy, who served on the founding board of directors of I'lam, worked as a correspondent for the official PA publication Al-Ayyam, which routinely prints anti-Israel propaganda. I'lam's international relations coordinator, Nasser Victor Rego, has issued numerous statements of support for Hamas, terming the Islamist group "The Palestinian resistance," while providing a link on his blog to the website of Hamas' armed wing, the Essedeen Al-Qassam Brigades. Nasser also has called on the international community to boycott Israel. Rego would not return calls to comment on the issue. In addition to receiving funds from the NIF, I'lam is also a grantee of Al-Quds: Capital of Arab Culture, which works under the auspices of both the PA and the Arab League. Among other charges laid against Israel in materials distributed by I'lam are allegations that the Hebrew media contains, "Encouragement for killing and destruction." Other anti-Israel groups Also supported by the NIF is Adalah, which defines itself as a non-partisan human rights organization. However, its agenda differs significantly from its self-definition. Jerusalem-based researcher Arlene Kushner, in her study of Adalah published by the Center for Near East Policy Research entitled "Inside Adalah," finds that "in various venues — including the Durban U.N. conference on racism — Adalah has charged or participating in charging Israel with grave breeches of international humanitarian law, war crimes, willful killing, racism, apartheid [and] ethnic cleansing." Adalah takes the position that the Israeli government is a "junta which proves each day that it is the most fascist and racist in history." In 2007, Adalah proposed a constitution for Israel in which immigration of Jews would be banned except for "humanitarian reasons." With its demand for the right of return for so-called Palestinian refugees, Adalah sees Israel's future as one with an Arab majority, which would create another predominantly Arab-Muslim state. Another group funded by the NIF is Mossawa. Last month, Mossawa and fellow NIF grantee Coalition of Women for Peace wrote to the Norwegian government and asked "the Norwegian people to join us in our efforts and to stop investing in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory." Naomi Paiss, director of communications for the NIF, declined to comment for this report. |
|
MUSLIM RULES FOR SEX WITH ANIMALS — THIS IS WHAT OBAMA TELLS US TO RESPECT
Posted by Cpocerl, June 24, 2009. |
|
— Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Contact C Pocerl by email at at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
SHOOT A SERB: THE MUSICAL!
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 24, 2009. |
|
This was posted by Julia Gorin on her website: |
|
Srdja Trifkovic sent in the following: Take a deep breath and a large whisky. As another tipster on this, named Diana, wrote: "Don't miss the seven-minute youtube [video]. It provides a rare authentic taste of the American view of the world that brought us the Kosovo war...and other tragic farces. I am speechless." A news story by Lynda Edwards and entitled "Ex-Law School Dean
Spins Kosovo Experience Into Rock Opera" describes a musical written
by Hank Perritt, the former dean of Chicago-Kent College of Law. The
article is in the ABA Journal As ludicrous as the concept is, there seemed always something inevitable about a Serb-killing musical, didn't there? Here is an interview with the senile old fool who thought of this. The news clip opens with the song "Shoot Them All". Check out his reference to the "mostly Christian KLA." That's almost like saying "the mostly caucasian Vietcong." (And yes, "Miss Saigon" was his inspiration for this.) Hey, Israel-watchers — if you liked the play about Rachel Corrie, you'll LOVE the musical about the KLA. In fact, the concept is only a few rungs beneath the sequel to Corrie — "Hamas: The Musical!" — given that Hamas is actually more moderate than the KLA. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
NAÏVE US WORLD VIEW OF MUSLIMS; MEDIA PRO-ARAB BIAS; EX-DEFENSE
MINISTER: BUILD MORE SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2009. |
|
HISTORY IN ISRAELI SCHOOLS Israel's curriculum doesn't entirely cover the Jewish people's long history. One subject not approved by the Education Ministry is that of Arab refugees. Arabs are trying to get that subject taken up, as "the Catastrophe." Some educators prepared a kit on it, embodying the Arab view. They are distributing it to teachers without Ministry approval but with the approval of some teachers (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/4). Should the curriculum on the Holocaust advocate from the Nazi point of view? That would be absurd. The Nazi view is false and evil. Same for the Arab view. History is not a point of view. It is a set of facts and judgment derived from the facts. The Arab narrative lies and misleads in order to indoctrinate. The key facts: the Arabs tried to seize the country and exterminate the Jews, lost, and mostly fled. They pretend that Zionists were the aggressors and expelled them. For more on "catastrophes," click here:
DIPLOMATIC BUTTER-UP OF SYRIA Syria will have a vital role in forging peace, said U.S. envoy Mitchell to Syrian leaders and to reporters. "The U.S. has long sought more Syrian help with keeping weapons and fighters from crossing from Syria into Iraq." The Obama administration hopes that this palaver would encourage Syria to help. Mitchell seeks a "relationship built on mutual respect and mutual interest. Syria presently supports Hamas (NY Times, 6/14, A12). Mutual interest and "more Syrian help?" Syria promotes war in Iraq, though sometimes it reduces border crossing temporarily. "Mutual respect?" ISRAEL TRAINING DESCENDANTS OF HISPANIC JEWS In the Middle Ages, Spain and Portugal coerced many Jews to convert
to Christianity. Conversos who secretly practiced Judaism, formerly
called Marranos, now are called Bnai Anousim. Hundreds of their
descendants studied Judaism and are returning to its faith. Israel is
training 70 Bnai Anousim how to defend Israel's reputation
Hundreds of converses in Peru asre taking courses in Judaism and emigrating to Israel (Simon Romero, NY Times, 6/22, A8). NAÏVE U.S. WORLD VIEW OF MUSLIMS White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod explained Pres. Obama's
Cairo speech. It visualizes most Muslims as extraordinary people
simply wanting better lives. This perceives people mainly as
consumers, with similar values and without ideology. Actually, many
people have competing national aspirations and sacrifice for what they
consider higher goals. The U.S. view is insulting and naïve. U.S.
policy should take foreign cultures into account (Dr. Aaron Lerner,
http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis.
6/4).
For Thomas Friedman's world view, at least in part, click here:
MEDIA BIAS IN ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT Reading a couple of NY Times editorials, I was struck by the absence or weak presentation of opposing arguments. The editors made their case unfairly. Opposition cases mostly were brushed off as insufficient. That editorial judgment lacks factual backing. How shall readers and voters decide about the issues? In its news columns, the NY Times picks facts tendentiously or quotes people without giving readers the facts on which to evaluate those quotes. This practice would give equal weight to opposing sides, if the opposing quotes were of equal length and emotional appeal. They are not. Guess which side gets the longer and more emotional quotations? On the Arab-Israel conflict, it is the side that the Times favors, the Arabs. Which Israelis are consulted, if any? The ones that favor appeasing the Arabs. Bias in the Western media is more deeply entrenched, now. The Free World always had difficulty reporting accurately from dictatorships. Dictators can bar or harass nonconforming journalists. The PLO and Syria murdered their own reporters, attacked or threatened Western ones, and the PLO once kidnapped reporters from the NY Times and colleagues. To preserve their lives and livelihoods, Western journalists censor themselves or submit to censorship. The media did not so advise audiences. The Times and the others tried not to repress news of the kidnapping of their employees, as if that were not news. It was news. It was exciting and significant news. Not knowing Arabic or the area, and relishing safety, many Western journalists turned to Arab go-betweens for photographs and local news. Some Arabs want to be professional journalists, others share their people's religious bias. Those in the Palestinian Authority have to cope with more threats than outside journalists — the Arab ones' families may be held hostage to "handlers'" conformity to the official line. Lately, NY Times articles are co-written by Arabs and by American Times reporters. This may not distress the editors much, because the Times mostly favors the Arab side, journalistic ethics be damned. For readers, however, crucial facts are omitted, falsehoods are substituted, one side gets more coverage, wording is value-laden, and picture captions are misleading. The photographs of Israel often show it at its worst or in conflict with the Arabs, in such a way as to generate sympathy for the Arabs. Israeli advances often are ignored. Beautiful settlements are not shown, though their architecture is stunning. Arabs are shown as unhappy, even deprived, though they are unhappy in being unable to deprive the Jews of their lives and property. That the newspapers rarely admit. ISRAELI EX-DEFENSE MINISTER: BUILD MORE SETTLEMENTS Former Israeli Defense Min. Moshe Arens rejects limiting building in Judea-Samaria to "natural growth." He points out that the Jewish people built there not because of "natural growth but because of natural rights." "'Our settlement in the Land of Israel is the basic right of the Jewish Nation,'" Arens said, 'based not only on the Bible and Jewish history, but [also] on international recognition during the times of the League of Nations and the British Mandate.'" He asserted Israeli sovereignty in opposition to demands by President Obama. He also opposes building new outposts without authorization. "Middle East expert Dr. Mordechai Keidar believes that U.S.
President Barack Obama has been misinformed regarding the problems
facing the region. Obama means well, Keidar says, but does not
understand the centuries-old issues of poverty, illiteracy, tribalism
and extremism facing Muslim countries, or how those issues play into
Arab hatred of Israel."
For more on "settlements," click here:
WHAT DO PALESTINIAN ARABS THINK OF STATEHOOD? Most Palestinian Arabs think that the two parts of the Palestinian Authority, Gaza and Judea-Samaria, are too disunited to form a state. Amnesty International criticized both halves for arbitrary detention, torture, and stifling of free speech. "Obama did not explain in his Cairo speech...how he plans to get the
two groups to unite. 'Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize
past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist,' Obama said,
but did not elaborate how this might occur."
For more on Arab statehood, click here:
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY POLICE ATTACK IN JERUSALEM Two Israeli Members of Knesset drove to the Kalandia and Kfar Akeb neighborhoods in northern Jerusalem, to observe illegal Arab construction on Jewish-owned property. Israel has sovereignty throughout Jerusalem. However, Israeli police told MK Eldad and MK Arial that although they had a right to go there, the police would not escort them. The police say they don't patrol there. What did the MKs find there? The observers were accosted by Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police,
who ordered them to stop. The Israelis fled, as the P.A. police rammed
them and called for backup
When not watched, P.A. personnel infiltrate areas they agreed not to. For more on the character of P.A. forces, click here:
For more on informal, secret division of Jerusalem, click here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
MILLER, ABRAMS BOTH SAY SETTLEMENT PRESSURE MISGUIDED
Posted by Mr La, June 23, 2009. |
| This was written by Eric Fingerhut and it appeared yesterday in the JTA news service. |
|
Why has the United States made settlements such a big issue with Israel in the last few weeks? Two veterans of Middle East peace negotiations — from opposite sides of the political spectrum — say they are puzzled by the president's approach. Both Aaron David Miller, who advised Secretary of State Jim Baker on Arab-Israeli issues during the George H.W. Bush and was at the Camp David negotiations during the Clinton administration, and Elliott Abrams, who was deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, agreed last week that the Obama administration's pressure on Israel over settlements isn't the correct move right now. And both said they saw virtually no chance of a conflict-ending agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians anytime soon. They spoke at a Bethesda, Md. synagogue at a forum — sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and t he American Jewish Committee's Washington chapter. The crowd seem jarred from Miller and Abrams' pessimism, after hearing all the hope for a peace deal that has come out of the White House and some quarters of the Jewish community since Obama's inauguration. Miller's criticism of the White House was particularly notable, because he is not opposed to getting tough with Israel — he pointed out that every time the United States has succeeded in achieving a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict, there has been "some measure of unhappiness" and tension. He also believes that settlements are a big problem (although he said even his old boss Baker knew he couldn't get Israel to freeze "natural growth" of settlements). But "as legitimate a problem as settlements are with respect to undermining the environment toward a negotiation," said Miller, they are a "distraction" given all the problems that need to be addressed. "Given the stakes and reality, we are going to need a relationship with Israel of great intimacy in order to do this. We need to think very carefully about how we're going about it, where is the strategy, what is the objective," he said. And while fighting with the Israelis in pursuit of a true "breakthrough" is worth it, he sees virtually no prospect of an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians on the four core issues of Jerusalem, borders, security and refugees. "There's a tension between two realities" that "cannot be reconciled" at that time, said Miller. "The commitment on the part of a young and transformative president who does not want to be the president on whose watch the two state solution dies, competing with the almost unimaginable possibility that Israel and Palestine can enter into a negotiation and reach a conflict-ending agreement." Abrams also said that the settlement issue was not being handled "in a way that is likely to produce the most from Israel," particularly the fact that it was happening "on page one" instead of behind closed doors. "You catch more honey with flies than vinegar," he said. But Abrams added that he didn't understand "how we got to where we are today," considering that media reports have revealed that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas 96 percent of the West Bank along with land swaps that added up to virtually 100 percent and "the answer he got back is nothing." "I would have thought this puts the onus on the Palestinians to do something, I would have thought that offer by Olmert shows the settlement expansion issue is phony" because Olmert's offer was better than the one made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack at Camp David 10 years ago, said Abrams. "I don't understand," he added, the apparent decision "to take the position that Israel is the problem." What is the most significant issue right now? For Miller, it is the Palestinians being able to control security in their territory. "A state must maintain a monopoly over the legitimate forces of violence within its society," he said. "If you do not control all the guns, then you constituents will never respect you, and your neighbors will respect you less." As the night went on, both Miller and Abrams continued to agree — there was no reason to be hopeful about a breakthrough. Abrams noted that while everyone has thought they have known the basic terms of a Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement for decades, such a deal still hasn't happened. Maybe that's because "they don't want them" and "neither side, looking at what the deal would be, is prepared to say OK." Miller essentially concurred, saying, "Neither side is prepared to realistically protect its own interests while meeting the interests of the other side." Why did these two advisers associated with opposite ideological camps find themselves agreeing so much? Miller said it was a "fundamental testament to just how deep-seated and nasty this conflict really is." "I'm not here to say it can never be solved," said Miller, but "America cannot afford to have a policy based in illusion." Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
A WEAK AMERICAN PRESIDENT. BEHOLD OBAMA ON IRAN
Posted by Anne Bayefsky, June 23, 2009. |
|
President Obama has staked his reputation on being a human rights guru to people around the world. But his remarks at Tuesday's news conference and behavior since taking office have instead exposed a different persona — that of human rights charlatan. On June 15, three days after the phony Iranian elections and the same day that seven Iranian demonstrators were murdered, Obama's UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, made a speech in Vienna promoting the Saint Obama vision: "The responsibility to protect is a duty that I feel deeply. ... We must prepare for the likelihood that we will again face the worst impulses of human nature run riot, perhaps as soon as in days to come. And we must be ready. ... We all know the greatest obstacle to swift action in the face of sudden atrocity is, ultimately, political will. ... It requires above all the courage and compassion to act. Together, let us all help one other to have and to act upon the courage of our convictions." A week later there were multiple casualties, injuries and threats, and 46 million voters wrenched away from that doorway to freedom that had opened — if only a crack. But when the president was asked Tuesday: "Is there any red line that your administration won't cross where that offer [to talk to Iran's leaders] will be shut off?" He answered: "We're still waiting to see how it plays itself out." And when asked again, "If you do accept the election of Ahmadinejad ... without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?" He answered: "We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places." And asked again: "Why won't you spell out the consequences that the Iranian people..." He answered: "Because I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out." And yet again: "Shouldn't the present regime know that there are consequences?" He answered: "We don't yet know how this is going to play out." This is a man who embodies the opposite of the courage to act. His appalling ignorance of history prompted him to claim at his press conference that "the Iranian people ... aren't paying a lot of attention to what's being said ... here." On the contrary, from their jail cells in the Gulag, Soviet dissidents took heart from what was being said here — as all dissidents dream that the leader of the free world will be prepared to speak and act in their defense. The president's storyline that we don't know what has transpired in Iran is an insult to the intelligence of both Americans and Iranians. Our absence from the polling booths doesn't mean the results are a mystery. The rules of the election were quite clear. Candidates for president must be approved by the 12-member Council of Guardians. As reported by the BBC, more than 450 Iranians registered as prospective candidates while four contenders were accepted. All 42 women who attempted to run were rejected. So exactly what part of rigged does President Obama not understand? Instead of denouncing the fake election, President Obama now tells Iranians who are dying for the real thing "the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Whose sovereignty is that? The Hobbesian sovereign thugs running the place? Sovereignty to do what? To deny rights and freedoms to their own people? In a state so bereft of minimal protections for human dignity, why should the sovereignty of such a government be paramount? But President Obama didn't want to dwell on the daily reality of sovereign Iran: A criminal code that permits stoning women to death for alleged adultery and hanging homosexuals for the crime of existing. Instead, he repeatedly invoked "respect" for "their traditions and their culture." This is the same mantra he espoused to the Islamic world in Cairo when three times he spoke of the "rights" of Muslim women to cover up their bodies. Knowing full well that women in the Muslim world face the contrary problem of surviving after refusing to cover up their bodies, he never once dared to mention that this was also a human right. What part of cultural relativism and traditional oppression does President Obama not know how it plays out? In his scripted remarks, the president gave the impression of talking tough: "The Iranian government ... must respect those rights [to assembly and free speech]. ... It must govern through consent and not coercion." But with the "or else" pointedly missing from his lines, he made it plain that he continues to have high hopes of partnering with this current Iranian theocracy. "I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people." This Iranian government has told us in deeds, as well as in words, exactly what path it has chosen. President Obama has told us his path also: pandering to Islamic radicals and empty posturing. Ironically, the rest of the world claimed they wanted a weak American president whose foreign policy would read "apologize, capitulate and stand down." Now that they have what they asked for, real human rights victims are being forced to pay the piper. Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at
Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.
|
|
ISRAELI RADIO SHOW CAPTIVATES IRANIANS
Posted by LEL, June 23, 2009. |
|
This is by Yaroslav Trofimov and it appeared in
the Wall Street Journal
|
|
JERUSALEM — In his Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reserved special wrath for "Zionist radio" that he said tried to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic. Such attention from Iran's supreme leader was music to the ears of Menashe Amir, a bespectacled Iranian-born Israeli who has been broadcasting in Persian from Jerusalem for the past five decades. "We're listened to in Iran and considered very credible and effective," Mr. Amir says with pride. "We're close to the Iranian people, we know what they want, and we have our sources that give us detailed news about everything that's going on in Iran." The spread of the Internet and satellite television in Iran over the past decade seemed to eclipse the prominence of Mr. Amir's old-fashioned shortwave broadcasts on Kol Israel, Israel's public radio. But now, as the Web in Iran is either blocked or dramatically slowed and satellite-TV channels are jammed by the government amid spreading unrest, Mr. Amir has suddenly become relevant again. "Today we have many more listeners inside the country because Iranians are thirsty for any information" about the unrest, the 69-year-old Mr. Amir says. He estimates the Iranian audience for Kol Israel's 85-minute daily show in Persian is between two million and six million people. Independent audience numbers, for obvious reasons, are impossible to come by. Though semiretired, Mr. Amir has been hosting the show every day since Iran's controversial June 12 elections, narrating news summaries and taking live telephone calls from listeners within Iran. The call-in part of the broadcast, normally a weekly feature, is now on air daily due to the current unrest. Because Iran bans phone and postal links with Israel, Iranian callers dial a special number in Germany; as a precaution, Mr. Amir asks them not to mention their names or hometowns. On a recent day, as Mr. Amir sat in his tiny studio in Kol Israel's Jerusalem offices, one caller from Iran, his voice trembling with emotion, recounted how "there's blood on the streets and people are being killed like butterflies." Another urged the world to help the protesters — reminding that Persian emperor Cyrus the Great protected and aided the Jews two and a half millennia ago, and asking the Jewish state to repay the favor by supporting Iranian demonstrators today. Mr. Amir hasn't made any calls to sources inside Iran for decades, he says, fearing his voice would be recognizable to anyone who may be monitoring his contacts' phones. But he and other journalists at the service keep in touch via email and other means of electronic communications with local sources. He boasts of being able to beat the competition on anything from the latest price of cheese in Tehran to confidential discussions within the Islamic Republic's establishment. Neatly dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and a tie despite Jerusalem's sweltering heat, Mr. Amir embodies the golden age in Israel's relationship with Iran, the Jewish state's closest regional ally until the shah was overthrown in 1979's Islamic revolution. "I am 100% Iranian, and I wish the best to Iran. Israel and Iran are natural friends," he says, his studio decorated with posters of Iranian movie stars, a printout of an Iranian flag and a family photograph of Prince Reza Pahlavi, the late shah's exiled son and heir. "There are still many who remember the period of fruitful cooperation between Israel and Iran, and they want it back," Mr. Amir adds. Still, Israeli analysts caution, Mr. Amir's vision of renewed Israeli-Iranian friendship is unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future, even if the protesters, led by former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, somehow gain the upper hand in Tehran. "The entire population has been raised for the past 30 years with the cultic mantra of "death to Israel," " says Prof. Ze'ev Maghen, a Persian speaker who heads the Middle East Studies department at Israel's Bar Ilan University. "It's almost impossible to conceive of a positive outlook on peace between Israel and Iran." Born into a Jewish family in Tehran, Mr. Amir worked for Iran's Kayhan newspaper — now the mouthpiece of the Islamic regime — before he moved to Israel in 1960. He is one of some 60,000 such immigrants — a community that still maintains close contact with the estimated 15,000 Jews who remain inside Iran. The community plans a demonstration of support for Tehran protesters on Tel Aviv's seafront promenade Tuesday. Iranian-born Israelis include Shaul Mofaz, until earlier this year Israel's minister of defense, who is often heard in Mr. Amir's broadcasts. An institution in Israel, Mr. Amir, who also edits the Israeli foreign ministry's Persian-language Web site, bristles at suggestions that he must be coordinating his programming with Israeli government officials because Kol Israel is a public broadcaster that targets a strategic foe. "Nobody gives us advice — we're the ones who give advice" to the government, he says indignantly. "We know the Iranian psychology, and can tell exactly what's happened there and what the news means." Mr. Amir minces no word in expressing his outrage over a statement by Meir Dagan, the chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, who told a parliamentary committee last week that the extent of fraud in Iran's contested presidential elections was no worse than what happens in liberal democracies. "If that's what Mossad really thinks, they don't have any idea of what's going on in Iran," Mr. Amir said. Kol Israel, of course, isn't the only foreign radio station broadcasting in Persian. The British Broadcasting Corporation, the Voice of America and U.S.-funded Radio Farda also beam into the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khamenei, however, on Friday singled out Kol Israel, naming it first in his tirade against alleged foreign interference in Iranian affairs. "The enemies are trying through their media, which is controlled by dirty Zionists. The Zionist, U.S. and U.K. radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who supported and those who didn't support the state," the ayatollah said, insisting that all presidential candidates fully accepted the Islamic Republic and its government system. "Accusing the government of corruption because of Zionist reports is not the right thing." Ayatollah Khamenei's diatribes are likely to lure new listeners to Mr. Amir's program, Israeli analysts say. "The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend," explains Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Herzliya. "But, if the regime is so much against it, you have to listen to it." Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
CAN A MULLAH UNDO A MARTYR? IRANIAN AUTHORITIES SCRAMBLE TO NEGATE NEDA SOLTAN 'MARTYRDOM'
Posted by CPocerl, June 23, 2009. |
|
This is from Times Online |
|
The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of a student shot dead in Tehran to take down mourning posters as they struggle to stop her becoming the rallying point for protests against the presidential election. 
Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, 26, was killed as she watched a pro-democracy protest, and mobile phone footage of her last moments have become a worldwide symbol of Iran's turmoil. The authorities had already banned a public funeral or wake and have prevented gatherings in her name while the state-controlled media has not mentioned Miss Soltan's death.
Today it was reported that they had also told her family to take down the black mourning banners outside their home in the Tehran suburbs to prevent it becoming a place of pilgrimage. They were also told they could not hold a memorial service at a mosque. Nevertheless posters of Miss Soltan's face have started to appear all over Tehran. The attempted crackdown came as friends present as Miss Soltan died came forward to detail what happened. 
Hamid Panahi, her friend and music teacher, told the Los Angeles Times how Miss Soltan was shot as they and two others were making their way to a demonstration in Freedom Square in central Tehran. Their car became stuck in traffic on Karegar Street and they got out for some air. Mr Panahi said that he heard a distant crack and saw Miss Soltan instantly collapse to the ground. "We were stuck in traffic and we got out and stood to watch and, without her throwing a rock or anything, they shot her," he said. "It was just one bullet." He later heard other witnesses claiming that the gunman was not a police officer but one of a group of plainclothes officials or Basiji militia. He recalled watching in horror as blood came out of her chest and then began to bubble from her nose and mouth — footage that bystanders captured on their mobile phones and posted on the internet, where she has become a global phenomenon. Mr Panahi said that Neda's last words before she slipped into unconsciousness were: "I'm burning! I'm burning!" A doctor who tried to help ordered him to cover the wound with his hand and press down. A driver coming the other way offered to take her to hospital in his car, but they took a wrong turn down a dead end and had to switch her body to another car. Protesters screamed at drivers to clear away through the jams but Neda was dead before she reached the operating theatre at Shariati Hospital, said Mr Panahi. "She was a person full of joy," he added. "She was a beam of light. I'm so sorry. I was so hopeful for this woman... "This is a crime that's not in support of the government, this is a crime against humanity." Family and friends who called at the apartment in great numbers to pay their respects said that Neda was born in Tehran, the second of three children. Her father is a civil servant on a modest salary and her mother a housewife. After studying Islamic philosophy at Azad university in Tehran, she decided to work in tourism, taking private lessons to become a tour guide and studying Turkish with a view to leading tour groups abroad. She is said to have loved travel and she and two friends had been on package tours to Thailand, Dubai and, two months ago, to Turkey. Persian pop music was one of her passions and she was taking piano lessons. She was also a talented singer. Miss Soltan was not a political activist, said her friends. It was her anger at the election results that impelled her out onto the streets to join Saturday's protest. Friends had begged her not to go, but she replied that she was not afraid to die. "Don't worry, it's just one bullet and then it's over." "She couldn't stand the injustice of it," said Mr Panahi. "All she wanted was the proper vote of the people to be counted. She wanted to show with her presence that, 'I'm here, I also voted, and my vote wasn't counted'. It was a very peaceful act of protest, without any violence." Denied a public funeral, the mourners travelled in minivans to Behesht Zahra cemetery where Neda was laid to rest on Sunday afternoon. It was a muted affair, as they were — to their fury — under official orders not to sing her praises loudly or to mourn her loss. They declined to speak but Mr Panahi said he had nothing left to lose in speaking out. "They know me. They know where I am. They can come and get me whenever they want. My time has gone. We have to think about the young people. "When they kill an innocent child, that is not justice. That is not religion. In no way is this acceptable."
Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com
|
|
ILLEGAL ARAB SETTLEMENT ON JEWISH LAND
Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 23, 2009. |
|
Over 100,000 Arabs Live Illegally on Jewish-Owned Land in Jerusalem and Israeli government and JNF do nothing about it! Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which over the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land, resulting in the current Arab majority. The organization bought the land in the early 1920s using Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement. Arabs first constructed facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of Jerusalem . The bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment complexes taking place in just the past two years. Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the illegal building, which continues today. (Why isn't President Obama talking about this illegal expansion of Arab settlements?) Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com |
|
THE OBAMA EFFECT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 23, 2009. |
|
And what message does it send to the world that he (Obama) and his team think that it is appropriate to make a photo op trip for ice cream as Iranians risk their lives on the streets of Teheran? 
Something is very wrong in the White House. Either no one on the Obama understands this — or perhaps even worse — even though there are people on the team who know this, they won't tell him — or he won't listen. This below was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday
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. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com Editor's Note: The cartoon above is by John Cole. It appeared June 1, 2009 on the Townhall.com website; it was not part of the original article. |
|
"Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect, after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?" So asked Helene Cooper, the New York Times' diplomatic correspondent in a news analysis of the massive anti-regime protests in Iran published in Sunday's Times. It took US President Barack Obama eight days to issue a clear statement of support for the millions of pro-freedom demonstrators throughout Iran risking their lives to oppose the tyranny of the mullahs. And after eight days of vacillating and hedging his bets and so effectively supporting Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei against the multitudes rallying in the streets, Obama's much awaited statement was not particularly forceful. He offered no American support of any kind for the protesters. Indeed, it is hard to say that in making his statement, the American president was speaking primarily as an American. He warned the likes of Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose goons are currently under orders to beat, arrest and murder protesters, that "the world is watching... If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion." According to several prominent Western bloggers with direct ties to the protesters, Obama's statement left the Iranians underwhelmed and angry. But as Cooper sees it, the protesters owe their ability to oppose the regime that just stole their votes and has trampled their basic human rights for 30 years to Obama and the so-called "Obama effect." Offering no evidence for her thesis, and ignoring a public record filled with evidence to the contrary, Cooper claims that it is due to Obama's willingness to accept the legitimacy of Iran's clerical tyranny that the protesters feel emboldened to oppose their regime. If it hadn't been for Obama, and his embrace of appeasement as his central guiding principle for contending with the likes of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, as far as Cooper is concerned, the people on the streets would never have come out to protest. By this thinking, America is so despised by the Iranians that the only way they will make a move against their regime is if they believe that America is allied with their regime. So by this line of reasoning, the only way the US can lead is by negative example — which the world in its wisdom will reject. While Cooper's analysis gives no evidence that Obama's policies toward the ayatollahs had any impact on the tumultuous events now sweeping through Iran, it does make clear that the so-called Obama effect is a real phenomenon. It just isn't the phenomenon she claims it is.
THE REAL OBAMA effect on world affairs relates to the US media's unprecedented willingness to abandon the basic responsibilities of a free press in favor of acting as propagandists for the president. From Cooper — who pretends that Obama's unreciprocated open hand to the mullahs is what empowered the protesters — to Newsweek editor Evan Thomas who referred to Obama earlier this month as a "sort of God," without a hint of irony, the US media have mobilized to serve the needs of the president. It is hard to think of an example in US history in which the media organs of the world's most important democracy so openly sacrificed the most basic responsibilities of news gatherers to act as shills for the chief executive. Franklin Delano Roosevelt enjoyed adoring media attention, but he also faced media pressures that compelled him to take actions he did not favor. The same was the case with John F. Kennedy. Today the mainstream US media exert no such pressures on Obama. Earlier this month NBC's nightly news anchorman Brian Williams bowed to Obama when he bade him good night at the White House. On Wednesday ABC News will devote an entire day of programming to advancing Obama's controversial plan to nationalize health care. Its two prime time news shows will be broadcast from White House. Good Morning America will feature an interview with Obama, and ABC's other three flagship shows will dedicate special programming to his health care reform program. On the other hand, ABC has refused Republican requests for a right of reply to Obama's positions. The network has also refused to sell commercial advertising time to Republicans and other Obama opponents to offer their dissenting opinions to his plans. This media behavior has been noted by the likes of Fox News and the handful of other US news outlets that are not in the tank for Obama. But the repercussions of the Obama effect on US politics and world affairs have been largely ignored. THE MOST IMPORTANT repercussion of the US media's propagandistic reporting is that the American public is denied the ability to understand events as they unfold. Take for instance The New York Times*' write-up of Khamenei's sermon this past Friday in which he effectively declared war on the protesters. As Russell Berman pointed out in the Telos blog on Saturday, the Times' write-up was misleadingly selective. The Times did not mention that Khamenei ascribed world events to a Zionist conspiracy which he believes controls the US. It similarly failed to mention his long rant against the US for the FBI's 1993 raid on David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Had the Times — and other major media outlets — properly reported Khamenei's speech, they would have made clear to their readers that he is not a rational thinker. His view of world events is deeply distorted by his hatreds and prejudices and paranoia. But then, if Times readers were permitted to know just how demented Khamenei's views of the world are, they might come to the conclusion that Obama's intense desire to sit down with him, and his constant pandering to Iran's "supreme leader" are ill-advised and counterproductive. They might come to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve a meeting of the minds with a man who calls Americans "morons" and leads his subordinate government officials in chants of "Death to America," "Death to Britain" and "Death to Israel." And if they came to these conclusions, how could Obama be expected to affect anything? Sunday, Cooper argued that Obama has changed the course of history in Iran simply by being the US president. In her words, unnamed Obama supporters claim that "the mere election of Barack Obama in the United States had galvanized reformers in Iran to demand change." And Obama's power as president to change the world is not limited to Iran. As far as his media servants are concerned, his "mere election" is
responsible for everything positive that has occurred in the US and throughout the world since last November.
TAKE HIZBULLAH'S defeat in the Lebanese parliamentary elections two weeks ago. As far as the US media are concerned, it was Obama's speech to the Muslim world on June 4 that emboldened the Lebanese to back the anti-Syrian March 14 slate of candidates. Never mind that his speech — which refused to condemn Iran for its support for terrorism and its nuclear weapons program — actually strengthened Hizbullah's position by demonstrating that the US would take no action against its Iranian masters. As far as the US media were concerned, Obama won the election for Hizbullah's pro-Western rivals. Yet this is not true. According to actual electoral data, what swung the balance towards Saad Hariri's March 14 camp was Hizbullah-allied Christian leader Michel Aoun's failure to convince Lebanon's Christian minority to acquiesce to Hizbullah's takeover of the country. And Lebanese Christian voters did not reject Hizbullah because Obama is President of the United States. They rejected Hizbullah because the Maronite Christian Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir warned them on the eve of the election, "We must be alert to the schemes being plotted for us and thwart the intense efforts which, if they succeed, will change the face of our country."
WHILE OBAMA'S supporters in the US media are certain that Obama's "mere election" is responsible for every positive development on the world scene, they are equally certain that he bears no responsibility for the negative developments that have happened so far on his watch. For instance, the fact that North Korea chose to escalate its nuclear brinksmanship shortly after Obama took office with a promise of appeasing Pyongyang is considered irrelevant. The fact that he ordered deep cuts in the US missile defense budget as North Korea tested a long-range missile and a nuclear bomb, and that he has maintained these cuts despite North Korea's announced plan to launch a missile against the US on July 4 has gone largely unreported. Furthermore, the US media were quick to celebrate the UN Security Council's recent resolution against North Korea which calls for inspections of
suspicious North Korean ships travelling in international waters as a great Obama achievement. But they failed to inform the public that the resolution has no enforcement mechanism. Consequently, today the USS John McCain,
which is tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying ballistic missiles, lacks the authority to interdict it and inspect the cargo.
OUR WORLD today is complex and fraught with dangers. Some of these dangers are new, and some are old. All require serious discussion. In free societies, the media's primary responsibilities are to report current events to the public, place those events into an historical context to enable the public to understand how and why they occurred, and to present the public with the options for going forward. It is due to the media's historic role in maintaining and cultivating an informed discussion and debate about current affairs that they became known as democracy's watchdog. When media organs fail to fulfill their basic responsibilities, they degenerate quickly into democracy's undertaker. For an uninformed public is incapable of making the sorts of decisions required of free citizens. Obama and his media flacks would have us believe that by speaking of American values and by distinguishing friend from foe, former president George W. Bush raised the hackles of the world against America. Perhaps there is some truth to this assertion. Perhaps there isn't. What they fail to consider is that by genuflecting to tyrants, Obama has made the US an international laughingstock. Far from sharing their adulation of Obama and his cool demeanor, most of the nations of the world believe that the US has abandoned its leadership role. And unlike the US media, they realize that America has no understudy. Unfortunately, unless the Obama effect wears off soon, by the time the American people become aware of this fact it may be too late to make a difference. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
THE VIOLENT CONFLICTS IN IRAN: WHY IS THE WORLD SILENT?
Posted by Nurit, June 23, 2009. |
|
This was written by Ben Kaspit and Ben Dror Yemini.
It appeared in Hebrew at |
|
The European Left, the Democrats, the Liberals, the leaders of the West, all go rampant when Israel attacks the Gaza Strip. Where are they now? Why Obama, Blair, Sarkozy keep on sitting on the fence at the time that Iranian Regime is slaughtering protestors and crushing their basic right to be able to protest? Tell me, where is everyone? To where have they vanished, all those who protested against Israel's violence during Operation Cast, Lead or the Second Lebanon War, or Defense Shield or even the Hague when we were dragged there by our hair when we dared to try build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bomber? Here and there we see protests but they are mainly Iranian immigrants. In principle, Europe is calm and relaxed. Likewise, the USA. Here few dozens, there few thousands. What, they have vanished because it is Teheran, and not here? Is it possible that all those Europeans who chase peace and justice, British professors who strive for freedom and equality, the friends who fill up the newspapers, the magazines, the academic gazettes with their variety of different demands the ban Israel, undermining Zionism, and blame us and our country for all of the world's suffering and morbidity, have gone on a long vacation? Now of all times, when the Basij militia forces hooligans have begun slaughtering innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? What, they are not connected to the Internet? They do not have YouTube? Terrible virus infected their computer? Their justice glands were removed in a complicated surgical procedure (so they can be successfully re-transplanted for the next conflict or operation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extreme Islam regime slaughters its citizens their only sin is their strive for freedom, the world is silent? Can you imagine that this was not happening now in Teheran, rather, as noted, here; let us say in Shchem (Nablus). The Palestinians spontaneous protests would have turned into an on going blood bath. The border patrol troops, armed with knives, on motorbikes would have slaughtering protestors. A young woman would have been shot in the bight day light by a sniper, dying in front of the camera. Obama is stuttering Actually, why imagine? It is possible to simply recall what happened with the Al-Dura kid. This issue (we need to admit very difficult) flooded the world from one end to another. The fact that afterward came an independent investigation that arose difficult questions regarding the type of the weapon from which Al-Dura was shot, did not make any difference to anyone. The Zionists were responsible for that. And where are the leaders of the world? Where is Obama's wonderful rhetoric ability? Where has his sublime treasure of words disappeared to? Where is the inclination that is supposed to be built in any American President to defend and to come to the aid of those who seek freedom anywhere on the face of the planet? What is this stutter? Someone who is connected to the Iranian events and security said yesterday that if Obama would have demonstrated in regard to the Iranian issue a quarter of his determination that his demonstrates when he attacks Israel on the settlements in the territories issue, everything would have looked different. "The protestors in Iran are begging for help," the man, who served for many years in senior posts, said. "They need to know that they have a back, that there is a world out there that supports them, but instead they see apathy. That is all happening in a very critical stage of this struggle on the soul of Iran and on the freedom of the Iranian people. It is so sad." The West is indifferent Or for example, the European Union (EU). The one that the height of justice and peace is on its lips each day of the year. Why its leaders aren't declaring openly (with open mouth) that the world wants Iran free and democratic and will give her unconditional support? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still attached to dark places? The poor excuse that such support will be sufficient for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to have a pretext to call the protestors "the West Agents," does not hold water. As it is they call them "the West Agents," so what is the difference? To think that only half a year ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, Leftists and Islamists carried pictures of Nasrallah the proxy child of the Ayatollahs' regime. The fact that we are talking about a dark regime did not bother them. We are speaking about mania but it does not seep in and affect the tired West. If there is a truly free world, let it appear at once! And will, for instance, impose sanctions on those who slaughter their people. Just like they imposed sanctions on North Korea and the Burmese regime. It is a matter of will not ability. Apparently, when it comes to Iran, something happens to the international community adherence to justice and peace. The oppression is clear and known. The Internet age transmits everything live. And this is good. Bullies on behalf of the regime are shooting and stabbing many protestors that are screaming for freedom Do we need anything else? Apparently yes. Because this will not help. The West remains pathetic. Obama is inexperienced. And why he should not be, after all he aims for a dialogue with the Ayatollahs. And this is nice, really nice, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder in the streets. At this stage there is a need to forget the manners rules. Continuing sitting on the fence The voices that Obama makes raise the suspicion that perhaps we have in fact business with a new version of Chamberlain. Appeasement is a good quality especially when it comes after George Bush's clumsy militarism, but when appeasement becomes blindness, we have a serious problem. The brave voice of Angela Merkel, who, yesterday, announced her peremptory support for the Iranian nation and its right for freedom, is for the meantime a voice calling in the West desert. It is a pity though that she does not declare a total economic sanction, based on the fact that we are talking about a European country that is the most invested in Iran's infrastructure. The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband joined her. It is too late, it is not enough. Mullions, demanding freedom, went into the streets in Iran. And the West in on the fence. One foot here, one foot there. There is another Islam. Today it is already clear. Even in Iran. There, there are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, and women's equality. These millions despise Khamenei, also Chaves, and also Nasrallah. However, part of the tired Left prefers the Ayatollahs' regime to them. The main thing that they wave flags against Israel and the USA. The question is why the Democrats, the Liberals, and Obama, and Blair, and Sarkozy continue sitting on the fence. It is not a separation wall, it a fence of shame. Contact Nurit by email at nurit_g@ca.rr.com
|
|
RAW COURAGE... A BLIND MAN JOINS THE PROTESTS IN TEHRAN
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 23, 2009. |
|
The Iranian people did not see the murder of Neda on TV. But, they heard about it. Maybe they saw it on the internet. Maybe they heard about it from a friend. Today Iranians left flowers on the streets of Tehran in remembrance of Neda. (Iran Press News) In related news... The regime is charging families of those
murdered by government forces a "bullet fee" before they can take the
body of a loved one from the morgue.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
US FALLS BEHIND FINLAND, YES, FINLAND!
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 23, 2009. |
|
This was written by Judith Apter Klinghoffer. It appeared in
History News Network
|
|
President Barack Obama is about to hold a press conference in the Rose Garden and liberal blogger, Nico Pitney, is hopeful that finally, finally, Obama will condemn the bloody repression in Iran which Pitney has so passionately and tirelessly documented. He is not alone. Last night I saw David Gergen on CNN lose it. Yesterday, E.J. Dionne expounded on the Liberals' Iran Dilemma. Liberals wish to avoid criticizing their "chosen one" but they can no longer bear his amorality and stubborn refusal to face an unwanted reality: Obama's initial caution served the interests of freedom by making clear that the revolt against Iran's flawed election is homegrown. As the struggle continues, we cannot pretend that we are indifferent to its outcome. To be honest, he is mighty late. The UN, Britain, France, Germany, Czech Republic and Finland have all preceded him. The Finnish government says it told Iran's ambassador to Finland that Tehran must release opposition leaders, recount votes and resolve the election dispute peacefully. Dionne argues that those who opposed the president's wish to engage Iran have it easy as they have been proven right. He has a point though speaking for myself, I would have been delighted to be proven wrong. Be that as it may, Barack Obama is my president, too. As such he represents me and in this past week he did it in a manner that left a bitter taste in my mouth. It will also go down as a shameful moment in American history. Obama said he admired Reagan but, when the moment came, he behaved as cravenly as George H. Bush in 1989. And, yes, the world has been watching! Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: TURMOIL AND CONFUSION
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 23, 2009. |
|
You may have your own take on how things will turn out in Iran, and right now it seems to me that whatever you would project has no more or less validity than what the "experts" have to say. For very few agree on the prognosis for the rebellion that has been taking place, whether it will fizzle or is the beginning of the end for the current regime, etc. Certain things are clear, however: Even if Mousavi were to become victorious (a possibility that is fairly moot at this point), this in no way would mean the world was home free. Nuclear development would continue, as he was part of the original plans for such development, and the mullahs would still be in charge. As it is, the Iranian regime has come out against compromise. Today the electoral authority in Iran, the Guardian Council, announced that "no major fraud or breach in the election" had been discovered, and that "therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place." Never mind that the Guardian Council had previously acknowledged "irregularities" in the election. There would need to be a genuine popular rebellion (some signs of which we are indeed seeing now — whether the rebellion succeeds currently or not) for there to be a change in policy. But what started with a protest over electoral fraud has become more. There are conflicting forecasts: either that even if the rebellion fizzles now the seeds have been sown and things will never be the same there again, or that the regime will come down more repressively than ever, squelching all rebellious efforts. ~~~~~~~~~~ In passing I note this, which is fairly obvious, but merits recognition: What a different world we live in today, when those rebelling on the street can send Internet messages appealing for help and updating the world with text and pictures. When there is Facebook and Twitter, and all the rest. Seems to me a rebellion can no longer be contained in quite the same way, no matter the repressive forces. ~~~~~~~~~~ President Obama has pretty much fallen on his face with regard to Iran. It is not my wont to quote Shmuley Boteach, but he is right on the mark here: "Of all the sins which a leader can be guilty, few are as egregious as the simple refusal to lead. Watching President Barack Obama's at first deafening silence and then weak and hyper-cautious words on Iran has been disappointing and painful. Our president must decide if he will serve as leader, or spectator, of the free world. This time no one is asking an American president to send in troops; no one is suggesting the deployment of laser-guided bombs. All it takes is a forthright statement from the leader of the free world: 'The people of the United States support the people of Iran in their legitimate quest for democracy and freedom and will hold accountable any and all parties responsible for the bloodshed of nonviolent demonstrators.' "Pretty easy, right? Our president doesn't think so... "...Forty-six years ago another young charismatic president went to the very symbol of Soviet oppression in Berlin and directly inserted himself into Soviet affairs by identifying himself with the people who were risking their lives for liberty. 'All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner.' With every passing day I grow more concerned about what might be termed the Obama doctrine. What is it? As best as I can discern, it is a preservation of the status quo. As Obama himself put it, 'America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.' "Rarely before has an American president spoken out so forcefully in favor of moral relativism." (emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~ The supreme irony is that while Obama stands on his head to avoid what he calls "meddling" in Iran, the regime is accusing him of meddling. ~~~~~~~~~~ It pleases me that our leaders have now decided to speak considerably more forcefully on Iran. Yesterday Foreign Minister Lieberman called for involvement of the UN Security Council in the course of a statement that was clear and direct. In Ottawa to meet with Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, he expressed his position to the press: ...that what has been going on in Iran was the result "of a crazy regime (this man does not mince words) shooting at its citizen in the streets. Everyone needs to be clear about the danger of that type of regime holding nuclear weapons. "...the events in Iran over the last few days obligate a clear response from the international community, first of all to convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council." ~~~~~~~~~~ PM Netanyahu, for his part, focused more on the positive. In an interview with the German newspaper, Bild, he said: "What would be good news for Israel is a regime that stops crushing dissent, stops supporting terror, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons. He further said that what the regime had done had "unmasked" them. "What we have seen in Iran is a powerful desire on the part of the people to be free..." ~~~~~~~~~~ Tom Gross, writing on the National Review Online Blog, asks, "So were the Neo-Cons right all along?" "President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we're seeing now in Iran?" ~~~~~~~~~~ Today Netanyahu started a three day visit — to Rome, first, and then Paris. In his meeting with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Iran was discussed at considerable length. Italy is one of the EU nations most kindly disposed to Israel, and interaction is warm and cordial. What is startling is that Italy is also the number one European trade partner with Iran, accounting for 26% of the import-export trade between EU countries and Iran. Berlusconi said this would continue as long as the US approved. ~~~~~~~~~~ On another score: Just days ago, PM Netanyahu, in his major address, advocated a "demilitarized state" for the Palestinians. I may return to this with further detail, but wanted to mention here that this concept is not being well-received. Obviously not with the Palestinians, who won't hear of it, but in other quarters as well, notably with the Obama administration. There is the issue of rendering the "Palestinian state" demilitarized, which means physically removing armaments from them, and then making certain they stay that way. Netanyahu has since expanded on his original statement, saying that he wasn't asking for international forces to go in, but rather for their recognition that Israel would be able to do what was necessary in this respect, and that Israel would reserve the right to go into that state after its formation, if necessary. It seems to me that the big problem here is that he decided, in a nod to Obama, to label this area he was proposing for the Palestinians a "state," rather than using a term such as "autonomy." Because what he is describing isn't a state and now he is in a catch-22 situation of his own creation. A state has a right to sanctity of borders and a right to defend itself. And he is suggesting that we would be able to cross the borders of this "state," and deprive it (this is all theoretical, of course) of the means for self-defense. It's not going to play, I think. (Although Berlusconi endorsed it today.) ~~~~~~~~~~ After Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) made a visit to the Temple Mount, the Islamic Wakf complained that this was a deliberate provocation and that the visit had not been coordinated with Muslim authorities in advance. MK Taleb A-Sanaa (United Arab List) said the purpose of the visit was to "inflame" the area, and Aharonovitch would "suffer the consequences." Excuse me? But Aharonovitch's media advisor, Tal Harel, just shrugged it off, saying "There will always be such comments." The fact is that the purely routine visit indeed was coordinated with the Wakf and representatives of the Islamic presence on the Mount accompanied Aharonovitch. I deplore the fact that the Muslims act as if our Temple Mount is exclusively theirs, and I wait for the day when their misimpression will finally be corrected. At least now I see some hope of this down the road. ~~~~~~~~~~ State Department spokesman Ian Kelly yesterday, when responding to a question, said that the US demand for a freeze on settlements includes everything over the Green Line, even eastern Jerusalem. You understand, eastern Jerusalem is not just the Old City — which would be bad enough. We're talking about Israeli Jewish neighborhoods in existence for many decades, such as French Hill and Ramat Eshkol. This is part of Israel proper — all of it. In their dreams! ~~~~~~~~~~ According to a State Department release of June 18, before he met with officials of Hamas, former president Jimmy Carter met with Near Eastern Affairs Bureau Deputy Assistant Secretary David Hale and National Security staff. Does this mean the Obama administration implicitly sanctioned this meeting? Wouldn't exactly be surprised. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, the Obama administration has apologized for not attending Durban 2. Anna Morawiec Mansfield, Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Mission in Geneva also expressed gratitude "to the many country delegations and senior UN officials who worked steadfastly to ... re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on the global fight to eliminate racism and racial discrimination." ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to share a radically different take from that of Ms. Mansfield. This, from Gerald Steinberg, of NGO-Monitor (and I'm delighted for the opportunity to write this): The change in tone for Durban 2, Dr. Steinberg related in a recent talk at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was a victory for Jewish organizations. We were blind-sided at Durban 1, for we had no idea what was about to take place there, especially in the NGO forum. What emerged was not just a declaration, but a strategy to be implemented — it was after Durban 1 that we heard about the "Apartheid wall," and the "Jenin massacre." Boycotts were initiated and charges of "collective punishment." All with intent to delegitimize us. A pattern emerged: an NGO makes a charge against us, the media pick it up, the UN makes a condemnation, and then academics come on board. ~~~~~~~~~~ But for Durban 2 we saw it coming, and a host of major Jewish organizations (NGOs) did an astonishing amount of cooperative planning. Lobbying began early to convince nations not to attend; by the time of the conference, 10 countries had announced they weren't going to participate. This immediately undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings. At the same time, the Jewish community had learned to work the system. Jewish, pro-Israel groups registered for the conference and in the end outnumbered the anti-Israel NGOs present. This time no separate NGO forum was permitted, but the NGOs who were accredited for the conference could speak at the main event and hold side events. And the presence of the Jewish groups reversed the atmosphere to a considerable degree. They brought in real victims of racism — such as from Darfur — to speak; Eli Wiesel was brought, as well. They brought in the French students who dressed as clowns during Ahmadinejad's talk — disrupting it and making a pointed statement. A proud effort which must be sustained in other venues. ~~~~~~~~~~ This has come to me via several reliable sources and so I pass it along: The specialty retail grocery chain Trader Joe's is being targeted by anti-Israel groups for boycotts because it has refused to bow to demands to remove Israeli products from its shelves. Please, if you have a Trader Joe's in your area, make a point of patronizing it as extensively as possible — and letting the management know why you are offering support. Additionally, buy Israeli products from the store and let the management know you are pleased that these are being carried. You can find a list of store locations here:
~~~~~~~~~~ From time to time I would like to present links to videos that you might find interesting. Here is an absolutely amazing pro-Israel speech by NJ Senator Bob Menendez.
Watch it, and thank him for it — especially if you are in NJ.
~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" It gives me special pleasure to write about this, announced by a spokesman from Rambam Hospital: Lieutenant Asael Lubotzky, serving in the Second Lebanon War as part of the Golani Brigade, was seriously wounded by a direct anti-tank missile hit in the course of the horrific Battle of Bint Jbeil in July 2006. He was taken to Rambam Hospital with severe burns and injuries to both legs. Those tending him expected him to lose his right leg. However, Dr. Alexander Lerner, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon at the hospital, was determined to save both of Lubotzky's legs. Lubotzky underwent 20 operations and a long rehabilitation. Dr. Lerner told him that one day he would break the glass (a traditional Jewish practice) under the chuppah (wedding canopy) and he would be there to witness it. This past Sunday, Asael Lubotzky wed Avital Shimal, and under the chuppah he used his right leg to break the glass, on his very first try. Dr. Lerner was there, of course, and said "the joy was very great." Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA AS HONEST BROKER" — JOHN PODHORETZ' CLARIFICATION OF TERMINOLOGY
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 23, 2009. |
|
This was written by John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary Magazine. It is called "The Turn Against Israel." |
|
BARACK OBAMA began the first week of June 1 with a series of interviews on the eve of his journey to Cairo to deliver his address to the "Muslim world." In all of them, he spoke of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the central importance of resolving it as part of his aim of beginning anew with the Arab and Muslim nations that have grown so disenchanted with the Unites States. To National Public Radio, the President made a point of invoking the ties that bind America to Israel and the "special relationship" between the two nations before asserting that part of being a good friend is being honest and I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region." The President is, of course, entirely right about how "profoundly negative" the "current direction, the current trajectory, in the region" is for American and Israeli interests. A theocratic regime committed in word and spirit to Israel's destruction is relentlessly marching ahead with the development of nuclear weaponry. The conclusion of its march poses not only a threat to Israel's existence but portends a Persian Gulf arms race with implications that ought to terrify everyone. This is precisely the kind of "new dialogue" Israel and the United States should be pursuing in the Middle East — honesty about the trajectory of Iran. But, of course, honest discourse about Iran was not the fearless truth Barack Obama wished to bestow upon Israel or the Muslim world. Rather, his honesty solely concerned the trajectory "settlements" — which is to say, those acres between Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea on which people now live that have not been declared part of the state of Israel by the international community. The President's honesty compelled him to inform his friend these acres of earth have been improperly and illegally built upon, and that their existence imperils the creation of the Palestinian state he believes is a political and moral necessity. Obama's notion that presidents before him have not been "as honest as we should be" about the settlements is a peculiar one. Every occupant of the Oval Office since Richard Nixon has spoken unfavorably about them. Indeed, when it comes to policy specifics, it is hard to see exactly how Obama has ushered in a new era of "honesty" in the U.S.-Israel relationship. And yet there is no question that we have entered a new era, one that I expect will be characterized by tensions and unpleasantness of a kind unseen since the days when George II. W. Bush was president, James A. Baker III was secretary of state and the hostility toward Israel oozed from both men like sweat from an intrepid colonial traveler's brow as he journeyed across the Rub-al-Khali. One tiny detail gives the game away: Obama's very use of the word "honest" It was carefully chosen, and is pregnant with meaning. In the matter of relations between nations, the adjective, "honest" is often deployed to denote animosity. When, for example, a State Department official describes a discussion between diplomats as "open and honest;' that description is presumed to mean that the proceedings were heated and confrontational. And in the relations between the United States and Israel, "honest" has a provenance that cannot be ignored, It is most often used as part of a two-word phrase whose euphemistic purpose has long been to criticize American closeness to Israel and assert that any such intimacy needs to be abandoned in favor of a more distant, distinctly cooler posture. The phrase is "honest broker;' as in, "the United States should serve as an honest broker in the Middle East." It goes back at least 30 years, and seems first to have entered the realm of American cliché in tribute to President Jimmy Carter's role in the Camp David peace process between Israel and Egypt. The success of that negotiation led to calls for the United States to continue to serve as an "honest broker" when it came to the relations between Israel and the 21 other Arab countries that, unlike Egypt, continued to refuse to recognize its existence. Therein lay the flaw in the "honest broker" idea whereby it was exposed for the disingenuous notion it was. For Israel's only offense to those nations was its very existence. There can be no honest deal-brokering if one party refuses to accept the reality of another. The term suggested each party had equal weight and equal standing, but that was precisely not the case with Israel and the Arab states. The Arab nations had the geopolitical weight; Israel had the moral standing. What the honest-brokers actually meant when they said that the United States should play an uncommitted role was that we ought to keep our distance from Israel in order to maintain good relations with Arab states. Many of these nations, after all, not only sat atop mammoth oil reserves but whose potentates were also genial and lovely hosts, in contrast to the informal and stiff-necked sabras who simply didn't know how to act in a courtly fashion toward the starched foreign-service officers who served as the nation's emissaries. It was only in the l990s, when Yasir Arafat was parachuted into the West Bank from his exile in Tunis and reinvented as a negotiating partner for Israel, that the phrase began once again to find purchase. For now, at last, there was a deal to be brokered; the Palestinians were now at the table, eager to claim the land Israel had taken in war. Those who advocated for the Palestinian cause argued that the only way such a thing was going to happen would be if the United States were to serve as an "honest broker — that is to say, implicitly, as the representative of the Palestinians in the negotiation. Indeed, effectively, that is what the Clinton administration did do, so well that it all but designed a Palestinian state, induced then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to accept it, and then went into slack-jawed shock when Yasir Arafat rejected it and started a terror war instead, Nonetheless, those in the "honest broker" camp believed the Clinton administration compromised by its acceptance of the phrase "special relationship" and Clinton's own expressions of closeness to the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Such is the nature of those who hunger for the "honest broker" role — nothing less than a breach with Israel will do. The honest brokers presume that the United States has tilted in Israel's direction for all sorts of reasons, all of them corrupt, corrupted, and corrupting. The government is always being manipulated, according to the "honest-brokers" by the all-powerful Israel lobby, the all-powerful neo-conservatives or the all-powerful born-again Christians. Also claimed is that Presidents hunger for the Jewish vote in Florida and Pennsylvania, and therefore betray America's true interests. For the honest-brokers, then, American support for Israel is always viewed as dishonest.
PEOPLE will argue about the text of Obama's Cairo address as long as he is president, because he is to plain-spoken clarity what blue-hued cotton candy is to nutrient. But, the message he was delivering to his own State Department, to his own diplomats who will be carrying out his policies, was plain: The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself. A great deal is, however, expected of Israel. Settlements are to be frozen, including their "natural growth?' Israel must bolster the Palestinian economy, provide Palestinians with jobs and make things better in Gaza. Israel is to give; the Palestinians are to receive. Israel's giving is to be accompanied by a promise of reduced violence. Palestinian receiving will be accompanied by Israel's surrender of more territory beyond the entirety of Gaza and the near-entirety of the West Bank already in Palestinian hands. Israel, the president asserts, will be better off if all this happens. Trust him. He's Israel's friend. A better friend than anyone else, remember, because he's willing to be honest about Israel's need to sacrifice itself on the altar of nothing more than a promise, and maybe not even that. And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted (except for the 80% of American Jews who voted for Obama with such zeal and devotion — jsk) during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass — with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
OBAMA'S OPINION OF EGYPT; OBAMA'S SPEECH HAS MANY PROBLEMS/FLAWS; ARAB MK VS. ZOA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2009. |
|
HOW FAR POLITICS GO IN ISRAEL President Obama says his foreign policy goal is better relations with the Muslims. Accordingly, the U.S. has been demanding that Israel change its national security and national identity policies to suit State Department appeasement of the Arabs. Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of Israel to resist such U.S. demands. He has been rebutting U.S. demands sometimes forcefully but not by denunciation. His chief rival, the Kadima Party, accuses Netanyahu of trying to
make Obama seem the enemy, in order to unite Israelis behind him.
Netanyahu replies, is Kadima working for the U.S.?
It seems strange of Kadima head Livni to accuse someone of trying to make Obama seem the enemy, when she is among those Israeli leftists who urge the U.S. to interfere in Israeli policy in behalf of Israel's enemies. Obama has been so one-sided, admits he is trying to change Israel's policies [to ones that would endanger Israel], and is blocking an Israeli raid on Iran's menacing nuclear weapons facilities. Unable to persuade the majority of their countrymen, some of her colleagues ask the U.S. to pressure Israel to adopt rejected policies. I think that Kadima goes too far. I think that Netanyahu has not gone far enough in refuting Obama's policy rationalizations. For more on how much the government imposes on its people, click
here:
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OPINION OF EGYPT President Obama said that Egypt's President Mubarak is not "authoritarian" and is "a force for stability and good in the region."
Egypt's President bans some political parties, arrests dissidents, controls the media, discriminates in favor of Islam, and allows police to persecute Christians. He supports certain terrorist movements, so long as they don't threaten Egypt. How is that not authoritarian, destabilizing, and bad for the region? Contrast Obama's praise for such an Egypt with his specious condemnation of Israel. Is Obama's praise valid? To help decide, click here:
7 MORE PROBLEMS WITH OBAMA'S SPEECH 1. Much about President Obama's speech in Cairo has not been discussed. For example, he said Jerusalem should be a secure home for the three faiths there. [Doesn't he know that it is, under Israeli control? It would not be, if removed from Israeli control, as has been our experience.] 2. Obama wants Israel to remove the Jews from Judea-Samaria. He did not indicate whether he included part or all of Jerusalem in that demand. MK Yaakov Katz called the demand antisemitic, because it discriminates against Jews [while accepting the Arab presence in Israel]. Telling them they can't add rooms to a house in the whole area is like telling them they can't have more children. MK Katz noted that some of Obama's advisers are Jews, but that that does not mitigate the anti-Jewish policy with which they concur. [He still makes drastic demands without explaining why Arabs and not Jews would be entitled to that area, nor why the U.S. should interfere. Not mentioning Jerusalem is a cagey way of stating demands lower key, so as not to alarm as many people. Vague demands leave the door open for more demands.] 3. The Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were called a separate people. [I have written often that they are not. Relatively recently they claimed to be, in order to bolster their claim to it. Obama is repeating the big lie.] 4. "President Obama said that just as the Holocaust cannot be denied, Israel must recognize the right of Arabs to a PA state, which he called Palestine." Israeli MK Eldad thought the comparison false. The Jews were innocent victims of prejudice. The Arabs attempted to do what the Nazis did, but lost their war. Any subsequent Arab suffering from that debacle is their own fault [The Holocaust is a fact. The right of Arabs to another state in Palestine is not a fact. It is the goal of some, based on curbing the Jews' right of statehood, recognized under international law, in the Palestine Mandate. The case against another Arab state ever was dealt with publicly by the U.S. government.] 5. "President Obama insisted that 'Israel must live up to its obligations' for economic opportunity for Arabs and implicitly compared the situation of Arabs with that of blacks in 19th and early 20th century America." [Which Arabs? What obligation has Israel to provide for them? They are trying to bring down Israel. Why then should Israel help the enemy economy? Comparing Arabs with blacks implies falsely that Israel represses the Arabs. This is unfair of Obama, even malicious.] 6. "He also demanded a total halt to terrorism, warning that 'moral authority' is not claimed by rockets and bus bombings, but held out the opportunity for the Hamas terrorist organization to deny violence and recognize Israel." [Since the U.S. continues to subsidize terrorists, his warning is lip service for domestic politics. It reduces his own moral authority. Inviting Hamas to deny violence and recognize Israel is fatuous. Hamas exists for violence, for conquest of Israel, and for imposing a global caliphate upon the world. If Obama doesn't know that, he isn't fit to be President. If he does know, well, that's unthinkable!] 7. Obama described the Muslim religion as one that 'emphasizes the
idea of religious tolerance..." MK Eldad thought it foolish to
anticipate that sacrificing Israel for an Arab state would resolve
distant problems with Islam, such as in Darfur, India, and Europe
Obama claims to understand Islam, but he got that key aspect wrong. Islam emphasizes conquest of other faiths and humiliation of Christians and Jews. How much slack should we cut Obama, in his attempt to cool off Islamic annoyance with the U.S.? I think he could make that point without lying. He lies a lot. I think he cools off the U.S. too much, making it less alert to the menace of jihad. His strategy would sacrifice Israel to the Muslims. Success in one theater facilitates and rouses Muslim attempts to triumph elsewhere. Obama endangers the U.S.. To see the earlier discussion, click here:
HOW TO GAUGE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT So long as the Arabs refuse to let Jews live amongst them in Judea-Samaria, and instead demand an apartheid state, the Arabs' inability to make peace remains obvious. The answer is to build more settlements, to serve as a thermometer of Arab intent (idea of Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4). One also should evaluate what a new Arab state would be like, so
click here:
ARAB MEMBER OF KNESSET VERSUS U.S. JEWISH LEADER The President of the Zionist Organization of America (Z.O.A.), Morton Klein, visited Israel's parliament with other U.S. Jewish leaders for a meeting with Israeli leaders. He encountered Arab Member of Knesset (MK) Tibi, former aide of Arafat. He asked Tibi why he registered at the Doha conference as a representative not of Israel but of "Palestine," which does not exist. He asked whether it was appropriate for a Member of Knesset to take certain anti-Israel positions, that Klein named, such as calling Israel "apartheid." According to the many witnesses, Tibi became hysterical and falsely accused Klein of assaulting him physically and verbally. He called for security guards. When they arrived, he admitted that he was not assaulted physically. Nevertheless, the security guards escorted Klein out. Knesset speaker Rivlin told the guards not to let Klein return until he apologized personally to Tibi. Klein asked why he should apologize merely for asking questions and not for having done anything wrong. Klein simply stated, via intermediary, that he intended no offense. He was permitted to return. Tibi boasted that Klein gave him an official apology. Steve Goldberg, Klein's deputy, told Tibi to stop telling that lie. Goldberg, too, asked Tibi questions about his anti-Israel stances. Tibi became hysterical, again. He lied, again, this time claiming that both verbally assaulted him. The many witnesses pointed out that Klein hadn't said anything, this time. Tibi relented about Klein, but had guards escort Goldberg out. Tibi attributed Klein's opposition to him to anti-Arab prejudice. "Klein retorted, 'No, I have a problem with him because he is anti-Israel and also a Knesset member.'" MK Danon remarked, "There is no reason a Jewish leader who spends his life defending Israel abroad should have to go through this travesty in the Knesset building. I am proud Klein did not apologize, and I commend him for the questions he asked Tibi." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4 from Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.) Notice that even the Israeli Arab representative does not recognize Israel, as indicated by his registering in Doha as from "Palestine." Notice his false accusations and hysterical behavior when someone asks him pointed questions! That is what jihad really is like. As for the Israeli reaction, the Knesset Speaker let Tibi abuse his position. For more on ZOA, click here:
5 MORE FLAWS IN OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH 1. President Obama visited Saudi Arabia, where Christians are not allowed to worship openly. Next, in Cairo, he claimed to understand Islam and that it is tolerant and allows religious freedom. [It bars Jews and Christians from some of their holy sites, etc..] 2. On most issues, Obama says that all points of view should be heard, because we are not infallible. But the "two state solution," Obama says, must be imposed because everybody knows it is right. Not everybody agrees with him, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, who happens to be Prime Minister of Israel. 3. Obama said, "At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." The two states are mutually exclusive, because the Arab one would try to destroy the other. Dr. Aaron Lerner asks, "And where is it etched in stone that a Palestinian (Arab) 'autonomous state', where Palestinians enjoy self rule but are denied the means to destroy the Jewish state is not acceptable?" 4. Arabs contend that Israeli settlement building violates prior agreements and undermines peace efforts. They quote a clause in the Interim Agreement, ""Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." Housing does not change the legal status of any area. Therefore, it is not an Israeli violation. Why don't the Arabs say that their building violates the agreement, too? [They ignore logic, facts, or justice but not religious conquest.] Actually, Jewish housing puts pressure on the Arabs to come to terms and actually make peace. The more Jewish houses go up, the less land Israel is likely to be willing to relinquish to the Arabs. Israel should go in for extensive housing in the Territories, to put more pressure on the Arabs. Jewish housing traditionally was an answer to Arab terrorism. It is an affirmative, non-violent answer. Many communities were named after victims of terrorism. The terrorists, heroes to the Arabs, become less popular when their crimes seem to end in more Jewish houses. 5.The Pope regrets the need for Israeli security measures. Pres.
Obama doesn't refer to the need for those measures, he wants them
dropped. He demands instead that Israel make it easier for Arabs to
move around
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
AN IRANIAN GIRL NAMED NEDA
Posted by Teresinka Pereira, June 23, 2009. |
|
She believed in her right to protest in the public square. She was wearing her veil of obedience to the religion of the country where she was involuntarily born. A bullet came from above where a coward militia was hiding and stopped her young heart, the only weapon she had to demonstrate her power becoming a martyr. How do you explain your treason against the youth of your country YOUR HOLINESS AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI? Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com |
|
ADORABLE! PALESTINIAN KINDERGARTENERS GRADUATE, DO "VICTORY DANCE" AROUND IDF BODIES
Posted by UCI, June 22, 2009. |
|
 In case you can't make it out, those children on the left are carrying a model of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Presumably the Hamas cretins in charge of this brainwashing were worried that the eliminationist undertones might be too subtle. Which begs the question: was this held at a UN-funded educational center or at one of the ones that the Europeans have poured millions into: The society is headed by Muhammad Abd al-Jawad Fura, a preacher who serves as a PIJ leader in the Gaza Strip. On June 3, 2009, a website associated with the PIJ (Pal Today) published photographs from a graduation ceremony display of kindergarten children organized by the Dar al-Huda society (kindergartens are the society`s main focus of activity). The ceremony was held at Rashad al-Shawa Center in Gaza City. A show put on during the ceremony (similarly to activities held in Hamas-associated kindergartens in recent years) featured kindergarten children dressed in uniform and carrying (obviously plastic) arms confronting and killing IDF soldiers. There were more child abuse pictures proudly published in Al-Fateh, Hamas's Britain-based children`s newspaper. The kids staged a gun battle, faked a kidnapping, and some, dressed like IDF soldiers, pretended to kill Palestinian children. Proud family members beamed on from the audience. It was like a school production of Cinderella. Only genocidal. The photos come courtesy of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which has six months worth of this filth plus a backgrounder on the paper`s Syrian Muslim Brotherhood editor-in-chief. You should click through, if only to take a gander at the wide variety of blood libel cartoons getting fed to Palestinian and Western Muslim children.       References: * The hate industry: Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) continue to inculcate the values of hate and support of terrorism in Palestinian children, viewed by those terrorist organizations as a highly important target audience. UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" |
|
IF YOU WANT TO INFLUENCE BIBI
Posted by Israel Resource News Agency, June 22, 2009. |
|
50 letters to the right person in Israel are more important than a
petitition of 5,000 which gets dumped in cyber space.
David Bedein runs the Israel Resource News Agency Center for Near East
Policy Research Ltd., which is located in the Beit Agron Int'l Press
Center in Jerusalem. To call from the USA: 215 240 4919
|
|
PM NETANYAHU: NO FOREIGN TROOPS IN PA TERRITORY
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 22, 2009. |
|
This was written by Herb Keinon, and it appeared today in The Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184892341&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull). |
|
The international guarantees Israel is seeking to ensure that a future Palestinian state remains demilitarized does not mean the introduction of foreign forces, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the cabinet at its Sunday meeting. Expanding on his speech last week at Bar-Ilan University in which he said international guarantees were necessary to make sure a future Palestinian state would be demilitarized, Netanyahu said rather that Jerusalem wanted international acceptance of the principle that Israel could take the actions it thought necessary to ensure the future state's demilitarization. "We need effective measures to ensure demilitarization," Netanyahu said. "The existing ones in Lebanon and Gaza are not effective." Netanyahu said that Israel wanted international recognition for the idea of a demilitarized state to avoid a situation wherein Israel would withdraw from territory that was to be demilitarized, the Palestinians would violate that agreement and then Israel would be blamed for going back into the Palestinian territories to destroy weapons. The prime minister stressed that Israel's security could not be safeguarded without demilitarization, and that demilitarization did not detract at all from Palestinian self-determination. "I don't understand why for self-determination the Palestinians need Kassam and Grad rockets," the prime minister said. "I understand they need a strong police and security apparatus, and we encourage that, but do they need tanks, artillery or rockets?" Alluding to the situation in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu said that Israel, based on its experience there, had the full right to demand that a future Palestinian state be demilitarized. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said that any progress with the Palestinian Authority on negotiations in the West Bank must include the reversibility of the situation in the Gaza Strip, and the disarmament and demilitarization of that region. Steinitz said that a dangerous precedent would be set if negotiations moved forward with the PA on Judea and Samaria, but there was no demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. He said a demilitarized Palestinian state also meant a demilitarized Gaza Strip. Regarding the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people, Netanyahu said this was necessary to ensure that any agreement reached would put an end to all Palestinian claims on Israel. Netanyahu added, however, that neither the demilitarization of a Palestinian state nor Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state were preconditions for entering into immediate talks with the Palestinians. He said that Israel had no preconditions, and expected the same of the Palestinians. The PA leadership has made clear it would not enter talks with Israel until it recognized a two-state solution and stopped all settlement construction. Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, during the cabinet discussion on Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan University speech, said that over the past 16 years successive Israeli governments had created a "dangerous asymmetry" whereby Palestinians speak of their "rights" to the land, and Israel only speaks of its "security." Ya'alon said Israel needed to speak about the Jewish right to the land as well. The Arabs, he said, have the right to live everywhere in the country, from the Galilee to the Negev — while in the country's political discussion it was taken for granted that there would eventually be areas, as is the case in the Gaza Strip today, where it is forbidden for Jews to live. Ya'alon said it was necessary to change the thinking that in an era of peace, Jews would have to move out of Judea and Samaria, and that the idea — for instance — that Jews could not live in Beit El under Palestinian sovereignty was one that needed to be changed. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
ENOUGH PEOPLE HAVE WISED UP TO ITS GANGSTER PRACTICES SO ACORN WILL 'REFORM' BY CHANGING ITS NAME
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 22, 2009. |
|
As Kevin Mooney writes in the Washington Examiner
(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ ACORN-drops-tarnished-name-and-moves-to-silence-critics-48730537.html): "ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics." The new name is "Community Organizations International." That's so blah. Why don't we all help ACORN find a new name? After all, how better can we help our wonderful president
retain the valuable services of a group that could raise the pride of
homeless people by registering each of them to vote, not once as we
mere mortals do, but half-dozen times at a clip? A group that could
gather a mob in a Mohammad-cartoon second and get it to storm banks,
demanding the members of the mob and their buddies be allowed to buy
houses that cost so much they couldn't on their own buy the
unrenovated attic toilet. A group that payed Barack Obama to train
community So why don't we have ACORN-naming parties. Gather your friends together. Or start an internet group. Gather all the facts about ACORN to help inspire people to come up with appropriate names. For starters, look at the review here. Also see "Acorn's 'shock troops'" and especially "Barack Obama's Acorn Tree." Maybe we could have state tournaments and finally a grand tournament? What do you think? |
|
Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) leaders are using the threat of a law suit to silence and intimidate critics, according to current and former members of the liberal activist group. In a letter dated June 11 an attorney for ACORN advised top whistleblowers that their unauthorized use of the organization's name could make them liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief. ACORN executives have also changed their organization's name, which was tarnished by investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign, and charges by current and former members of financial mismanagement and misrepresentation. The new name will let ACORN leaders continue their operations without worrying about prior bad publicity, according to Marcel Reid of ACORN 8, a group of present and former members. "We've known for many months now that the name ACORN is going to be retired," Reid said. "The name has been so damaged to the point where the leadership knows it simply can't go on as it has with the ACORN label out front and center, especially after all of the reporting." In fact, the process has already begun, she noted. Wade Rathke, who founded the organization, announced on his blog that ACORN International has officially changed its name to "Community Organizations International." Reid also said ACORN is in the process of dismantling Citizen's Consulting Inc. (CCI), a New-Orleans based non-profit, which has been used to maintain centralized financial control, ACORN 8 activists claim. Tax records show that CCI is interlinked with several ACORN affiliates. Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled almost $1 million from the organization in 1999 and 2000, while he was employed as the organization's chief financial officer with the CCI affiliate. For almost a decade Wade Rathke and other staff members concealed the embezzlement from ACORN's board of trustees, according to the criminal complaint ACORN 8 members filed against the organization. ACORN's national leaders withdrew a lawsuit Reid filed with fellow board member Karen Inman last October seeking access to internal financial records. Reid and Inman were also expelled from their board positions; a move they say was illegal. Reid and Inman then came together with six other colleagues to form ACORN 8. "ACORN has to be decapitated," Reid said. "The senior staff and current national board should be dismantled. The only way to have reform is for the current leadership to be removed completely. We also need a forensic audit." Arthur Schwartz, the general counsel for ACORN, has sent a "cease and desist" letter to Reid and Inman instructing them to discontinue using the name ACORN in a connection with their activities. This same letter threatens legal action if the ACORN 8 members do not provide written assurances that they will comply with this demand by the end of June. "It is a violation of federal and state law for you to use the ACORN name and mark without the written permission of ACORN," the letter states. "Should you continue to do so, you will be liable for monetary and injunctive relief." Reid told The Examiner that ACORN 8 will not comply. "We have no intention of not using the name ACORN 8, it is not a trademark infringement," she said. "This get tough attitude is part of larger attempt to silence people and shut them down. We are not going to be silenced." Meanwhile, ACORN's Project Vote affiliate has filed suit against Anita MonCrief, a former employee, who has testified under oath on voter registration allegations. ACORN is currently under investigation in at least 14 states for electoral irregularities. The Project Vote suit claims that Anita MonCrief and an unidentified accomplice gained access into private e-mails from group executives and stole the group's name without permission. It also accuses Moncrief of using a company credit card for her own purposes. "ACORN is attempting to silence me, and the allegations in the lawsuit are false," MonCrief said in statement emailed to The Examiner. ACORN 8 has released its own statement on "whistleblower retaliation" through its national spokesman Michael McCray that expresses support for new protective legislation. "On behalf of the national board of ACORN 8, we are all saddened by and express great concern due to ACORN's court action filed against whistleblower Anita MonCrief," the statement reads. "While we do not express an opinion on the merits of ACORN's complaint; we as reform advocates decry the tactic of suing whistleblowers — especially, low to moderate income people who do not have the financial means to effectively fight back in courts of law. Moreover, this is yet another example of why congress must enact strong corporate, government and tax-payer funded whistleblower protection laws." ACORN 8 has endorsed H.R. 1507, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009. |
|
WHY IRAN'S BRUTAL REGIME MUST NEVER GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 22, 2009. |
|
Friends,
Journalist Tom Gross has posted videos of the Iranian uprising on his website. This regime, being treated with kid gloves all over the free world, is a Nazi-like dictatorship. When Israeli stood up for itself against Gazan terrorists who had been lobbing bombs into Israeli kindergartens for eight years, Britain, France, and the U.S. were up in arms. The New York Times wept. The L.A. Times swooned. Somehow, all these same arm-chair liberals are eerily silent about the Iranian dictatorship's bloody repression of its freedom-loving citizens with the courage to stand up against the Islamo-fascists in charge of their lives. Naomi |
|
So were the neocons right all along? President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we're seeing now in Iran? As Bush said, liberty isn't American, or British, or French. It is human. No, the morality police in Iran are not just "part of Iranian culture" as some critics of Bush have claimed. Nor are public hangings. Nor are arbitrary detentions of doctors, or Holocaust denial conferences. Peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy. Whatever the "foreign policy realists" or "regime apologists" might claim, there is little doubt in my view that should Iran become a free nation the world will be a safer place for all, not just a better place for Iranians. I have posted some videos of the Iranian uprising on my website and I would
strongly urge you to watch them. (Item 3 here:
They show the reality of Iran's dictatorship, a reality that many international TV networks are refusing to show. Some of these videos are disturbing but I feel they need to be watched to understand the true nature of Iran's regime and why it should never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. I have not included those which are too bloody to watch. To state the obvious, this is not some video game or Hollywood movie. These events really happened, and they happened last week, and the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, has been extraordinarily slow to criticize them. 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. |
|
OBAMA REACTS TO IRANIAN CHILDREN BEING SLAUGHTERED: PRESIDENTIAL PRIORITIES
Posted by Cpocerl, June 22, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Atlas Shrugs website |
|
From Atlas Shrugs: Think about the howls of outrage from the Left if George W. Bush played golf while people were being shot dead on the streets of Tehran. (hat tip Katherine) Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
EXCITING ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR ISRAELI CONTROL OF HOLY LAND!
Posted by CIPAC, June 22, 2009. |
|
The following article describing an exciting new archaeological find near ancient Jericho of the largest underground quarry in the Land of Israel, uncovered by a Haifa University team, promises to be a treasure trove for scholars and tourists interested in Jewish, Christian and Roman history. Just back from his latest fact finding and Israel support mission to the Land, Richard A. Hellman, President of CIPAC, the Christian lobby for Israel now in its 20th year, points out that this demonstrates still another reason why Christians, Jews and others worldwide should support Israeli control over all of the Holy Land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan valley. Only Israel — over the course of more than 61 years now — has protected the rights and the holy sites of all religions and peoples under its control. Sadly, the Arab record has been far poorer. For example, Jordan destroyed synagogues in Jerusalem's old Jewish Quarter and desecrated Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives, Judaism's most revered ancient burial ground, while Jordan occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River from 1948 to 1967. More recently the Palestinian Authority has allowed the destruction of the traditional Jewish holy site of the patriarch Joseph's tomb in biblical Shechem, today called Nablus, and let the Moslem Wakf trash the priceless caverns and foundations under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during underground mosque construction, with no archaeological surveys or protection of Jewish, Christian or other artifacts. In regular visits to Israel each year CIPAC and other groups find sites that Israel controls are open, safe, well-marked and inviting, while those under Palestinian Authority control are not so. Therefore, says Hellman, we cannot afford to let any of these priceless world treasures of the Holy Land pass out of the skilled and caring hands of Israel, the only nation in history that has protected them and opened them fully for the safe and comfortable study of scholars, pilgrims and tourists alike. For details or more discussion, including media interviews, contact CIPAC at www.cipaconline.org or call 202-234-3600 This below is entitled
"Ancient Holy Land Quarry Uncovered, Team Says" and
was written by Ari Rabinovitch for Reuters
|
|
JERUSALEM (Reuters) — Israeli archaeologists said on Sunday they had discovered the largest underground quarry in the Holy Land, dating back to the time of Jesus and containing Christian symbols etched into the walls. The 4,000-square-meter (yard) cavern, buried 10 meters beneath the desert near the ancient West Bank city of Jericho, was dug about 2,000 years ago and was in use for about half a millennium, archaeologist Adam Zertal said. The cave's main hall, about three meters tall, is supported by some 20 stone pillars and has a variety of symbols etched into the walls, including crosses dating back to about AD 350 and Roman legionary emblems. Zertal said his team from Haifa University first discovered the site three months ago while they were putting together a detailed archaeological map of the area. "We saw a hole in the ground ... and went down and discovered this giant cavern, originally a quarry, built uniquely with hall after hall," Zertal told Reuters. The team believes the stones were used in buildings and churches in the region, but Zertal said further research was necessary. The site may eventually be turned into one of the largest underground tourist sites in the Holy Land, he said. |
|
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION APOLOGETIC FOR NON-ATTENDANCE AT DURBAN II
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 22, 2009. |
|
This comes from Eye On The UN organization, Anne Bayefsky, editor. Contact them by email at info@EYEontheUN.org |
|
The 11th session of the Human Rights Council, which ended on Friday, included two apologies from the Obama administration for missing Durban II. Obama officials also lauded countries and UN officials for working to improve the Durban II outcome and re-focusing the conference on fighting racism. No effort was made to distance itself from the actual conference — which sported an antisemite as opening speaker — or its outcome which singled out and demonized Israel as racist. The administration is pursuing actively its new policy of engagement at the Council and ingratiating itself with the human rights abusers who count as Council members and biggest supporters of the Durban process and its outcome. So in the context of the first Council discussion since the conclusion of the conference of Durban and the UN "anti-racism" agenda, two U.S. officials declared on June 16th: "It was with regret that we did not join the recent Durban Review Conference." In the words of Anna Morawiec Mansfield, Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Mission in Geneva (speaking during the "interactive dialogue" with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance), and repeated by Mark Cassayre, First Secretary of the United States Mission in Geneva, in a later discussion: "It was with regret that we did not join the recent Durban Review Conference. We are deeply grateful to the many country delegations and senior UN officials who worked steadfastly to improve the outcome document and to re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on the global fight to eliminate racism and racial discrimination." The Obama administration had made a similar statement when they finally pulled out on Saturday night April 18th just 36 hours before the conference began. But that was before Durban II handed a global microphone to opening speaker Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Although the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and Secretary-General Ban KiMoon had the speech in advance, both sat glued to their seats as Ahmadinejad declared (among other things): "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces." Durban II also adopted a declaration that once again approves of singling out Israel and alleging Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism. As High Commissioner Pillay bragged at a news conference on the final day, the Durban II document further demonizes Israel: "The DDPA [Durban Declaration and Programme of Action] includes ... one paragraph which mentions the suffering of the Palestinians ... Palestine is mentioned ... in the DDPA, and the word "reaffirm" carries those paragraphs into this document." But apparently the actual events at Durban II and its results are not enough to justify for the Obama administration an unapologetic policy of non-attendance. On the contrary, this administration used the opportunity at the Council session to refuse to distance itself from the conference, the appalling behavior of senior UN officials, the failure to re-focus Durban II on a genuine fight to eliminate racism, and its actual outcome. Instead, Obama officials bent over backwards to issue an obsequious unprincipled statement about working to improve a meeting and its result while fully aware that those improvements never came — unless they mean eliminating international support for modern antisemitism was just one "improvement" among many that fell off the negotiating table. Music to the ears of the human rights violators in the audience. Embarrassing for those touting Obama's human rights credentials. For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org . Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
WHERE ARE AMERICAN JEWS?
Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 22, 2009. |
|
This was written by N. Richard Greenfield, publisher of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger.
It appeared in
Jewish World Review
|
|
"Mark my words," Vice President Joe Biden told donors a few months before the election, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barrack Obama ... We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to need help ... to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right." One could easily have said the same thing about American Jews and their relationship with Israel. It is being severely tested. As it turns out, Israel is indeed the focus of U.S. pressure and bullying. The threat to peace in the Middle East, says our current administration, emanates not from Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihad or Arab nationalism, but from Israel. The U.S. is casting Israel in the classic Jewish role of scapegoat, blaming her for all of the region's problems. President Obama has embraced the ever-ready and willing State Department's negativity towards Israel and, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leading the way, is making demands about Israeli 'settlements' which are harsh and uncompromising. At the same time, State ignores Arab illegal construction which is happening on a much wider and broader scale. State conveniently ignores the fact that if land were truly the issue, Israel and her Arab neighbors would have been at peace for the last 60 years. Even though State has always been biased against Israel, it has never had a Presidency to work with that was in such complete consonance with its views as the Obama Administration is today. The resulting bullying of Israel by the U.S. is without parallel in American-Israeli relations. In the last month an undersecretary of defense unilaterally discussed Israel's nuclear capability. In the doing, a long-standing U.S.-Israeli agreement to publicly avoid discussion of this topic was broken. Defense is tampering with previously agreed-upon arms deals by denying Israel the right to make adaptations on equipment that Israel deems essential. Effectively, they are moving the long-promised F-35 fighter from Israel's grasp and, instead, Israel will put a good face on buying decades old F-15's and upgrading them to her specifications. At the same time, Egypt is being offered top of the line attack helicopters from a defense department that knows Egypt's only potential adversary for these weapons is Israel. Meanwhile, Marine General (ret) Keith Dayton is training and arming a 5,000 man Fatah security force designed to secure a Palestinian state on land Israel has not yet ceded. At the UN, Susan Rice is changing U.S. policy from one of support to belligerence. General James Jones, the President's National Security Adviser is touting Presidential Adviser Samantha Power's suggestion that an armed international force including American soldiers enter Judea and Samaria to force the Israelis to make a Palestinian state happen. General Dayton is already training such a force of Fatah soldiers in Jordan, presumably for this task. Meanwhile, George Mitchell, the special envoy to the area, is picking apart previous agreements telling Israel to conform to his selected conditions, while ignoring the obligations to which Palestinians were supposed to have been bound. All of this while rockets still fall on Israel from Gaza, and Fatah and Hamas fight running battles on West Bank streets. The U.S. media notes all of this pressure and gleefully speculates that it will eventually topple the recently elected Netanyahu government. Mahmoud Abbas, the nominal head of Fatah, says he is waiting for this to happen before seriously considering negotiations. He is hoping the U.S. can get everything he wants before he even sits down with the Israelis. Where are American Jews during all of this? It seems they are still divided along pre-election lines. As individuals, most Jews who voted for Obama last November are content to ignore Israel's agony in the face of U.S. pressure because they still trust the President on other issues. They ignore the threats to Israel's safety and security and are blind to America's infringing on Israel's sovereignty as a free and democratic nation. Not coincidently, Soros-funded anti-Israel groups have popped up promoting the scurrilous conclusions of the infamous Walt-Merscheimer report which was rife with accusations of Jewish-American's dual loyalty and Israel's culpability for every ill in the Middle East. If this continues, and there's little to indicate it won't, Jews will have to make painful and difficult choices between their support for Israel and their preference for other policies of this administration. This choosing will play out during the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections. The President is leaving them little room to maneuver, as there are even stories, unofficial so far, of U.S. political and economic sanctions against Israel if she doesn't accede to Obama's demands. Without a strong American Jewish voice in support of Israel much is at risk. The solid coalition for Israel in the U.S. Congress is in the process of weakening as Democrats in Congress continue to find the pressures from Rahm Emmanuel and others difficult to resist. If Jews go silent during the 2010 elections and allow apathy, fear or political preference to prevent them from speaking up for Israel, the bullying will increase and the worst and most deadly outcomes will become real possibilities. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
EULOGY FOR JIMMY CARTER
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 22, 2009. |
|
This was written by Julia Gorin and posted on www.PoliticalMavens.com |
|
I know he's not dead yet, but like so many newspapers which compose obituaries years in advance of a major figure's death — just to be ready — I've been sitting on this one for a while. And I just couldn't wait anymore. I also figured it's best to publish now, since it's wrong to speak ill of the dead. On the other hand, from the looks of it, Carter might never die. So just in case he never dies, I didn't want this eulogy to go unseen. Please note that any proper tribute to Carter must necessarily come in the form of a poem. Being a big fan of poetry, when Carter was a member of the Georgia legislature, he and the other Democrats would sit around the capitol building analyzing Bob Dylan songs. And recall this past January how actress Renee Zellweger gushed, "I have a crush on Jimmy Carter. I admit it. He has an extraordinary mind. He's an exceptional human being. And he writes poetry, for crying out loud. He's all good things." Including a Jew-killing enabler. She even stood in line for 2.5 hours in freezing temperature so he could sign her copy of his latest volume of The Protocols. And so herewith, my poetic eulogy in honor of a hero to Muslims and Nazis alike, Jimmy Carter: O Jimmy Carter,
You thought yourself a uniter, instead you were a parter,
You think you're going to Heaven, but God is smarter,
In closing, since Carter's favorite things to do were building houses for
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
STANDING ON THE SIDELINES
Posted by Ari Bussel, June 22, 2009. |
|
This is by Norma Zager |
|
"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" Dante's Inferno Standing on the sidelines of humanity may come at a hefty price. As the world stands by and watches the people of Iran battle for freedom from oppression, Dante's vision and assumptions about the payment for indifference in his Inferno seem appropriate food for thought. Helen Keller said, "Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all — the apathy of human beings." "I'd rather not get involved, I have my own problems to deal with," seems benign enough on the surface, but beware of its hidden dangers. The payment is great for a ticket to heaven. Every religion has placed a price on our immortal soul, but whose tag bears the correct price? For all religions good deeds enter into the salvation equation, but what about no deeds at all? I find it interesting that Dante in his epic Inferno carves out a circle in Hell for those who opt for a philosophy of indifference. In Dante's opinion it seems the decision not to make a decision is evil enough to warrant entering the gates of hell, yet not so bad as to assign a deeper level to the wrongdoer. This marginal place for souls neither good enough for heaven nor evil enough for hell proper is an interesting conundrum. For, unless we decide to jump into the fray, we are doomed. And there, as Shakespeare says, lies the rub. For how are we to know which side of the battle is the one appointed for goodness, or for evil? These options were once quite a bit more clear-cut than today. Absolutes like adultery is bad, murder is evil, don't talk back to your parents, maligning and usurping other's rights, all bad and hatred not a good idea either. Altogether, pretty easy rules to discern for even the lesser educated. Not so today I'm afraid. The answers are fraught with paradoxes of all shapes and sizes: What is the true religion? What is considered murder? If you are killing others to enter heaven and check out some virgins, is that still bad? If you smear another race or religion, is it okay if it aids in your quest to for power? These are tough questions because they have no answers. Hitler evil. Or was he? Depends who you ask. Nazis liked the guy, killed and died for him. Murdered others in his name. Not so easy a question as you thought. But at the end of the day will Nazis escape the deeper level of hell because they got involved, took a side, albeit the side right thinking people believe to be the wrong one? And if a Nazi is a Christian and asks for Christ's forgiveness before his death will he attain salvation for his sins? This is indeed a conundrum. And what of a man who is an atheist and lives a holy life, but refuses to accept salvation? Is he doomed to hell as the Nazi dances happily just inside the gates, forgiven for his sins, laughing and be-bopping around the clouds with Stalin? Who makes the rules? Used to be a consensus of the world decided what is evil and what is good. Now the lines have so blurred, they are almost invisible. North Korea threatens to kill its neighbors. Hmmm, some neighbors aren't so concerned, others are. Is it the neighbor with the most people who wins the good/evil argument? Let us see, China has got us beat there I would guess. There are two billion Muslims in the world and a percentage of them say the 14 million Jews are bad, who wins? No need to scratch your head on that one, is there? Interestingly, there is a theological justification for Dante's limbo in Apocalypse (Revelation) 3:16: "But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." Dante includes in limbo the cowardly souls of those angels who refused to choose between God and Satan. What does this say about Dante's view of human behavior in relation to the afterlife? Although it is important to note the various paths to heaven and their roadblocks are a matter for each human being and their spiritual mentors to debate, about one thing Dante is clear. Indifference does not rate a place in heaven. Martin Niemölle's famous quote "First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me," validates Dante's theory. Although the seven deadly sins remain, the sheer numbers of population to disseminate these deeds have grown en masse. Does it seem as though the world is more evil because more people opt for sin? Or is it merely that a greater number of people allows more human beings to opt for sin? A minimal distinction I admit, yet proportionally quite relevant. I imagine the question Dante poses is his version of the Good Samaritan Law. If one sees his neighbors being harmed, or evil being inflicted upon the world and he sits by and refuses to become involved, shall the punishment be elevated to fit that serious crime? Perhaps this first circle of hell is a warning not to enter at all, as the gates swing only one way down there. Sorry everyone, I guess you need to pick a side, lest damnation be your lot throughout eternity. And to confuse the issue even further, I must give the last word to Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote in Beyond Good and Evil, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." In the series "Postcards from Israel— Postcards from Home," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports about Israel, homeland of the Jewish People, as seen by two sets of eyes. This "point — counter-point" presentation has, since 2008, become part of our lives. It can be found in numerous websites around the world as well as in print in the USA. Contact Bussel by email at aribussel@gmail.com |
|
OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH — A CRASS EXERCISE IN HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
Posted by LEL, June 22, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Matthew M. Hausman and it appeared
today on IsraPundit
|
|
President Obama's recent speech in Cairo has been extensively parsed, with critics challenging his linking the creation of Israel solely to the Holocaust, his failure to acknowledge the Jews' ancestral connection to their homeland, his weak criticism of Arab support for terrorism, and his adoption of the dubious Arab historical narrative. Although vocally condemning the sins of colonialism in the Middle East (where the U.S. had no colonies), he ignored the history of Arab and Muslim colonialism in Europe and elsewhere. Based on his unbalanced presentation, some of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters have finally started questioning his commitment to Israel. While some are willing to chalk up his inaccuracies to benign ignorance, others have recognized them as knowing distortions meant to appease an Arab audience. Unfortunately, such distortions are consistent with historical revisionism, which is closely identified with antisemitism and hatred of Israel. The danger in Mr. Obama's revisionist approach to the Middle East is the implication that objective history means nothing and that it can be molded, misstated and misrepresented for political reasons. His subsequent speech at Buchenwald, in which he condemned Holocaust denial, was a cynical gesture intended to give the appearance that he stands with the Jewish people, while the distortions contained in his Cairo speech evidenced precisely the opposite. Moreover, by speaking at the site of a concentration camp, Mr. Obama emphasized the implication he made in Cairo that Israel was created by Europeans to atone for their crimes during the Holocaust, and that Jews do not have a historical pedigree in the Middle East. The President's flagrant disregard for objective history is consistent with the ongoing efforts of the political left to filter the Jewish experience, including the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel, through the prism of historical revisionism. The most outspoken proponents of this artifice include Noam Chomsky, Louis Finkelstein, David Irving and a cavalcade of Holocaust deniers and opponents of Israel, who represent the most politically radical practitioners of the form. Perhaps more insidious are those who do not appear to be as radical, but whose demeanor projects the image of objective, alternative viewpoints. Essentially, there are two kinds of historical revisionism. The first legitimately seeks to correct historical stereotypes in light of newly discovered evidence or rational reconsideration of known facts based on new interpretative methodologies. The second type, also known as "negationism," is the disingenuous effort to change historical perceptions based not on new evidence or techniques, but rather on political agendas, subjective advocacy or, in the case of Israel, antisemitic bias. This category includes Holocaust denial, the claim that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel, and the canard that Israel was created out of the rubble of a country called Palestine, which supposedly had a thriving and distinctive culture for a thousand generations. This kind of revisionism is not grounded in fact and does not withstand empirical scrutiny, and its proponents are motivated by classical antisemitism or Jewish self-hatred. Somewhat less egregious in intent but no less destructive in consequence is the advocacy of people who accept the revisionist positions as true because they have insufficient backgrounds with which to verify or debunk them. Presumably, neither Mr. Obama nor his speech writers are ignorant of Middle East history and the Jews' place in it. But they were fully aware in Cairo that they were playing to an audience with a vested interest in a rejectionist narrative challenging the legitimate place of the Jews in their ancient homeland. Thus, the speech had a revisionist slant consistent with that of the negationists who deny the Holocaust. Chomsky and Finkelstein, although Jewish, are known for their radical views and their compulsion to condemn Israel as a colonial power and terrorist state. They are equally known for their abject refusal to fault the Arab position and their support for terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Moreover, they give credence to the views of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and left-wing dictatorships. Chomsky's support of French antisemite and Holocaust denier John Faurissonneo is well-documented. But their treatment of Israel can only be understood in the context of a revisionism that enables them to turn history on its head and present Israel and the Jews as aggressors in a part of the world in which they were traditionally downtrodden and are in fact still the minority. Although one could argue that Mr. Obama's speech was not as extreme as the drivel of Chomsky and Finkelstein, it was in a way far more insidious because its cogent presentation and oratorical flair gave the appearance of rationality, credibility and truth. And yet, the President's rendering of history does not withstand critical scrutiny because, among other things, he failed to acknowledge historic Israel and the Jews' connection to it. Moreover, he credited Arab and Islamic culture with far greater influence in shaping western society than it actually had, all the while blaming the friction between the Arab and Western worlds on European and American colonialism. One would have thought after hearing his speech that the United States, not France, had occupied North Africa, or that Arab and Ottoman colonialism never existed and had no impact on ethnic and religious tensions that continue to roil the Middle East and the Balkans today. To those who have no background and do not know the history, the President's equating of the Palestinian "dislocation" brought about by Israel's creation, and his equation of the "daily humiliations [of] the occupation" with American segregation and slavery sound empathetic and rational. Unfortunately, these refrains are polemical and untrue, and were lifted almost verbatim from the Arab propaganda machine. Lost on the uninitiated was the significance of the President's use of the term "occupation." In the Arab world, "the occupation" refers to the entire State of Israel; it is not limited to the West Bank and certainly not to Gaza, which was ceded several years ago. The President's use of this terminology without qualification was an affront to Israel. The President failed to challenge his Arab audience to reject the fiction that Israel's very existence is "occupation," although he found it necessary to focus on Israel's supposedly illegal "settlements" as a primary obstacle to peace. In so doing, he tacitly validated the blood libel that Israel stole Arab land and bears sole responsibility for the situation in the Middle East. It would have been inconvenient for him to acknowledge that most of the so-called settlements are actually legal under international law, that Arab rejectionism predates the existence of any settlements, or that there was no call for the creation of a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967. Furthermore, Mr. Obama's homage to Islam as peaceful and tolerant ignores its historical treatment of those it considers "infidels." The Sephardic communities who lived for generations in the Arab world, confined to ghettos and without equal rights, as well as the nearly 800,000 Jewish refugees who were dispossessed without compensation in 1948, have an entirely different view of so-called Islamic tolerance. The President's selective imagery and silence regarding the traditional treatment of Jews in the Arab world is astounding for someone who claims to be knowledgeable about the Middle East and whose acolytes assure us that he is a true friend of Israel. One cannot buy into Mr. Obama's fanciful rendering unless one is ignorant of the historical record or willing to engage in the kind of revisionism espoused by the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein. Although some justify the President's performance on the theory that the Arab-Muslim world needs to be engaged on its own terms in order to effect change, such rationalization presumes that Arab society has the potential for a drastic cultural and religious metamorphosis. There is no indication that it is amenable to such change, however, and in fact the opposite seems to be true. Arab society knows no democracy and tolerates no dissent or diversity of opinion. Moreover, its regard for Jews is dictated by cultural and religious standards under which they are neither equal nor deserving of controlling their own destiny in their own homeland. In light of the President's education, it is difficult to accept that he is simply ignorant of world history and the cultural landscape of the Middle East. Rather, his Cairo speech suggests that he is well aware of history, but that he made a conscious and calculated decision to dispense with it in order to foster a rapprochement with the Arab world. In so doing, however, he engaged in historical revisionism worthy of the negationists. Although he seems to believe that his condemnation of Holocaust denial somehow rehabilitates the blatant revisionism reflected in his Cairo remarks, the irony is glaring and the moral inconsistency irreconcilable. If the ability to dissent is the hallmark of the American political system, now is the time to give voice and condemn the revisionism that seems to be directing U.S. foreign policy. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
NEW PRESIDENT SAME STORY; WHO DOES US SUPPORT?; ABBAS NULLIFIES NETANYAHU PEACE PLAN; PETRAEUS ON HIZBULLAH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 22, 2009. |
|
OBAMA CONTINUING ANOTHER BUSH METHOD Pres. Obama told Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas, "I also mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square," Obama added, "because all those things are impediments to peace." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/31). Not expressed "sometimes," but in an indoctrination campaign by regime clergy, in the textbooks, and in repeated TV presentation. Nor does the Abbas regime reduce the incitement, despite false claims to have removed it from new texts. Obama dissembling was not a "frank exchange." The U.S. still is pulling punches with the Arabs, while punching the Jews. New president, same story. Obama pulls his punches with Iran, too. For an example, click here:
LETTER TO EDITORS NEED STANDARDS? A NY Times Op.-Ed. complained that Pres. Obama discussed Arab refugees from Israel, but ignored Jewish refugees from Arab areas. The Op.-Ed. tried to redress the imbalance by relating the poorly known story of the Jewish refugees. On June 11, Sarah Fike's letter called the Op.-Ed. inaccurate in not mentioning that the "Palestinians" were forced out. [She calls them that, although at that time those Arabs had not yet fabricated claims to being of such nationality.] She is Inaccurate: (1) In claiming that "the" Arabs were forced out. About 140,000 stayed. Can't accurately assert that all were expelled. (2) Most fled voluntarily. Only a small proportion were expelled, for being in militarily sensitive areas. Israel did nothing wrong. It's the aggressor Arabs' fault. (3) She is further inaccurate in claiming that Israel acted wrongfully. Considering that the local Arabs were allied to the foreign Arab attempt and dispossessing and killing all the Jews, the wonder is that Israel let the 140,000 Arabs remain. I think that was wrongful on Israel's part, wrongful to Jewish national security. What standards should govern selection of letters such as Fike's? Should the editor accept lies, or should he accept opinions about conclusions from the facts but insist on adherence to the facts? I think that publishing lies ill serves readers. Ms. Fike's letter had no legitimate purpose. The Op.-Ed. sought to balance the over-presentation of the Arab refugee story by including the under-presented Jewish refugee story. It rectified to an extent the inaccuracy of the general impression by the public of there having been only Arab refugees. Therefore, it is not reasonable to include Fike's letter accusing the Op.-Ed. of inaccuracy in not stating the Arab claim. For my original report on the Op.-Ed., click here:
JEWS AND ARABS THROW ROCKS, ETC. Some Arabs threw rocks at Israeli vehicles. Near where Israeli military forces were tearing down unauthorized outposts, Jewish youths threw rocks at Arabs. The youths' motive is unclear. Police defused a bomb planted near the entrance to Avtalyon, in northern Israel. The Land of Israel Legal Forum suggested that security forces concentrate on the budding terrorist cells in the Galilee, which pose a threat to national security, and not on the budding outposts in Judea-Samaria, which do not (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 6/1). Actually, as with Zionist attempts to build up the country in pre-statehood days, outposts and settlements contribute to national security. They buffer the state of Israel's larger civilian centers, impede secret terrorist movement, and protect and advance Jewish claims to the Territories, of strategic value to Israel. They also provide cover for security forces to move against terrorists. The only drawback is the misguided foreign indignation against them. Jews must learn to deal with foreign prejudice and not take it to heart. DOES U.S. SUPPORT ISRAEL OR ARABS? Although the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) never moved to eradicate terrorism, and although the U.S. is worn and torn by recession, the U.S. is giving even more financial support to the P.A. The new U.S. Administration has not learned any more from experience than did its predecessor. Training an additional 1,500 P.A. troops cost the U.S. $161 million more, part of the almost $1 billion pledged. The U.S. rationalizes that those troops protect the Abbas regime from Hamas. However Abbas is negotiating coalition with Hamas. Abu Yusef, in Abbas' Force-17 security unit, admits that U.S. training was applied against the Israelis. This training helped P.A. snipers, intelligence gathering on Jews' movements, in determining when to infiltrate bombers, and in producing weapons. U.S. financial aid to the P.A. also goes for terrorism, even for
Hamas. Although Sec. of State Clinton pledged that no U.S. aid would
get to Hamas, the P.A. Finance Minister admitted inability to prevent
it. Indeed, when he gives millions of U.S. subsidy money to pay
supposed "employees" in Gaza, it helps Hamas
The P.A. misuses foreign aid to expand bloated security forces or just to retain their loyalty. For those who think that the U.S. gives unstinting support to Israel,
click here:
ABBAS NULLIFIES NETANYAHU PEACE PLAN Palestinian Authority head Abbas said, "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements." "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/31). PM Netanyahu's peace plan: build up the P.A. economy, to stabilize it. But Abbas counts on such help to enable him to resist making peace. Diplomacy doesn't always work. To see a piece about Egypt rejecting
Obama diplomacy, click here:
EGYPTIANS PERCEIVE ISLAMIST THREAT A candidate backed by the Muslim Brotherhood gained control over Egypt's Bar Association of 205,000 members. The Muslim Brotherhood is the founder of the Sunni Radical Muslim terrorist organizations, including Hamas. The Brotherhood in Egypt has a political agenda. Commentators believe
that the Brotherhood intends to take over the other professional
associations in Egypt and then the whole country
The Brotherhood controls Jordan's professional associations. U.S. DUCKS QUESTION ON BUSH LETTER TO ISRAEL At a State Department briefing, a reporter asked whether the U.S.
considers itself bound by the letter President Bush sent to Israel.
The briefer, Mr. Woods, hemmed and hawed and brought up irrelevant
matters, such as other obligations by Israel and the Arabs and their
meetings with the U.S.. The reporter followed up, about a dozen times,
asking clearly whether the current Administration will honor the Bush
letter or not. The Administration representative would not answer
responsively
DISCRIMINATION IN ISRAEL Some small, closed Jewish communities in the Galilee have new rules requiring prospective members to share residents' commitment to Zionism and to the Jewish and democratic character of the State. The writers of Haaretz would not be eligible. In the large, open town of Ramat Aviv, containing tens of thousands of residents, Orthodox Jews attempting to move in have been harassed by leftwingers. Haaretz opposes the Galilee residents as racists, and supports the Ramat Aviv leftists as progressive defenders of democracy. How self-contradictory! (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/1). For another example of Israeli discrimination against Jews, click
here:
RUSSIA OFFERS ABBAS ARMORED VEHICLES Russia offered the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) 50 armored vehicles.
Will Israel let them in?
During one of the little wars Arafat started, Israel had to destroy most of the P.A.'s armored vehicles. They were used not against terrorism, but against Israel. That shows the folly of arming the P.A.. If the P.A. mustn't be armed, then it mustn't have sovereignty, which would give it the right to arm (for war on Israel). These weapon/transportation platforms should not be viewed in
isolation, but together with related news, such as what you would find
by clicking here:
GEN. PETRAEUS OPINION OF HIZBULLAH Gen. Petraeus described Hizbullah as a terrorist organization that
does not contribute to Lebanon's stability. He contends that if the
Palestinian Arab conflict is resolved, Hizbullah would have no reason
for existence
He expresses the Administration's political stand, not an informed military one. Hizbullah claimed it was needed to liberate a slice of Lebanon from Israel. Israel doesn't occupy any Lebanese soil, but for Hizbullah, truth is no object. Actually, relations between the two countries have little to do with the Palestinian Arabs. Gen. Petraeus misses the bigger picture. Hizbullah is an Islamist organization, which doesn't exist on the basis of grievances against Israel but on the basis of jihad, a drive to impose a caliphate over the world. For more on Hizbullah's imperialist side, click here:
ORIGIN OF IRAN'S NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT? An Iranian professor traces the origin of Iran's nuclear development
to Saddam's invasion of Iran. Neither the Arab states nor the West nor
anybody else supported Iranian defense. Feeling alienated, Iran
figured it was on its own. It felt it would not be taken seriously
unless it had nuclear weaponry
Plausible theory. However, Iran was and is a menace, because it is jihadist. HAMAS USES WOMAN AS SHIELD When Hamas gunmen attacked P.A. police in Judea-Samaria recently, they hid behind a woman and threw a grenade at the police, killing three (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/4). To see another Hamas use of civilian shields, click here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
IT'S ALL THEM DAMN JEWS FAULT!
Posted by Arlene Peck, June 21, 2009. |
|
I don't claim to be a maven on anything. Well, maybe in a past life I used to take pride in being a world class shopper. Actually, I'd consider myself to be a pretty basic person. But, I've come to the conclusion that if I listened to the pundits and our present and past governments, everything would be solved if that "obstacle to peace" the Israelis 'settlements" in Judea and Samaria would just go away and then all of us would have the world peace for which we've been yearning. Of course, nobody ever mentions that the strip of land that they want to settle G-d knows how many millions of Arabs into is about the size of Disneyland. Forget the fact that North Korea is making daily threats with their nuclear warheads putting them on a collision course with the rest of the world. Forget they are striving to reach our shores as soon as possible. I think I just read somewhere that they are almost ready to be able to reach Hawaii. Is Ahmadinejad and the riots going on from his free 'election' with millions of dissents taking to the streets, of concern for Obama? Naw. Why should Obama speak out on the need for freedom and democracy in Iran when there are apartments being built in Judea and Samaria that need immediate tearing down? Because, if not, then, according to the leaders of our country, starting with our President and working its way to Miss Hillary, the Middle East will never have a solution to the problems that envelop it. When I hear friends, and even Israeli friends, tell me that "We are tired of fighting we don't need the settlements.", then G-d help me. I want to scream! When I listen to those that aren't Jewish go on about "the Jews and their state" who are causing all the problems, I know that they are the anti-Semites that somehow electively overlook all that is really going on now with the gathering storm. I used to wonder why everybody hates 'the Jews' and wrote it off to plain old jealousy. But, now, I think it goes deeper than that. And, I don't think that land has a damn thing to do with it. For heaven's sake... take a look at the map! Sure these savages 'need' that land...riiiiight. And, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you too. The Jews gave the world a conscience. Before Moses came down from that hill with the Ten Commandments, everyone was decadent, but they were happy, running around sleeping with their sisters and partying with sheep. And, then let's not forget that Hagar, Ishmael's mother could never accept the fact that sibling rivalry between Ishmael and Isaac was caused by the fact that her kid, who later became the father of the new nation of Islam, did not have the legitimacy of being his father's 'favorite' son. These same friends, who went on ad-nauseum about the hope and change that was going to transform our lives into something wonderful just as soon as Barack Hussein Obama took charge are strangely quiet now. You would not believe how I was attacked when I even suggested that I truly believed him to be a Muslim and he just might not be all they expected. Why does Israel have to be a sounding board for public opinion for the Arabs? A recent LA Times opinion article in the biased anti-Semitic Los Angeles Times was headed, "Israel Tussle Tests Obama. Deal may be near on settlements issue." But any U.S concessions could undercut the president's credibility." Credibility with whom? The Arab world? In it the article describes how the public quarrel with Israel over the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is developing into a test of the U.S. leaders international credibility, say foreign diplomats and other observers". Wow, I wonder who they could be. More importantly, why should BiBi Netanyahu even consider bowing to Obama when it comes to the security of the future of Israel? For Obama's poll numbers in the Arab world or with our resident Nazi former President Jimmy Carter? Apparently, the Arab world is being vocal that the 'concessions not only disappointed the Arabs who the president has been courting, but also will be read by US adversaries around the globe as a signal that the president can be forced to back down." Frankly folks, I don't give a diddly-squat what the Arab world, or even the free world is thinking about Obama's plans for Israel might be. I know whatever they might be are not going to be anything but the advocate to demise of the Jewish state. Land never has had anything to do with it. The Arab world makes no secret about its intent. They won't be happy until Israel does not exist whether as the State of Israel or the Jewish State of Israel. They want every last Jew gone! DEAD! Of course, since our new leader has announced that the United States is no longer a Judeo/ Christian country that might include the Sunday people also. Ya think? What I don't understand is why Israel bends and bows every time this group who I lovingly refer to as the 'coven' orders BiBi and company to give up something in the name of 'peace' and like fools they do it? When Israel mentions a few basic suggestions of its own, such as the recognition of their country as a Jewish state with the right to exist, they are labeled as obstructionists of peace. Or, maybe when they sometimes say, they might want some of the Arab world to live up to any of their previous promises and agreements, they are totally ignored. Worse, the former inept leaders of Israel had opened the jails and let out hundreds of the terrorist tigers from their cages in one of their 'good will 'gestures. I don't care about 'goodwill concessions' from the Arabs because, it doesn't mean a thing anyway. And, now that I feel we have an muslim in the White House, the United States isn't trustable either. Last month, under Obama's direction, Sec of State Madam Hillary Clinton declared that Obama opposed any settlements' growth' saying that he "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outpost, not 'natural growth 'exceptions' Lovely. And, this from the woman that the Jewish community thought was going to be their 'friend' in the White House. Except, who is she, or who is any US political official to hold the future of the Jews of Israel via Obama's power? Doesn't anyone who is supposed to be watching the store remember what happened the last time they listened to assurances from the Arabs and the U.S. about how wonderful it would be and peace could finally come to the region if only the interlopers in the 'settlements' in Gaza would just move out? Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
NEDA AGHA-SOLTAN: THE VOICE OF THE IRANIAN PEOPLE
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 21, 2009. |
|
This below is archived at
|
|
From FaultLine USA (faultlineusa@yahoo.com): By now the videos of Neda's death have spread far and wide across the world making her the symbol of the voice of the Iranian People. "With the Marchers" from The Letters from Tehran column of the New Yorker: "According to a police official who was quoted in the Western press, a million or more people took part in the Azadi Street march. Later, I asked a person close to the rally organizers how many people there were, and he told me that he thought the figure was closer to two million. It was, he said, the biggest protest Iran had seen since the 1979 revolution, which overthrew the Shah. From where Reza and I stood, half a mile from the western end of Azadi Street, where it enters Azadi Square, a thick belt of humanity stretched eastward seemingly without end. Although the rally was illegal, there was no sign of riot police or Basij militiamen. In an Islamic republic that regards large, unsanctioned gatherings as a threat, the marchers were smiling with the joy of being in one happy, unhindered mass — a pleasurable feeling, utterly unfamiliar. And BTW: Obama holds firm. The United States continues to say its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies. The voice of the Iranian people means nada. Let their freedom sink. Obama is sure he can work with the Mad Iranian, so why let reality interfere? 
As Frank Salvato put it: "Instead of offering solidarity with those who are literally dying in the streets of Iran in a quest for increased liberty, Mr. Obama put his own political philosophy above the heroic freedom fighters."
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE FIGHTS TO BE FOUGHT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 21, 2009. |
|
Last Thursday, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in conjunction with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Foundation), sponsored a conference: "Hamas, the Gaza War, and Accountability Under International Law." A number of points made at that conference are worth sharing here. But I begin with what was for me a highlight: Maj.-Gen. (res) Yaakov Amidror, chairing the session on "International Law & Military Operations in Practice," told us a story: Years ago, he served in Intelligence for the IDF Northern Command. After considerable effort they had finally located a key member of Hezbollah, who had been responsible for Israeli deaths and was planning more of the same. He was inside a building, and his car sat outside. They planted a bomb under his car, with intentions of detonating it when he got in. When the mark entered his car, however, he had a child with him. Said General Amidror: "We didn't ask what international law said, we asked ourselves what was moral. Could we detonate that bomb with a child in the car?" They decided they could not, and so they watched the Hezbollah terrorist (marked for another day) and the child drive away together. ~~~~~~~~~~ Remember this, my friends, and share it widely. We are, barring none, the most moral fighting force on earth. And yet we endure the greatest number of accusations regarding our "immorality." And this, of course, is part of the story. International law in some instances has become a weapon, used against us by enemies. Often NGOs play a significant role here. Gerald Steinberg, who heads NGO-Monitor, described what is going on: NGOs consistently push cases against us in international forums, such as the International Court of Justice — which brought down a terrible decision regarding our security fence without even mentioning the terrorism that motivated its construction. This applies as well to the UN — which launches biased investigations from time to time, such as the current Goldstone Inquiry, which is investigating possible Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza. During the visit of inquiry in Gaza, Justice Richard Goldstone, who heads the investigation, was accompanied throughout by armed members of Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ At a national level, there is abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction — in which a nation provides its courts with the legal jurisdiction to hear cases that involve situations completely beyond its borders. This principle was originally intended to apply to situations such as piracy on the high seas, where there was no national jurisdiction that might have pertained. Now we're seeing things like charges brought in a Spanish court against Israeli leaders for civilian deaths caused in the course of fighting terrorism. Sometimes repeat cases are brought in multiple forums. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are, indeed, some well-established foundations of international law — targeting civilian populations, using human shields, funding terrorist organizations are all clearly illegal. But when it comes to combating terrorism, in many ways that law is insufficient. Among the questions to be considered is how to fight a terrorist organization that is not a state — how to determine when it is appropriate to enter the territory of another state in pursuing after such terrorists. This pertained, for example, in Lebanon: In the last war, we were fighting Hezbollah, not Lebanon. (This would change if we were to launch another operation, as Hezbollah now sits in the government of Lebanon.) Part of the answer lies with the inability of a state to control terrorists within its borders. And there are legal issues, as well, with regard to the question of when civilians deserve protection. Says international law, when they don't take "direct part" in "hostilities." But what does that mean? Most terrorists, in contradistinction to forces in a standing army, are "civilians." There is sometimes a "revolving door" phenomenon in which they rest at home during the day, and go out at night to participate in terrorism. The Red Cross insists that the terrorist is only a legitimate target when he is perpetrating a terrorist act. We say it's permissible to target them at any time. Additionally there is an extra-legal, political issue with regard to defining a terrorist: there are "good terrorists." And then there are pragmatic considerations in terms of deterrence — how to prevent a suicide bomber from acting, for example. ~~~~~~~~~~ What I find impressive is the seriousness with which Israel takes issues of international law. — Prior to a conflict, training is done of officers on issue of the law, and legal advice is provided at headquarters. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are four considerations as we enter a conflict: — Military Necessity: Confronting a terrorist infrastructure. We use a variety of techniques to minimize collateral damage, such as early warning mechanisms and aborting attacks if the situation changes. — Humanity: Attending to human needs. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA TELLS KILLER IRANIAN REGIME "THE WORLD IS WATCHING," THEN GETS ICE CREAM
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 21, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Gateway Pundit website:
|
|
The regime in Iran slaughtered dozens of innocent democracy protesters in the streets of Tehran today. Unconfirmed reports suggest that 150 Iranians were murdered by the evil regime during protests this afternoon including young girls shot dead by the basij. Barack Obama finally spoke out against the actions by the regime and asked them to stop the "unjust actions." Then he went out for ice cream... 
Richard Romano adds: Just file this under "What if Bush had done this..." UPDATE: Mark Steyn offers Obama this advice, "Neutrality Isn't an Option."
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
ANCIENT HISTORY
Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, June 21, 2009. |
|
Israel was first settled by the tribe of Judah (fourth son of Jacob, aka, Israel) in c.1450 BCE after their exodus from Egypt with Moses It was founded as a nation in 1312 BCE, and imperialized in c.1000 BCE by King David. Moreover, it was recognized in 539 BCE by the Persian King, Cyrus the Great, as Judea, the homeland of the Ju's (dialectically, Jews). So, in 622 CE, what do Mohammedans claim in establishing a religion (a cult?) that is vengeful against all infidels — most especially the Jews? IMHO, the issue always has been, and unfortunately always will be: the Arabs "...refusing to recognize Israel." Albeit I don't know what Jimmy Carter is inhaling, maybe the Arabs inhale too much smoke in burning cannabis hemp over camel dung. Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il |
|
AN ISRAELI WRITES TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Posted by Dave Alpern, June 21, 2009. |
|
I received this outstanding letter from a cousin in the US. Please read it with an open mind. It was written by Rani Levy, who was an Adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and resides in Israel with his family. Contact him at ranal@netvision.net.il Prime Minister Netanyahu made an effort to correct Obama's unacceptable position that Israel is a consequence of the Holocaust. The President never mentioned Zionism or the Jews' unbroken connection to this small area in the world. |
|
Shalom, Mr. President, I am writing you from a small village in Israel called Asseret. We are group of 7 small villages, united under a Regional Council called Gderot. A County, in American terms. A little over a year ago, I was in a meeting in NYC in a building designed by the world renowned designer, Phillip Stark. The population of that building alone was larger than that of our entire Council. Such, respectively, is the difference between our two nations. Yours is big. Very big. Ours is small. Very small. In its longest dimension, Israel is a 7 hour drive long country. In its width, we have about 50 miles. You seem like a fairly athletic man. If you leave Tel-Aviv riding a bicycle at 7 in the morning, you will make it to lunch time, on the banks of the Jordan River, our eastern border. I listen to you very carefully in the past several months. Particularly since you have become President of the USA, I listen to every word you and your senior aides are saying about the Middle-East. In your Cairo speech three days ago, I felt a pain in my chest, and decided I must write you. I do not think my words will impact you greatly, Mr.Barack Obama. But perhaps, you will at least hear them. To my deep sorrow, no senior Israeli official, is able to say those words to you anymore, words which should have been our official position in the past 2-3 decades. My Prime Minister and his senior aides, like his predecessors since 1992, are confused and lost in 'political correctness'. Had we been a country which takes its vital affairs a tad more seriously, we should have been telling you now these exact words, with all due respect and friendship:
I feel you are a fair man, and that you have good intentions, Mr.Obama. I do not think that you are knowingly seeking to harm Israel. I believe the accusations of you being an Arabist and all that, are nonsense. If Tzippy Livni, a leader of the Kadima party in Israel, is the most active agent for promoting a Palestinian State, if Avigdor Liberman has offered portions of the Galilee (!!!) to the Palestinians, if Ehud Barak pressured Arafat to take control of East-Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, (Camp-David, June 1999), if Ariel Sharon was able to destroy and relocate Jewish towns twice (1978 Sinai, 2005 Gush-Katif), how can we come in fairness and be upset with you? You will probably not be influenced by my letter to you. It will be easy for you to continue in the sorry direction you have started. You will continue to promise that America will stop making threats or dictations, but you will threaten and dictate — only to the Israelis. I can only be saddened Mr. President, that there is no serious Israeli figure today, who will stand up to you, who will correct you, who will work together with you, to take a more just and moral approach. A matter a fact, Israel has produced a leadership that will make it probably easy for you. Peace, unfortunately, what we really so badly need here, will never come out of it. Israel will continue in its ideological deterioration, and its strategic margins will continue to narrow in on her. All, in the name of "Peace", of course. And as we will watch it through the years to come, more Presidents will come after you, and push us more and more. But please don't feel bad, Mr. President. You have no reason to feel bad. Because the painful truth is, it is not you to blame for your ideas I cry over. It is us. We did this to ourselves. Respectfully,
Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net |
|
ISRAEL'S RARE OPPORTUNITY
Posted by Howard L. Dyckman, June 21, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline B. Glick and published June 19,
2009 in Jewish World Review,
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. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com Why the Jewish State must assert itself in Iran's affairs |
|
Israel today finds itself in unfamiliar territory. The revolutionary atmosphere building in Iran presents Israel with a prospect it has rarely confronted: a safe bet. With the Obama administration refusing to back the anti-regime protesters, and the European Union similarly hemming and hawing, millions of Iranians who are on the streets, risking their lives to protest a stolen election and a tyrannical regime have been cast adrift by those they thought would support them. To date, Israel has joined the US and Europe in rejecting the protesters. This should change. In refusing to stick their necks out — and so effectively siding with the mullahs against the pro-democracy activists in the streets — US President Barack Obama like Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Mossad chief Meir Dagan have all rightly pointed out the Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's former prime minister and the titular head of the protest movement is just as radical and extreme as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom he seeks to unseat. Moreover, Western officials and analysts point out that Mousavi's primary backers from within the regime — former presidents Muhammad Khatami and Rafsanjani — are themselves anything but anti-regime revolutionaries. What apparently motivates these men is the sense that through Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's heavy handed attacks against the revolution's "old guard," the presidential incumbent has shunted them aside. They feel slighted. And they are doubly humiliated by the fact that Ahmadinejad has acted with the open support of Iran's real dictator — so-called "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei. The likes of Mousavi, Khatami and Rafsanjani don't want to overthrow the regime whose aims they share. They just want to restore their power within the regime. It is these twin assessments of Mousavi and his backers that stand at the center of Western leaders' decision to give a wide berth both to the presidential race and the protests that have arisen in its aftermath. For Israel, the arguments for staying clear of events in Iran align with those informing much of the rest of the Western world. Israel's primary concern is Iran's foreign policy and specifically its nuclear weapons program and its support for anti-Israel terror groups. There is no reason for Israel to believe that a Mousavi government will be more inclined to end Iran's race to the bomb or diminish its support for terror groups like Hizbullah and Hamas than Ahmadinejad's government is. As Iranian prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a major instigator of Iran's nuclear program and he oversaw the establishment of Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Beyond that, there is the fact that Israel — like the US — is the regime's bogeyman. If Israel is identified with the protesters, the likes of Khamenei will use this connection to justify their brutal repression. Finally, there is the distinct possibility, indeed the likelihood that these protests will go nowhere. They will be brutally repressed or fizzle out of their own accord. So would Israel gain by sticking its neck out? While reasonable on their face, these arguments for doing nothing all ignore the significance of recent developments. Consequently they fail to grasp the new opportunities that have arisen — opportunities which left untouched will likely disappear in short order. The fact of the matter is that with each passing day, Mousavi's personal views and interests are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Whether he realized it or not, Mousavi was transformed last Friday night. When Khamenei embraced the obviously falsified official election results as a "divine victory" for Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was widely expected by Western observers to accept the dictator's verdict. When instead Mousavi sided with his own supporters who took to the streets to oppose their disenfranchisement, Mousavi became a revolutionary. Whether he had planned to do so or not, a week ago Mousavi became an enemy of the regime. The significance of Mousavi's decision could not be more profound. As Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote, last Friday night Mousavi tied his personal survival to the success of the protesters — and pitted his life against Khamenei's. In Ledeen's words, "Both Khamenei and Mousavi — the two opposed icons of the moment, at least — know that they will either win or die." For their part, by the end of this week, the protesters themselves had been transformed. If last week they were simply angry that they had been ignored, by Thursday they had become a revolutionary force apparently dedicated to the overthrow of the regime. This was made clear by a list of demands circulating among the protesters on Wednesday. As Pepe Escobar reported in Thursday's Asia Times, the protesters demands include Khamenei's removal from power, the dissolution of the secret police, the reform of the constitution under anti-regime Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri who has been living under house arrest for the past twelve years, and the installation of Mousavi as president. These demands make clear where the protesters are leading. They are leading to the overthrow of one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth and its replacement by a liberal democracy. As far as Israel is concerned, this is a win-win situation. If the protesters successfully overthrow the regime, they will have neutralized the greatest security threat facing the Jewish state. And if they fail, Israel will still probably be better off than it is today. For if the mullahs violently repress the pro-democracy dissidents, the Obama administration will be hard-pressed to legitimize their blood bath by embracing them as negotiating partners. Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel's support for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are dismayed at their own governments' silence in the face of the brave Iranian protesters risking their lives for freedom. Moreover, by acting as the loudest and first democratic champion of the protesters, Israel would catapult itself to the forefront of the campaign for democracy in the Muslim world. Doing so would make it far easier for Israel's representatives throughout the world to defend against false accusations by self-described human rights organizations that Israel is a human rights abuser. Beyond that, Israel would be building an important alliance with the Iranian people themselves. Contrary to what the mullahs would have us believe, Iranians by and large do not share the widespread hatred of Israel and the Jews that their regime promotes and the Arab world embraces. Over the years, Iranian regime opponents — from the students to the trade unionists to women's rights activists to minority Kurds, Azeris, Ahwaz Arabs and Baluchis — have all appealed to Israel for support. Israel Radio in Farsi, which broadcasts into Iran daily, has more than a million regular listeners. Were Netanyahu to explain that the same mullahs who seek to disenfranchise and repress the Iranian people seek to destroy Israel with nuclear bombs; were he to call for Iran to stop financing Hamas and Hizbullah terrorists who are reportedly now deployed in Iran to brutalize the protesters, and instead invest in the Iranian economy for the benefit of Iran's people, he would be giving a message that already resonates with the people of Iran. Finally, Israeli outreach to the Iranian people now struggling to overthrow the regime would expose the Obama administration's effective support for the mullahs against their people in all its absurdity and moral blindness. What's more, the administration would be unable to launch a counterattack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama would be in no position to attack Israel for supporting Iranian dissidents demanding freedom. And their stammering reaction would make their attacks against Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria look ever more ridiculous. Although Israel is far away from Iran, it has significant capacity to help the demonstrators. It could use its communication satellites to break through the communications blackout the regime has attempted to enforce. Its internet capabilities can be offered to the protesters to reopen closed networks. Israel could temporarily expand its radio broadcasts into the country and allow its airwaves to be used to broadcast events on the ground in real time so that protesters won't have to rely on word of mouth to know what is happening or where things are leading. Again, it is more than possible that Khamenei will move to crush the dissidents or successfully buy enough of them off to subvert them. But in the meantime, Israel has a clear interest in keeping the Iranian cauldron boiling. The mullahs can only concentrate on so much at once. If they are preoccupied with domestic dissent, they will have less time to devote to Hamas and Hizbullah. If they are busy quelling armed insurrections by Kurds or Azeris or Baluchis, they will have less time to devote to negotiating the purchase of the S-300 anti-aircraft system with Russia, or keeping tabs on their nuclear scientists. Strategically, Israel stands only to gain — either marginally or massively — from the ayatollahs' discomfort. In an interview this week with National Review Online, Iranian expatriate Amir Taheri explained that Iran suffers from a divided psyche. On the one hand, the mullahs view Iran as a revolutionary vanguard of Islam. They do not see Iran as a nation-state. For them, the normal things that make up a life — economic stability, public safety and the hope that one's children will do better — are of little use as they march forward under the flag of jihad. Israel and the US are necessary enemies. On the other hand, the vast majority of Iran's people wish to live in a normal and free nation-state. For them, the revolution means nothing but privation, suffering, repression and death. They do not hate America and they do not hate Israel. They do not seek nuclear weapons and they do not support the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah. As Taheri put it, "When we consider Iran as a nation-state, we see Israel as its natural ally. The reason is that Israel, like Iran, is opposed to an exclusively Arab Middle East. Both want a pluralist Middle East in which there is room for diversity; a Middle East where one finds Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Christians, and Jews, as well as Arabs." If Israel extends a hand in friendship to these Iranian patriots, the worst that can happen is that they fail to overthrow the mullahs and we are left to acknowledge that we wished them well. There is no shame in that. Indeed, if they fail to overthrow the regime, and Israel is compelled to attack their country's nuclear installations, it is hard to imagine that they will take it personally. Rather, recalling that it was Israel that stood with them first, they would no doubt understand why we were forced to act, and perhaps be inspired to try again to free themselves from the shackles of their hideous regime. Contact Howard L. Dyckman at dyckman@dyckman.com |
|
DEFENDING THE HOLY KORAN
Posted by Paul Williams, June 20, 2009. |
|
REMEMBER THE "MUHAMMAD CARTOON RIOTS"? 
REMEMBER THE KORAN IN THE TOILET INCIDENT? "Man arrested for "hate crime" for tossing Koran into toilet" And the murder and mayhem that followed Newsweek's fabricated report about alleged Koran abuse by American GI's? Newsweek Apologizes Inaccurate Report On Koran Led To Riots By Howard Kurtz
Newsweek apologized yesterday for an inaccurate report on the treatment of detainees that triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 15 people died. How about this: U.S. General Apologizes For Desecration Of Koran By Andrew E. Kramer
BAGHDAD — The commander of United States troops in Baghdad asked local leaders and tribal sheiks this weekend for their forgiveness after the discovery that a soldier had used a Koran for target practice at a shooting range... Or this: DOJ Issues Statement "To Protect American Muslims;" DOJ issues statement "to protect American Muslims;" silent on protecting Americans from jihadists
WHAT IF A WESTERNER HAD DONE THIS? Utilizing a secure VPN (Virtual Private Network) Dr. Paul L. Williams has been speaking to his Iranian contacts in their besieged Tehran hideouts every few hours during this crisis. Intrigued by photographs showing a burned Koran at the Tehran University, Dr. Williams inquired about the cause of the "desecration". Paul was told that hundreds of Korans were destroyed by the "religious" police and militias loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 
Paul William blogs at http://thelastcrusade.org |
|
HEAVY CLASHES IN TEHRAN!
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2009. |
|
|
|
SWATTING FLIES INSTEAD OF FIGHTING TERROR
Posted by A Beizer, June 20, 2009. |
|
We The People have an elected "leader" in Washington who in a photo op before a national TV audience is not afraid to swat a fly that landed on his hand, yet apparently when people in Iran cry out for Freedom from a tyrannical government, and protest fixed elections, the hands of our great leader become tied. He weakly states that he does not want to meddle in the foreign affairs of a sovereign (terror) state. Here we have a man who likes to compare himself to the giant image of Abraham Lincoln, but shrinks from acting as he should in the face of threats against our country from our enemies abroad. Mr. Obama you are no Abraham Lincoln. Obama did not hesitate to kill a fly in a great show of bravado when he thought his macho image would be enhanced thereby and the fly approached too close to his air space. But when it comes to North Korea's insane dictator Kim Jong Il threatening to fire a ballistic missile toward Hawaii, or Iran's loud mouthed, maniac Amidinijhad, putting down peaceful demonstrations with violence and intimidation, where is our fearless leader? Obama put on a great demonstration of force when encircled by a harmless fly and then summarily executed the fly on national TV without fear of repercussion from animal right activists like PETA. In contrast, when challenged with real threats to freedom from overseas, he cowers and declares that we must no longer call the War on Terror by that scary name, rather refer to it as Overseas, Contingency Operations. The Commander In Chief orders his Dept. of Homeland Security to no longer call Terrorists, "Terrorists", but hereafter refer to them more sympathetically as "Man Made Disasters" (supposedly caused by ugly Americans he blames for creating a climate and environment that spawns justifiable anti-social behavior by enemy combatants because of some perceived American arrogance). We The people now have a president who faces the nation on TV every chance he gets to get his face out there, but who is intimidated at the drop of a hat by foreign affairs he is ill equipped to face. When the situation calls for it in the heat of the moment, the president of the United States freezes and shivers in his boots. He puts his head between his tail and high tails it for cover. Here we have a leader with plenty of courage to swiftly slay a harmless insect that posed no security threat to him, but when it comes to standing up to our enemies he hesitates and cannot summon up nerve to react boldly in an appropriate and timely manner. He does not take a tough stand, but adopts a guarded response. Americans call for him to do more and say more but the president maintains a calculated cautious tone, not wanting to be drawn in to a "political football game" as his Press Secretary refers to it. It might cause him to fall lower in the polls. This leads U.S. to ask the question as to what will happen when these so-called
Man Made Disasters export their nasty operations Over Here and attack
U.S. suddenly with no mercy? Will they finally be recognized for the
murdering terrorists they are? Will our UN prepared president come to
admit that his Overseas Contingency Operations cannot deal with a WAR
ON TERROR that has moved across the waters to our shores and our
Homeland because our President and Homeland Security stuck their heads
in the sand and had their heads up their
Unfortunately, by then it will be too late! High noon will have arrived on the Doomsday Clock and things will not be OK at the O.K. Corral. It is rather high time to invest in National Defense, not in Nationalized Health Care. Our Health and Safety as a nation is threatened. Wasteful spending on another government boondoggle that will not work won't help U.S. The President has cut our Missile Defense Program at a time when Americans face dying in droves not from Swine Flu but from the swines that threaten to invade our land bringing Islamic Jihad and taking the battle to U.S. President Obama Wake Up before it is too late. Talk is cheap but the high price we will pay for being weak is with our lives! The clock is ticking and it is time to act not to talk. 
A. Beizer
Contact A Beizer by email at ArnyBarnie@aol.com
|
|
THE AUDACITY OF SILENCE
Posted by Amil Imani, June 20, 2009. |
|
This is by Arnold Ahlert and it is archived at
Arnold Ahlert is a freelance writer residing in Florida. He receives e-mail at: atahlert@comcast.net. |
|
Does anyone remember when liberals were champions of human rights and freedom? I don't mean their infatuation with their politically correct domestic agenda, such as gay marriage or amnesty for illegal aliens. I mean the JFK, "I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world" kind of freedom. So what is president Barack Obama's response to thousands of Iranian protesters putting their lives on the line against a totalitarian regime? He doesn't want to "meddle" in Iran's affairs. Does anyone sense the overwhelming irony? Barack Obama is perhaps the most meddlesome president to ever occupy the White House. He's taken federal control of banks, car companies, and the insurance giant, AIG. He's appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, which, if the American public weren't in a coma, would be seen for the gross violation of the Constitution that it is. He wants to completely re-vamp the best health care system in the world, regulate salaries of corporate executives and save the entire planet from global warming. The Iranian freedom-fighters? Screw 'em — because supporting them might pose a problem in future "negotiations" with the thugs who run that country. President Obama does not wish to "meddle?" Again, it is difficult to ignore the irony of a president whose considers himself a master of the rhetorical flourish, yet prefers to stand mute against the blatant oppression of a regime that is the foremost sponsor of international terrorism. And how is it that the same leftists who are obsessed with rights — women's rights, gay rights, abortion rights, minority rights, illegal immigrant rights, and even terrorist rights — can ignore the human rights violations being inflicted on ordinary Iranians, seven of whom have already been executed for defying the regime? Perhaps beneath the veneer of "caring" there exists nothing more than a "freedom for me, but not for thee" hypocrisy. But even if that's true, liberals have always "talked the talk," even when they lacked the courage to "walk the "walk." Now, even expressing verbal support for Iranian dissidents is considered a bridge too far. Is freedom "God's gift to mankind?" Apparently not. Perhaps Bush Derangement Syndrome means never agreeing with anything the former president said, even if it used to be one of the pillars of liberal ideology. Better to sit on the sidelines, and leave decent Iranians twisting in the wind. Better not to offer a single word of encouragement or hope to those willing to risk their lives for freedom. Better to be less "meddlesome." Amil Imani is an Iranian activist living in the U.S.A. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com |
|
'KHAMENEI HAS NEVER SEEN A CRISIS LIKE THIS'
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 20, 2009. |
|
This week's protests in Iran are truly unprecedented, says Iran expert Afshin Molavi in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. The demonstrators come from all walks of life and from across the country. Discontent with Tehran's hardline leadership is widespread. This is an interview with Afshin Molavi, an Iran expert with the New America Foundation in Washington D.C. A former reporter for Reuters in Dubai, Molavi has written extensively about Iran, including the book "Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran" which was published by Norton in 2002. Molavi was born in Tehran but grew up in the West and once held a job at the World Bank. The interview was conducd for Spiegel Online by
Gregor Peter Schmitz. It is archived at
|
|
SPIEGEL ONLINE: On Thursday, a million people demonstrated in the streets of Tehran. Are we witnessing a revolution in Iran? Molavi: What we are witnessing on the streets is truly unprecedented in the history of the Islamic Republic. We have seen protests in Iran over the past years, such as student protests or teacher strikes. The world only sees the demonstrations in Tehran but they are taking place all over the country. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Who are the demonstrators? What part of society do they come from? 
Molavi: We are witnessing the return of the Iranian middle class to the political space. This middle class is vibrant, modern, wired, eager to engage with the outside world, hungry for more social and political freedoms, and for better economic management. Many members of Iran's urban middle class — and its important to remember that Iran is 70 percent urbanized — chose not to vote in the 2005 election, disillusioned with the failures of the reform movement led by (former Iranian president) Mohammad Khatami. They are returning in full after four years of Ahmadinejad and demanding that their votes be counted... SPIEGEL ONLINE: ...because they feel cheated. Were they? Molavi: That is the main reason people went out onto the streets. They felt that they were a victim of massive fraud — that their vote did not count. They did not go to the streets for a revolution. The case for a massive fraud is overwhelming. Let's make no mistake: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a base. But on election day, the results of 40 million ballots were announced within an hour of polls closing. Hand counting 40 million ballots? In addition, security services surrounded the offices of Ahmadinejad's main opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi. They shut down Mousavi Web sites. They jailed hundreds of Mousavi supporters the next day. However, as the crowds grow, so do the demands, and what started out as protest with the slogan "where is my vote?" has morphed into something larger, reflecting a generalized discontent with the order of things. 
SPIEGEL ONLINE: It also seems as though it is no longer just like a battle of the people against the regime, but also a battle within the regime itself. Molavi: The analysis in Tehran is that this was a coup perpetrated by supporters of the "new guard" of revolutionary elite, many of whom hail from the security and intelligence services. Over the past four years, Ahmadinejad has appointed former Revolutionary Guard members and former security officials to key positions. Facing them is the "old guard," consisting of influential figures like former President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Mousavi. The clerics are divided, too. Rafsanjani already went to talk to the major clerics and likely warned them that the current turmoil is highly dangerous for the country and for them personally. The interesting thing is: Rafsanjani is also chairman of the Assembly of Experts, 83 clerics theoretically authorized to appoint or remove the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds a strong grip on power. This internal struggle is the most serious ever faced by the Islamic Republic. 
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How does Mir Hossein Mousavi fit in to all of this? Molavi: Pre-election Mousavi was seen by many as the "anybody but Ahmadinejad" candidate. He is not a man of great political charisma, nor a bonafide reformer. Post-election Mousavi, however, is an entirely different character. Before the election, he was largely just an interesting candidate for voters who wanted to avoid four more years of Ahmadinejad at any price. Now he has become a political martyr, a hero to many Iranians. That is why Barack Obama's statement on Tuesday evening (Eds. note: In which he said "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised") failed to appreciate the reality on the ground. Mousavi is by now not just a leader, he is also being led by the Iranian people. SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the power in Iran still resides with the Supreme Leader Khamenei. So far, he has declared Ahmadinejad the winner of the election. Will he change his mind? Molavi: The Supreme Leader likes to have power without accountability, as Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out. He likes to cultivate this image where he stays above the fray of politics, and he will only intervene in times of crisis. The idea of a bold, ambitious coup as apparently orchestrated by Ahmadinejad's people is uncharacteristic of him. There are questions whether he was even told about it. Then again, Khamenei tends to side with the conservatives — but he has also never seen a crisis like this. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does that mean that he might even call for new elections should the protests not subside? Molavi: It would be an enormous U-turn if he called for new elections as the Mousavi camp is demanding. That would be a real blow to his credibility. There is also the fear that the authorities are preparing a Tiananmen Square-style crackdown. That is why they are shutting down Web sites and throwing out the foreign journalists. They don't want to do it in front of the world public. My only hope is: As the crowds get larger, it is getting harder to clamp down on the protesters. 
SPIEGEL ONLINE: US President Barack Obama has remained largely silent thus far. Is that a politically intelligent move or rather cold-hearted? Molavi: I think the Obama administration should not actively take a
political side in the internal struggle. However, it should speak out
against egregious human rights violations. Their initial reaction has
been a little too tepid. But in my view, it is not just about Obama: I
get the sense from Iranian cyberspace that they are very keen on
hearing from global civil society. They want people around the world
to stand in solidarity with them. One idea floating around is that
people from Berlin, Paris, London, Cairo, or Washington, or wherever
in the world, do one simple thing: wear green, which was the color of
Mousavi's campaign, and has become the color of justice for Iranians.
I think global civil society will have a far bigger impact than Obama
could.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
THE GATHERING STORM
Posted by Arlene Peck, June 19, 2009. |
|
I know before the election, if G-d forbid I mentioned anything about Obama I was told "Arlene! You're racists!" The man is going to bring us "Change" Well, to tell the truth, I've been living in this country a long time and didn't think it so bad that we needed to change from democracy to what where heading into now. It was never a 'black thing' but a Muslim thing. I didn't (don't) want a Muslim to be my President!. And, I love not only my country of the United States but Israel as well and see the danger of the 'change' he has brought us. I have had friends tell me that they only want to hear about happy things.. Don't bother (annoy) them by trying to say anything about this "Messiah" that had mysteriously come out of nowhere to lead us. Now, I'm just curious. And concerned that there are still those of you who won't see what is happening. So, to you, and the others that I feel 'get it' I'd like to share with you some of the information that as a member of the press I am sent. I am also sending you a few columns for recognized journalists so hopefully you don't just discard it thinking.. it's one of my columns (although it's there too! What I wrote BEFORE the election) And, to the ones that aren't drinking the Kool-aide, I'd like to know if you actually waded through all of this and what your conclusions you might have come to. Arlene |
|
Watch This Exellent Video (in Hebrew with subtitle): "An Honest Response From Feiglin to Obama" To view the video, click here SPEAKER: Moshe Feiglin, leader Manhigut Yehudit [Likud Faction]
Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best) but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really? This much: — He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America . — He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist. — He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005. — He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally. — He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya . — He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill. — He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal. — He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat. — He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat. — He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat. — He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat. — He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants. For the love of God, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy. LET'S ALL ACCEPT ISLAM by Bruce Bialosky
Mr. Obama, your speech in Cairo encouraged me to reconsider my thoughts on how I view Islam as a religion in today's society. I have really thought it over and decided to fully accept Islam ... with just a few caveats. First, they have to stop treating women as second class citizens. Don't tell me those head covers are worn by choice. They are forced on them just like honor killings. It is sad the French have it right and we don't on this issue. This is a country where we have worked for a hundred years to bring equality to women. Allowing any woman to be subservient is disgraceful. And come to think of it, tell your Secretary of State and Speaker of the House to stop covering their heads on visits. They are supposed to be beacons of the women's movement. By covering their heads, they are not being respectful to their hosts — they are disgracing every woman who ever fought for equal rights. Next, tell the Islamists to stop killing gays. Maybe gays are not totally accepted in this society, but we have made great progress in the last 50 years. We may not agree on gay marriage, but we certainly agree on equal rights for gays. We don't allow them to be killed just for being gay. How about the issue of freely elected democratic governments in the Muslim world? Not too many of those around, are there Mr. Obama? When the Islamic world stops being run like feudal societies given up by the rest of the world half a millennium ago, I think it would then be a grand time to accept the Muslims. I know it is sometimes politically expedient to deal with dictators. We even had to make a deal with a mass murderer named Stalin to try and fight another mass murderer named Hitler. But please explain to me why in today's world, where the great majority of people live in democracies, do we need to make nice-nice with dictators. This country is all about not accepting autocracies, Mr. Obama. Next, the Muslims should stop trying to tell us they really care about the Palestinians and that the trouble in the Middle East is because of their problems. The Arabs have done nothing — I repeat nothing — to help them for 60 years, and we all know that. The Palestinian problem did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel and got their butts kicked. These people willingly relocated out of the Israeli territory, and their Arabs friends did nothing to help them. So please be honest and stop lying to us because we both know it is a lie. Once you do that, we can all move forward. Mr. Obama, we also want an apology for all those Christians and Jews kicked out of the Arab countries. While they have been really good on creating a lie about the Palestinians being kicked out of their land, they have done an excellent job of covering up all those people they kicked out. Well, they did not really kick them out. They offered them to convert or die. Moving was a much better option. If anyone wonders where all those Jews in Israel came from they should check it out. Not just Europe or Russia, but from all those neighboring Arab states where they were no longer welcome. That may answer why it is such a big deal that Jews are building settlements in the West Bank. It is not that they are Israelis — it is that they are Jews and if Israel gives back the West Bank, Jews and Christians will no longer be welcome. Last, when Muslims start protesting the murders and indecencies performed in the name of Islam then I will accept them. We are told that the people who do these acts are a small minority of Muslims. So where are the protests, where are the books, where are the articles, where is the Islamic Pete Seeger? If Islam is really a religion of peace, then start showing it. We have been waiting for it and the memories I have are of Muslims out partying after the Twin Towers went down. Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome. OBAMA BREEDS CLIMATE OF HATE AGAINST JEWS by Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us. It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state. Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel. But this was code. In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in
Israel, in America and everywhere.
And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel's actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler's genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that "six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today" — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."
"On the other hand . . . "?
Obama's clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama's speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.
If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama's speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.
Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam's peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim's violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam's well known and checkered past.
Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America's evils, such as its "colonialism" and history of slavery.
"For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation," Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn't it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: "Likewise, it is important for Western
countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion
as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim
woman should wear."
And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama's only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim
countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for "crimes"
such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim
countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that "as a student of history" he understands more than most the truth about "civilization's debt to Islam."
He added, "And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
"On the other hand," to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let's start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel's record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal
of "wiping the Jewish state off the map" — and hits this tiny
nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to
retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
DUTCH ANTI-ISLAMIC MP: 'ISRAEL IS WEST'S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE'
Israel will be a major part of Geert Wilders' next film on Islam, the rightist Dutch legislator said last week in an interview for Haaretz. He praised Avigdor Lieberman, observing "similarities" between Yisrael Beiteinu and the Party for Freedom — a small movement which has grown to become Holland's second most popular. Wilders, a controversial anti-immigration politician, rose to international fame last year when he released a 14-minute film entitled Fitna, which attempts to portray what he considers as Islam's "violent nature." The film, which has been viewed by millions online, provoked mass protests throughout the Muslim world. In April Wilders announced he was working on a sequel. Just as Fitna focused on genocidal anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, Wilders said that the sequel — which focuses on "Islamization in the West" — will show "how the forces of Islamization are specifically targeting Israel in a fight against all free societies." Advertisement He added: "The film will demonstrate that the fight against Israel is not territorial, and hence Israel is only the first line of defense for the West. Now it's Israel but we are next. That's why beyond solidarity, it is in Europe's interest to stand by Israel." Wilders is facing criminal charges for allegedly inciting hate by comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf in the original Fitna film. His party's dark horse achievement in the European Parliament elections earlier this month, he said, is connected to the judicial system's decision to prosecute him. The Party for Freedom — which has only nine seats in Dutch parliament — won five seats in the June 4 European elections, making it the second largest of all Dutch parties in Brussels. A recent poll shows that if elections were held now, the Party would become the country's largest or second largest. "The appeals court's decision in January to prosecute me angered many people, as did the decision by the government of the U.K. not to let me enter Britain," Wilders told Haaretz. He added some of the anger manifested itself in the European Parliament election. According to Wilders, his party's rise in popularity is reminiscent of how Lieberman's party grew to become Israel's third largest. "Our parties may not be identical, but there are certainly more similarities than dissimilarities, and I am proud of that," Wilders said about Yisrael Beiteinu. "I've met Liebrman and called to congratulate him after the Israeli elections," said Wilders, who visits Israel frequently to meet with leading Israeli politicians, defense officials and opinion-shapers. "Lieberman's an intelligent, strong and clever politician and I understand why his party grew in popularity." Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu is, according to Wilders, safer because it doesn't automatically accept the two-state solution. But he added: "I am more concerned now about Israel's situation because of the positions of U.S. President Barack Obama." The president's speech in Cairo "shocked" Wilders, he says. "Until now Israel could rely on the U.S. for support even when the Europeans failed to offer it. Now Israel will have a tougher time," he added. "The two-state solution is an internal Israeli matter and I hesitate to interfere. But my personal belief is that there is a two state solution for the Palestinians. One of those states is called Jordan," he added. Wilders also said that Obama's preference for dialogue with Iran despite its ongoing drive to obtain nuclear weapons — according to Western intelligence reports — is "intolerable." The Party for Freedom will not join any bloc at the European Parliament, Wilders said. "We will not join an rightist party with anti-Semitic or xenophobic inclinations," he explained. "The attempts to classify us as such are the result of our rivals' panic." Wilders' party believes in halting immigration to the Netherlands, and banning the construction of mosques in that country. While defending gay rights and supporting animal welfare bills, the Party holds a hardliner assimilations stance on the integration of existing immigrants into Dutch society, and is consistently Eurosceptic. "Our achievement in the European Parliament owed partly to a protest vote by people who do not accept that their tax monies are funding highways in Portugal and subsidizing Polish farmers. They want their money back — approximately five billion euros." Described by some as "fascist" and "ultra-nationalist," other Dutch parties have shunned the Party for Freedom, treating it as a pariah movement. However, as its political power climbs, leading centrist politicians are advocating an alliance with Wilders, touching off a heated debate in their parties' ranks. "We have no power but a lot of influence, and are now a serious force which cannot be ignored," Wilders said. "I think the stale political establishment of the Netherlands doesn't quite know how to close the window that let in our party, like a cool draft of wind." WHY OBAMA WANTS TO HIDE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE By Joseph Farah
Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama's birth certificate, many have asked me about the president's possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence. I think there are many plausible motives: * Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is. What do I mean by that last possibility? Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn't Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens. Start your own eligibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND's new yard signs, asking: "Where's the Birth Certificate?" On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen." It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate." And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew — or should have known — that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's. Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicated it would take two to tango. He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president. "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded — again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens. And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too." By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" — the offspring of two U.S. citizens. Now, I don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I've seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all. But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii! So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president. If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That's what Leahy said. That's what Chertoff said. That's what the law says. A logical question naturally follows: Why didn't the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama's eligibility when they did so on McCain's eligibility? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there's no way Obama would have qualified. Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible? That's the heart and soul of the campaign I've been running. By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.) So, again, I ask: Why doesn't Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away — once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all. But let me remind you all, in case you hadn't considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that's why we can never, ever let this matter rest. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
SOMETIMES IT IS MORE ESSENTIAL TO DEFINE THE NATURE OF EVIL THAN GOOD
Posted by LEL, June 19, 2009. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Rosenblum
and it is archived at
|
|
Upon his first visit to one of the liberated death camps, Allied Supreme Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "There are those who ask what are we fighting for. Let them come here and see what we are fighting against." Eisenhower's remark contains an important insight: Sometimes it is more essential that one define the nature of evil than that one define what is good. About the latter, there will inevitably be many opinions. But they need not prevent a consensus from coalescing around the definition of evil. I was reminded of that point last week as I watched the DVD The Third Jihad (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=B001PIHOWI/jewishworldrevie), the third in a trilogy of documentaries on the threat of radical Islam produced by Raphael Shore and Wayne Kopping. Towards the end of the documentary one of the experts interviewed, former CIA intelligence officer Clare Lopez declared, "The real war is between the values of freedom and barbarism. If we are not willing to recognize the battle as one for our civilization, we might as well give up right now." The last time the West faced such a civilizational threat, many
refused to recognize the nature of the conflict. In Troublesome
Young Me, Lynne Olsen offers a gripping account of the group of
youthful Conservative backbenchers, who eventually ousted British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain from power and brought in Winston
Churchill in his place, nearly a year after the outbreak of World War
II.
ENGLAND ENTERED THAT WAR TOTALLY UNPREPARED, and lagging far behind Germany in every respect, apart from its navy. Even after Britain proclaimed war, following the Nazi invasion of Poland, Chamberlain pursued it half-heartedly and dreamed of an imminent peace. Britain and France bombed only German military targets most narrowly defined. Meanwhile Luftwaffe pilots in Poland followed orders to "close [their] hearts to pity," happily machine-gunning women and girls picking potatoes, bombing churches and hospitals, and strafing toddlers being herded to safety. The parallels between today and the earlier period are eerie. Chamberlain, like President Obama today, enjoyed an overwhelming majority in Parliament. His party whips enforced party discipline with an iron hand — think Rahm Emanuel — and backbenchers who stepped out of line put their political futures on the line. In another interesting parallel, Chamberlain enjoyed almost across the board fawning support from the press and the BBC. That included self-imposed censorship on the information reaching the British public. After the Anschluss, British papers carried no pictures of the hundreds shot in the first days after the Nazi takeover, of the tens of thousands arrested and sent to concentration camps, or of Nazi soldiers forcing Jewish doctors, lawyers and professors to scrub the streets and clean toilets on their hands and knees. When reporters asked Chamberlain about such matters, he snapped at them for believing "Jewish-Communist propaganda," and that was the end of the matter. The British press ignored both the massive German arms build-up prior to the War, and the pitiful state of British preparedness. Both before and after the conflict started, it suppressed mention or quotations from Hitler's speeches that would have conveyed a much different impression of his goals. As a British TV character tartly observed forty years later, "It is hard to censor the press when it wants to be free, but easy if it gives up its freedom voluntarily."
CHAMBERLAIN NEVER READ MEIN KAMPF, in which Hitler laid out in startling fashion both his future plans for the Jews and for German conquest. Far from viewing Hitler as an evil man, Chamberlain believed him to be a "gentleman," with whom he could do business. He was more than once shocked to find that Hitler had lied to him, even though that too was foreshadowed in Mein Kampf, Said future Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, "He didn't believe people existed [who would] say one thing and do another. ...It was pathetic, really." Chamberlain, according to Olsen, "could never bring himself to believe that [Hitler and Mussolini] wanted to go to war. Clinging to the security of his ignorance, he created a peace-loving image of them that defied reality." For a decade, the English and French did nothing in response to fascist aggression in Abyssinia (Ethiopia), Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and precious little even in the wake of the German invasion of Poland. France and England thereby encouraged Hitler to believe they were too weak to prevail, a judgment in which he was very nearly right. That should have taught us — but did not — that those who hope to avoid war via appeasement inevitably end up fighting later on worse terms. At no point, did Chamberlain recognize that Hitler constituted a mortal threat to Western civilization. As a consequence, he displayed far more ruthlessness fighting those within his own party who dared challenge his policies than he did in fighting Hitler. The inability to recognize Hitler as evil incarnate is the most frightening parallel to today. President Ronald Reagan was reviled by Western elites for calling the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, as was President George W. Bush for grouping Iran, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq together as the Axis of Evil.
THE WEST STILL REMAINS INCAPABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGING EVIL or giving credence to the pronouncements of evil men. Ayatollah Khomeini long ago made clear that he was prepared to see Iran go up "in flames," if the worldwide rule of Islam were thereby furthered. Mutual assured destruction, says Bernard Lewis, the greatest living authority on Islam, is for Ahmadinejad, "not a deterrent but an incentive." Surveying the scene in Beslan, where Chenyan Muslims killed nearly 300 Russian schoolchildren, one of the speakers on The Third Jihad puts the point succinctly: Why should those who don't hesitate to send out their own children to be killed hesitate to kill other peoples' children? Yet the highest wisdom in the West today is to not take seriously the threats of Ahmadinejad or the speculations of the Iranian leadership about the mathematics of a nuclear exchange with Israel. They are not madmen, we are constantly told. President Obama has no taste for confrontation with radical Islam (only with Israel). He cannot even admit that it exists. Evil, it seems, is one of the few words that does not come trippingly off his tongue. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
WHY IS JONATHAN POLLARD STILL IN PRISON?
Posted by De Webster, June 19, 2009. |
|
I know that what could hit the fan if the history of Jonathan Pollard's real history is revealed, but I believe that it already has been, albeit with caveats for libel and slander litigation. The book The Secret Wars of the Jews, by Loftus and Aarons contains a great deal of detail on this matter, and the surviving participants have little more to hide, it seems to me. With the spotlight on Iran and Israel's potential survival at risk, I think this would be a good time to push for amnesty for Pollard, especially for an American President with strong ties to Islam. It would be seen as an open-handed move by Obama to keep the confidence of the Jews in the U.S. and Israel while handing Iran the tools to destroy the Jewish nation. Just as Reagan was exactly the right person to negotiate with the USSR, Obama is the right man to pardon Pollard. Since I think that Netanyahu, his cabinet and the Knesset are capable of acting in the interests of Israel to remove Iran's critical threat to its survival, now is a good window of opportunity to try to get a reprieve and for Pollard to be released after more than 24 years for time served. Once war with Iran starts, there will too many other factors involved. I still haven't been able to get the Israeli side of the Pollard story. I have a plethora of questions of WHY Israel never officially tried to gain freedom for Pollard. The answers are long overdue. Why are the people standing up for Jonathan and the government not? This question has haunted me for many years, and prevented me from making Aliyah. My reasoning is that if the country of Israel didn't stand up for Jonathan Pollard, what chance would I have in any situation that might be even remotely embarrassing to Israel? |
|
|
|
ARE HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH UNITING TO CRUSH IRANIAN DISSIDENTS?
Posted by Paul L. Williams, June 19, 2009. |
|
Encountering Hamas in Teheran is tantamount to meeting an African American at a KKK gathering. And yet, the Sunni terrorist group from the Palestinian Authority is now joining hands with the Shi'ite mullahs of Iran to crush street protests in favor of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and to solidify the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This development was reported by the Jerusalem Post and other international news outlets as rioting on a scale unseen in Iran for nearly a decade continued in the wake of the elections and the allegations that the results were falsified. The protests have now spread from Teheran to other major cities. Hamas formally welcomed the re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last Saturday. Despite the blackout of media coverage, thousands of protesters rallied again in Teheran on Tuesday and Wednesday in support of Mousavi. Israeli sources maintain that scores of people have been killed by security forces at rallies that have erupted throughout Iran in the wake of last week's presidential elections. An Iranian student passed out flyers to Jerusalem Post reporters that listed the names of Fatima Brahati, Kasra Sharafi, Kambiz Shahi, Mohsen Emani, and Mina Ahtrami. He claimed that these individuals were Teheran University students who had been murdered yesterday by pro-government gunmen. "The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the student said, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."[emphasis added — ed.] Other Iranian protesters — including a young man who carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other — also testified to the presence of Hamas in Teheran. A young man who carried a butcher knife in one hand and a rock in the other said, "My brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough — they are thirsty for our blood too." It's ironic, the knife wielding man added, the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." He expressed his hope that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians. When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hezbollah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets... The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want... [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country." Official government radio reports refuse such claims by stating that the victims were trying to loot weapons and to vandalize public property, and had been shot by unidentified gunmen. This raises a larger question. Why would Hamas, a Sunni terrorist organization, be involved in supporting the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Shiite mullahs? The union between the two terrorist groups was brought about not by a charismatic caliph or an ecumenical imam but rather by former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. In December 1992, Mr. Rabin ordered the deportation of 415 members of Hamas to southern Lebanon. In Lebanon, the Sunni terrorists of Hamas were granted shelter and protection by the Shi'ite terrorists of Hezbollah in accordance with the Muslim code of milmastia (hospitality). The exiled Sunnis responded to this gesture of goodwill by assisting the efforts of their Shi'ite hosts to gain a foothold within Israel — something that Hezbollah had been unable to achieve, since the Islamic population of Israel remained almost entirely Sunni and actively antagonistic to the presence of a Shi'ite party within the waaf ("the land of Palestine"). Other developments followed. Hezbollah began to train Hamas in advanced bomb-making techniques along with the fine art of suicide bombing, a tactic that previously had been shunned by the Sunnis because of the Koran's injunctions against suicide. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place within a bus station in Hadera on April 13, 1994. The attack left five people dead and a score wounded. An onslaught of other suicide bombings followed throughout Israel in such rapid succession that it became difficult to discern if the attacks were being perpetuated by Hamas or Hezbollah. The new spirit of cooperation between Sunni and Shi'ite terrorists resulted in a monumental meeting between Imad Mugniyah, the head of Hezbollah, and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda in 1995 at the headquarters of ali Numeini, a Sudanese sheikh, in Khartoum. The meeting resulted in joint operations, including the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998 — bombings, according to U.S. military sources, that bore the distinct signatures of bin Laden and Mugniyah. The same signatures could be discerned on the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000. The blast had been caused by a "cone-shaped charge" that contained "moldable high explosives such as SEMTEX H." It represented a device that had been developed by Mugniyah for terror attacks in Lebanon, Israel, and South America. In recent years, Iran has given shelter to leading Sunni terrorists, including Saad bin Laden, Osama's eldest son; Yaaz bin Safat, a top-ranking al Qaeda planner; Mohammed Islam Haani, the mayor of Kabul during the reign of the Taliban; Saif al-Adel, the military commander of al Qaeda; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda operative in charge of the expulsion of US troops from Iraq; and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command. And so, for many observers of events in the Middle East, the presence of Hamas on the streets of Iran to support Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs comes as small surprise. "We have been screaming at them [White House officials] for years that these guys all work together," am overseas operative told the Washington Post. "When we hear back that it can't be because they [the terrorists] don't work that way. That is bullshit. . . These guys all work together as long as they are Muslims. There is no other division that matters."[emphasis added — ed.] The union of Sunni and Shi'ite radicals on the streets of Teheran broods ill for Israel. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could trigger a backlash that would reverberate throughout the Muslim world.
Paul L. Williams is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation
of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other
best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news
networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his
website at http://thelastcrusade.org.
Contact him by email at thelastcrusade09@gmail.com. This
article is archived at
|
|
COMPROMISES WITH HEZBOLLAH ARE LETHAL
Posted by Elias Bejjani, June 19, 2009. |
|
My essay addresses the Hazards of giving up to the threats of this terrorist group in the coming Lebanese government. |
|
Time after time terrorist and fundamental groups like Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas and all others, prove with no shed of doubt that they only comprehend, listen and respond to crystal clear means of decisiveness, overt offensive action and a strong show of strength and power. Their backward and destructive ideologies, as well as their fundamentalist nature and disrespect for all things unlike their own, reveal their true chauvinistic nature, as they look to humiliate, belittle and trample all those who ignore their threats and who do not bow to their logic and demands. Before the recent Lebanese parliamentary elections, most of the March 14 (Cedar Revolution coalition) leaders and thinking tanks, were not sure that they would be able to win a majority and prevent Hezbollah and its mercenary pro-Syrian and Iranian allies, in the form of the March 8th Coalition, from taking over the country. Most of the Western free world countries were also almost sure that the March 8th Coalition was on its way to control the Lebanese parliament and accordingly rule Lebanon and turn it into another Gaza conundrum. Some of these countries even issued official statements in which they addressed openly their future inclination to deal openly with Hezbollah when they would win the elections. At the same time the majority of the media facilities in the USA, Europe, Israel and some Arab countries published hundreds of studies, poll results and analytical reports and interviews, all predicting Hezbollah's sure win. The Lebanese peace loving people were not deceived, discouraged or influenced by all these negative predictions and polls. They held to their solid beliefs, optimism, deeply rooted faith and love for life and voted with their conscience with success. They chose with strong determination and perseverance to safeguard their beloved country and protect its democratic and multicultural nature. These Lebanese bravely headed to the polls, casted their votes and gave once more the March 14th coalition an overwhelming parliamentary majority. They stood tall like their country's Holy Cedars and succeeded victoriously in usurping the expected endgame predicted by most of the world. The Lebanese people, in spite of all the evil tactics of oppression, intimidation and bribery that Hezbollah and their allies inflicted on them on a daily basis, declared a resounding "No!", and did not allow this Iranian armed terrorist organization to take over their country, uproot their identity, enslave them and downtrodden their dignity and pride. Hopefully the Western Free World countries and the Arab States will seriously and effectively come to the rescue of the Lebanese people, and help them find a final and lasting solution for Hezbollah's mini state and its huge arsenal of weapons. Neither the Lebanese, nor their government can accomplish this sophisticated, risky and costly mission alone. Hopefully the Western Free World and the Arab States will seriously and effectively come to the rescue of the Lebanese people and help them find a final and lasting solution for Hezbollah's mini state and its huge arsenal of weapons. Neither the Lebanese, nor their government can accomplish this sophisticated task. Hezbollah is an Iranian Army stationed in Lebanon that threatens not only the Lebanese and their state, but also Israel, all the Arab countries as well as peace and democracy all over the world. This fact simply means Hezbollah, yes is a Lebanese problem, but also and to a great extent it is a deadly regional and global real hazard too. Hezbollah's mini state in Lebanon, militarily, financially and organizationally is much more powerful than the Lebanese state itself. This reality is well known to all the Arab and Western countries. According to the France Press Agency, (June 17/09), the former USA head of homeland security, Mr. Michael Chertoff has said in a book that he will publish later this year: ("Hezbollah Could Surpass Al Qaida as Most Serious Long-Term Threat to the U.S. It is better equipped, better trained and better politically positioned than Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and its network are our most serious immediate threat, they may not be our most serious long-term threat. Having operated for more than a quarter-century, Hezbollah has developed capabilities that al-Qaida can only dream of, including large quantities of missiles and highly sophisticated explosives. This group also has uniformly well trained operatives, an exceptionally well-disciplined force of nearly 30,000 fighters, and extraordinary political influence"). According to Chertoff, Hezbollah was behind a suicide bombing that killed 200 U.S. marines in Beirut in 1983 and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed more than 20 people. Despite its defeat in elections earlier this month, Hezbollah and its allies remain a major force in Lebanese politics. It is this power, along with Hezbollah's military weight and ties with Iran that are worrying, according to Chertoff. " Hezbollah shows what an ideologically driven terrorist organization can become when it evolves into an army and a political party and gains a deeply embedded degree of control within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon's democratic infrastructure," he warns. Chertoff argues Hezbollah poses a growing threat in the Western Hemisphere, despite limited attacks on U.S. targets. "While Hezbollah may not have carried out attacks in the United States itself, it has developed a presence in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in South America," Chertoff says, alleging that the group carried out bombings of Jewish and Israeli targets in Buenos Aires."These acts disturbingly underscore Hezbollah's reach into the hemisphere, notably the tri-border areas at the margins of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay." (AFP, 7 June 09) Meanwhile Hezbollah is not hiding anymore its Iranian identity or it mere affiliation to the Iranian notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps). Its clergy leadership is boldly and loudly refusing to disarm or dismantle its mini state: Below is a verbatim fiery and scary statement uttered recently by one of Hezbollah's prominent clergymen: MTV — Sunday, June 14, 2009: " Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek, the personal representative in Lebanon of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,, and Hezbollah's Party Shawra Council member: "Hezbollah will not give up its strength no matter how much the USA and others dream of its weapons. He who does not own weapons can't live in this world". He added; "Others during the election period (Lebanese June 07/09 parliamentary elections), entered peoples' houses to scare them from Waeleat Al Faqeah and (fool them) that Iran will come to Lebanon to turn it to an Iranian arena. To this extent the surge of militarization, communalism and sectarianism has reached. The whole world came (to Lebanon) to delude the people that if the opposition (8th of March Coalition) wins the elections, Lebanon will become another Gaza. The will and referendum were on the resistance. It (The resistance) has transformed from being weapons to a state of education and society. We will not give up this strength no matter how much the USA and others dream of our weapons. Our weapons are subject to our lives because we see that he who does not own weapons and power won't be able to live in this life. Therefore we have to impose our existence via the strength that we own. This is why we are today better then ever before. Rest assured, you the honest, we are the victorious by God's will because we call for what is righteous and do not)". Now that the parliamentary election is over, the 14th of March Coalition MP'S, who were awarded the majority by the people, have a national, ethical and legal obligation to hold dear to their election's platform and promises. The Lebanese gave them a mandate to stop Hezbollah from controlling the country, contain its weapons within the state's institutions, put an end to its mini state, and find the appropriate ways and means to end its hegemony on Lebanon's decision making process in regards to war and peace. Any compromises the 14th of March Coalition cut with Hezbollah on the account of the law, constitution and UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701, will be fatal to the future of the Lebanese state as a democracy, and to the peace process not only in Lebanon, but in the whole region. What the people of Lebanon are looking for as a first step is that the 14th of March Coalition will not give to Hezbollah or its weaponry any legitimacy in the Ministerial Statement of the government that will be formed soon. While dealing with Hezbollah, at any level, and with what ever issue, the 14th of March Coalition MP'S must never ignore that fact that the majority of Lebanese people from all nominations, and all walks of life, with no fear or hesitation have given them a mandate to say, No to Terrorism, No to Syrian and Iranian schemes against Lebanon, No to Hezbollah's weaponry arsenal and mini state, No to the education of hatred, rejection of others, suicide and fanaticism, Any deviation from these NO'S shall mount to treason. Both MP'S, Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblat must tailor their stances with the framework of the peoples' mandate and fulfill their electoral promises. By God's will, Lebanon shall never, ever be a replicate of the Iranian Mullah's oppressive Regime, and will never, ever adopt the Iranian denominational Wilayat Al-Faqih doctrine as a substitute to its constitution, Multiculturalism, Human Rights, Democracy and openness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_Islamic_Jurists) Congratulations to the Lebanese faithful and patriotic people for their peaceful and daring achievement. Beloved Lebanese in Lebanon: We, The Lebanese in Diaspora are very proud of you EDITOR'S NOTE: From Steven Shamrak, June 30, 2009: New Broom in Lebanon with the Same Attitude. Lebanon will not conduct an independent peace track with Israel and may not even join the Arab peace initiative: "the Arab initiative includes many countries for the peace process, and Lebanon will come as we see fit." said Hariri, the 39-year-old so-called moderate leader of the largest parliamentary bloc, which dealt a major setback to Hizbullah and its Syrian and Iranian backers, but his hateful attitude toward Israel is the same as others! Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist,
journalist and political commentator. Email him at
phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
|
|
US ECONOMY AND JIHAD; HOPE FOR DEFEATING JIHAD; STEREOTYPING BY
MUSLIMS; CONSUMER BOYCOT OF ISRAELI PRODUCTS IN US
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2009. |
|
WILL OBAMA POLICY ON ISLAM WORK? It certainly helps to stress the positive while still trying to isolate Radical Islam. I give President Obama credit for that much. There is a limit to how much his approach can work. Jihad is part of Islam. Also, when the U.S. fights for Muslims, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslims abroad hardly express solidarity with us. They still accuse us of being anti-Muslim. When we fight some Muslims to protect the rest, most Muslims complain that we are killing Muslims. When Muslims kill Muslims over religious ideology, few Muslims besides those in the war zone complain. Consider the jihad against Israel. Purpose: conquer Israel for Islam. The motive is religious. Therefore, the Arabs oppose Israel, regardless of what Israel does. This means that all the Obama efforts to change Israeli behavior are futile. To conceal jihad's religious motive from the West, Muslim Arabs depict their struggle against Israel in terms of grievances. These grievances either are manufactured or are their own fault and responsibility. The immediate demand of the jihadists is for Israeli withdrawal from strategic territories. If granted, new demands would follow, until Israel can be conquered. That is the purpose of the demands. That is how Islam operates. By taking up the jihadists' initial demands, President Obama is not helping to reconcile the Arabs with Israel. He is helping them to destroy Israel. Therefore, Arabs are less likely to reform and make peace. His policy is misguided, at best. For what Obama said at Cairo, click here:
THE U.S. ECONOMY AND JIHAD China learned to save money. It buys up the world's resources. The U.S. learned over decades to gather debt, blow bubblers, and bail out over-indebted plutocrats. No longer can the U.S. defend the whole world against jihad. We need allies and a savvy, patriotic President. We all need each other. The U.S. thought it had a big, strong, growing economy. Americans comforted themselves that lost manufacturing jobs were replaced by financial ones. Finance became 40% of its economy, mostly a bubble. Now that bubble has lost trillions of dollars, and U.S. does not have that much manufacturing. As Kevin Phillips reports in Bad Money, foreign countries are gaining control over foreign natural resources and are shifting the global currency away from dollars. They won't buy as many Treasury bonds to enable Americans to borrow what they cannot pay for and keep the stores in business as if we have a strong economy. SOVEREIGN INVESTMENT FUNDS One may suppose that the decline of the U.S. started with the 1973 oil embargo, when it was clear that America was living beyond it environmental resources. An alternative starting point is when banks copiously distributed sub-prime credit cards, getting Americans to live beyond their financial resources. In both cases, U.S. industry was in collusion with the culprits, and U.S. government was in cooperation with the colluders with the connivers. I was hoping from 1973 that the U.S. would develop energy independence. OPEC would have been tamed. At least, the Arabs squandered their sales revenues then. A lot of ideas come to me. Sometimes they are ideas of what the enemy might do. I keep those to myself. One of those ideas was the obvious one that if the Gulf states retained a portion of revenues for investment, they would have a viable economy after oil runs out. The growth of sovereign investment funds, mostly by the oil states and China, shows that the Arabs have caught on. Too bad they use their money and clout for jihad! People think that jihad is only military. Here we see it also can
be waged financially. For discussion of another method, click here:
HOPE FOR DEFEATING JIHAD I didn't report much about the battles in Pakistan, because we had only the Pakistani government's word for it. I now reckon that the government is serious about beating down the Taliban. In addition, there is reliable news about villagers forming militias against the Taliban. In Lebanon, the anti-terrorist coalition won the Parliamentary election. Apparently, the Radical Muslims' terrorism against Muslims who don't accept their repressive rule alienates the people. The people are turning against the radicals and gaining government support. There lies our hope. HAS EVERY ISSUE TWO SIDES, NO RIGHT OR WRONG? When my friends lack counter-arguments for my upholding of Israel versus the Arabs, they, who tell me I generalize too much, much fall back on the generalization that every issue has two sides, there is no right or wrong. That, itself, is misguided. Some issues have more than two sides, but when one side is imperialist, totalitarian, intolerant, and fanatical, as have been the Nazis, Communists, and Radical Islamists, then that side is wrong. Their opponents may not be perfect, but let's not quibble in the face of inexcusable evil by the totalitarian side. NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR TEST AND IRAN The N. Korean type nuclear power plant that Israel destroyed in Syria cost Iran $1-2 billion. N. Korea has contributed greatly to Iran's nuclear and missile development and to Syria's missile development. Since N. Korea cooperates with the other two, the menace is widespread. There is indeed an evil axis. Iran learned from N. Korea how to keep developing while mixing feigned cooperation with defiance. Since the Obama administration has only doves, and it has no answer to N. Korea, and it indicated that it is holding Iran's nuclear development hostage to Israeli fatal sacrifices to jihadists until after Iran will have developed nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't bother any more pretending to negotiate. Obama's foreign policy is based on negotiating with rogues and imposing on Israel. N. Korea and Iran have exposed his policy on negotiation as futile (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/28). For more on Obama's Iran policy, click here:
MUSLIM STEREOTYPING Abdulhakim Muhammad tried to justify his slaying of a solider in Arkansas as revenge for claims that U.S. troops had desecrated the Koran and killed or raped Muslims. Claiming he did it "for the sake of Allah," he denied that his deed was murder (NY Times, 6/30, A22). He hears a claim, doesn't verify or analyze it, kills someone on account of it, and considers himself to have done a good deed and to be a worthy Muslim. What do Islamic leaders think of that? The point is not whether the claim he heard is accurate. U.S. troops did not kill Muslims for being Muslims. Rather, U.S. troops were helping free some Muslims from others who were killing fellow Muslims. G.I. rape of Muslim women is rare and not U.S. policy, whereas rape of Christian and animist women is the policy of many Egyptian, Pakistani, and especially of Sudanese Muslims. Actually, most accusations of desecration of the Koran are false, but accusations of Muslim desecration of Christian and Jewish religious objects are true. That does not mean we should go out and kill Muslim men at random, out of revenge. That would be stereotyping. Muslims complain mightily that they are victims of Western stereotyping. Note that Mr. Muhammad is stereotyping. He picked on some soldiers he never met and who, as far as he knows, committed no offense. He went solely by their citizenship. That is prejudice of the worst sort, picking on the innocent. It makes such Muslims as bad as the people they complain about, even worse, since often the complaints are fraudulent. Here is a vacuum into which our righteous media and Muslim leaders should rush. During 9/11, our media and especially our President warned us against stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists. The media should expose the widespread Muslim stereotyping that encourages them to become terrorists to all U.S. soldiers or even all U.S. (and Israeli) citizens. The media should challenge Muslim leaders to demonstrate their moderateness and denounce Muslim stereotyping of Americans. For a related discussion, click here:
U.S. ENCOURAGING ARABS TO KILL ISRAELIS? Gen. Dayton is training Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces ostensibly to keep order and eradicate terrorism. He acknowledged recently [as I reported] that if the Arab-Israel conflict isn't resolved within two years, those forces may well being attacking and killing Israelis. The General did not express any concern that perhaps his training
of such would-be killers is ill-advised. This and the U.S. policy to
let Iran develop nuclear weapons and to insist that Israel give up
traditional and strategic territory shows that the new U.S.
Administration is not friend of Israel. Israel is on its own
Not a moral position by the General and by his superiors, who know the cost of Israel of their policy! What kind of an Administration did our people elect! One that give guns and money to murderers. I find that each President is as bad as his predecessor. My notion is that lobbies influence each political party negatively. This view is echoed in Kevin Phillip's Bad Money. While some prominent people rail about the Israel lobby, see what the U.S. is doing to Israel and how the U.S. is so much under the influence of other lobbies, that we can't end the profligacy and corrupt ways that caused this recession. For more on Gen. Dayton's building up of P.A. forces, click here or
go to:
For example of inciting Palestinian Arabs to murder Israelis, click
here or go to:
U.S. DENYING HELICOPTERS TO ISRAEL, NOT TO EGYPT The U.S. has approved the sale of a dozen AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters to Egypt. Its unsubstantiated boilerplate description of the sale denies that this and all the other billions of dollars worth of military gifts to Egypt change the balance of power. The U.S. has postponed the sale of those helicopters to Israel. The
U.S. is studying whether such weapons platforms causes excessive
civilian casualties
Egypt started its first war with an air raid on Tel Aviv. Capturing Gaza, it sent terrorists to attack Israeli civilians. It threatened to annihilate the Jews. It is not wise to build up a big Egyptian military. This is especially true since Egypt is not stable and Islamist influence there is increasing. The helicopters are not the only example of the U.S. denying Israel
arms. For another, click here or go to: Meanwhile, the jihadists get sold arms. For an example, click
here or go to:
CONSUMER BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI PRODUCTS IN U.S. From Rabbi Isaac Jeret of South Bay, California, comes this news about boycotts of Israeli products, a tactic copied from Europe into the U.S. The particular boycott is of Trader Joe's, a nationwide chain that has a store on 14th Street in Manhattan. Other stores will be boycotted, too. They weren't named. The Boycott Divestment Campaign is a coalition of anti-Israel groups based in Pittsburgh, PA.. Affiliated with it is the South Bay Mobilization Group (actually from another, more northern California area than the Rabbi's). The boycott is scheduled to start on Saturday, June 20. Before that, a group of boycotters entered a Trader Joes in Pittsburgh, knocked Israeli products off the shelves, and accosted customers. The manager threw them out as trespassers. [Why not as vandals? Let their bad behavior work against them!] The Campaign casts Israel as an apartheid state. Israel isn't. The boycotters repeat false claims about dispossession omit the real crimes of the Arabs along those lines. Europe has many Muslims [tending towards bigotry]. American has enough Jews to oppose the boycott effectively. Rabbi Jeret urges you people of good will to patronize Trader Joe's, because it stocks Israeli products and did not cave in to the boycott. Introduce yourselves to the managers, and explain why you are there. [Suggestion: have some Israeli products in your cart, when speaking to the manager.] More information may be obtained from www.StandWithUs.org (6/19). I sometimes shop at Trader Joes. They are known for moderate prices and some organic products. I think it shouldn't be only Jews who defend Israel and businesses from bigots. It would be wise for all Americans to nip this campaign in the bud. Remember, the boycotters are allied with the jihadists seeking to conquer America, among other places. The Campaign supports formation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza based on expulsion of the Jews. Now that is apartheid! Their accusation against Israel of being an apartheid state therefore is hypocritical. They make that accusation because it is a powerful one, not because it has any validity. My source explains that the Campaign supporters either are ignorant or are antisemitic. Antisemitism, buttressed by indoctrination in madrassas, mosques, and the Muslim media, and vented by vandalism and assaults, has grown tremendously. Therefore, my source's charge is not an idle one, though antisemites have learned to parry accusations against them as defamatory. Occasionally, some Jews make such serious accusations lightly. The Jews, once again having become an international scapegoat, now by the current major totalitarian movement, Radical Islam, are easy to target. Any boycott, however sincere its deluded organizers, is bound to pick up support automatically from the fascistic Radical Muslims and from other people eager to have a group to hate. Any excuse will do. Facts not considered. Logic irrelevant. Mob emotion rules. It is unfortunate that the Left becomes more radical and increasingly allies itself with aggressive Muslims, as on campus and in European political party platforms. This is a stain on the Left's record. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
NETANYAHU'S BLUNT TRUTHS
Posted by M. S. Kramer, June 19, 2009. |
|
PART I President Obama responded quickly to Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14 speech at Bar Ilan University. Obama said: "He acknowledged the need for two states. There were a lot of conditions, and obviously working through the conditions on Israel's side for security, as well as the Palestinian side for sovereignty and territorial integrity and the capacity to have a functioning, prosperous state, that's exactly what negotiations are supposed to be about. But what we're seeing is at least the possibility that we can restart serious talks." Everyone who wishes Israel well and has a realistic view of how diplomacy works can relax — the president of the United States has responded positively to Bibi Netanyahu's much-anticipated policy speech. So has the European Union: Jan Kohout, foreign minister of the Czech Republic which holds the rotating EU presidency, agreed that the speech was "a step in the right direction". Many Israeli pundits don't get it. For example, Yossi Verter of Haaretz newspaper wrote: "Why did Netanyahu wait until yesterday? Why did he not say this immediately after the elections? He might have been able to bring Kadima into his coalition. And if not then, then why not in a photo opportunity with Barack Obama at the Oval Office? The growing international pressure, the chill from the Israeli public, all these forced him to climb, even belatedly, onto the lingering two-state wagon." In my opinion, this was the brilliance of Netanyahu's speech. He could have spoken the words "Palestinian state" months ago, but then what bone would he had left to throw to the Obama Administration, while simultaneously turning the tables on the Palestinian Authority? The Palestinians, of course, don't get it. Arab-Israeli reporter Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in the "Jerusalem Post" newspaper: "Even before Prime Minister Netanyahu completed his speech, several PA [Palestine Authority] officials and spokesmen used every available platform to declare their total rejection of Netanyahu's ideas, especially with regards to the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Some went as far as hurling personal insults at Netanyahu, branding him a liar, a fraud and a swindler. Others hinted at the possibility that, in the wake of his strategy, the Palestinians would now have to resort to another intifada. PA representatives are now saying that Netanyahu 'cannot even dream of finding one Palestinian to talk to.' One senior official in Ramallah announced shortly after the prime minister finished his address that the Palestinians won't resume peace talks with Israel for at least a thousand years." Abu Toameh continued: "The harsh response of the PA is the direct result of high hopes that its leaders have pinned on the administration of US President Barack Obama. Reports about a looming crisis between the administration and Netanyahu over the future of the Middle East peace process, combined with Obama's conciliatory approach toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, created the impression in Ramallah that the Israeli government had no choice but to accept all the Palestinian demands. Briefing reporters on the eve of Netanyahu's speech, some of PA President Mahmoud Abbas's top aides predicted that, in the wake of increased US pressure, Netanyahu would be forced to give in, freezing settlement construction and accepting the two-state solution." The Israeli prime minister, by saying only what he had to say, put the ball in PA leader Mahmoud Abbas' court. Netanyahu's speech hit the raw nerves of Palestinians and other Arabs, explicitly marking red lines which Israel intends to stick to. At the same time, Netanyahu reduced American pressure on Israel by stating frank truths which are very difficult to ignore, even while the Obama Administration rushes to bring about a Palestinian state. Below, I'll expand on some of Netanyahu's most conclusive and compelling phrases from his very clever and important speech. Quote: "The Iranian threat still is before us in full force ... [It's] the greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity ...." Netanyahu couldn't skip the opportunity to start off with his identification of the greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, as opposed to "settlements", which the Palestinians ceaselessly trumpet as the major impediment to peace. Quote: "I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region." This economic sweetener is Netanyahu's attempt to promote vested interests among the Palestinians, which might influence them to build a state rather than concentrate on destroying and/or replacing Israel. Quote: "I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations. I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. ... I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war." This was Netanyahu's appeal to the basic human interests of the Palestinians to turn from war to peace. Quote: "What is the root of the conflict? ... [It's] the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland. In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever. Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin [terrorist] attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria." Netanyahu sets the historical record straight, saying the cause of Arab enmity towards Israel is not the settlements. As obvious as this is, it's seldom repeated by Israeli leaders. In contrast to President Obama's recent speech in Cairo, Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized Jewish historical rights to a homeland in Israel and deemphasized the Holocaust as the impetus for the State of Israel. He emphasized: "The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years: Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, [and] our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers," reiterating his point about the Jews' historic homeland in the Land of Israel.
PART II Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent policy speech treaded a fine line between trying to satisfy the Obama Administration's strictures, Netanyahu's right-wing coalition members, and the left-wing opposition. Though the speech has engendered much criticism, it generally was successful in buying time for Israel and putting the Palestinians on the defensive. Below are quotes from the latter part of the prime minister's speech, with my comments. Quote: "The Palestinians are not showing us that they want to end the conflict. ... A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers. ... We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality. ... With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias." By citing recent history, Netanyahu deftly illustrated the futility of the land for peace formula. Quote: "Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. ... We need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply 'We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state of its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace.' I am looking forward to this moment. ... The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People." Netanyahu emphasized the indispensable fact of Israel as the Jewish state — the birthplace of the Jewish people — a fact which the Palestinians must accept or there will never be a peace agreement. Quote: "The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years — persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place." In contrast to President Obama's speech in Cairo, which identified the Holocaust as the genesis of modern Israel, Netanyahu puts the cart before the horse, citing the need of a Jewish state for the protection of Jews worldwide. Quote: "We need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes. Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this." In a short, pointed statement, Netanyahu totally discredited any Palestinian return of refugees to Israel through history, justice and logic. Quote: "Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarized, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. ... And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or [groups like] Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel. We must provide for our security needs. ... The Palestinians cannot make military treaties. ... If we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state." Finally stating the slogan "Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state", Netanyahu explicitly announced the requirements for Israel's approval of a Palestinian state. Quote: "Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. Netanyahu put off discussions about territory and gave his intention not to build new settlements, while he retained the right for Israelis living in settlements to add additional space to their homes or build new homes within settlement boundaries. Jerusalem's place as Israel's united capital was emphasized. Quote: "If the Palestinians truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace. But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorists who seek to destroy it." Netanyahu signaled the need for reciprocity: an end to Palestinian incitement and violence would result in more freedom for the Palestinians and serious peace negotiations. Admittedly, some Israelis from both Left and Right wings are unhappy with his speech. For me, the idea of a demilitarized state is not credible, because it can't be enforced. (Remember Germany between the two world wars.) But as premier of a tiny country which relies on America to be its staunchest ally, Netanyahu had a tough job trying to satisfy both a new "even-handed" American president and the Israeli governing coalition, many of whose members hold a dim view of a possible Palestinian state. Indeed, Netanyahu didn't really break any new ground in his speech. But he did satisfy President Obama's minimum requirement to mention a possible Palestinian state while hopefully enlightening the president and others to Israel's ancient ties to the Middle East. If the Palestinians get one thing out of Netanyahu's speech, it may be that while Obama is leaning over backwards to recognize their claim, Israel has a government that believes in Israel's destiny and will resist selling it short (at least I hope so). In the meantime, I still remain opposed to the idea of a second Palestinian state — Jordan is the first — and think that fruitful negotiations towards peace must wait until the Arabs accept our Jewish state. 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." Contact him at sjk1@jhu.edu |
|
JERUSALEM PLANS: 12,000 JEWISH HOMES NIXED, 14,000 ARAB HOMES OK
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 19, 2009. |
|
"Only if all the religious parties in the municipality quit the coalition is there a chance to stop this travesty." So says a leading Jerusalem activist, regarding a new Interior Ministry-approved municipal plan to increase Arab housing and reduce religious housing in the capital. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat signed the plans two months ago, but opponents are considering filing a petition against them in the Supreme Court. "The entire process was fraught with irregularities and illegalities," says one activist, who does not yet wish to be identified. "For instance, the public forum was heavily weighted to the left with Arab and left-wing groups, without equal representation for nationalist and religious groups." The new plans greatly restrict the construction of "sukkah porches" — i.e., porches with no ceiling or obstruction above, enabling residents to observe the Sukkot holiday without having to build Sukkahs outside the building. In addition, 14,000 new apartments are being planned in Arab neighborhoods, while plans for 12,000 apartments in hareidi-religious areas have been shelved. Another clause in the new city zoning plan stipulates that the Mt. Scopus-Beit Orot municipal park area will be used to build a new Arab neighborhood. Especially infuriating to Jewish Jerusalem land groups is the designation of Shaar HaMizrach, a Jewish-owned area run by Aryeh King near the French Hill neighborhood, as a municipal garbage dump. The area has been the source of many battles in the past, and King says that Arab groups have long been pushing to have the area declared non-residential. Politically-Based Discriminatory Trend The Sanhedrin, a group of leading rabbis who wish to revive the traditional High Rabbinical Court known in Talmudic times by the same name, has listed the following objections: "The plans indicate a politically-based discriminatory trend said to be necessary in favor of the so-called Palestinian population, at the expense of the Jewish population. This is manifest in the form of plans to change the demographic balance in the city. The plans also include leaving areas for constructing Arab governmental buildings — thus advancing the current trend of dividing the city into two political entities." It is also noted that certain employment designations — such as higher education, government, bio-technology and medicine — will be granted preferential treatment, thus discriminating against the hareidi sector, in which these fields are less popular. NRP Looking into the Matter The plans also call for the establishment of "institutions for international and Israeli-Palestinian cooperation," as well as initial inquiry into the possibility of establishing an international university in the city. Israel National News contacted Deputy Mayor David Hadari of the National Religious Party on this matter. He explained, "I brought this matter up before the municipal leadership and the forum of Deputy Mayors [of which there are six — ed. It was decided that the mayor will look into these charges that the plans seek Jewish-Arab 'balance' in the city — and we, too, will be meeting with experts throughout the coming week. The bottom line is that I, and Mayor Barkat as well, object to such a trend — and there is currently a difference of opinion among the experts as to whether this plan leads to such a balance or not. Some say that we're reading the indicators wrongly, and that it in fact does not lead to this balance. This is what we will check." Asked if he is considering threatening to quit the coalition as a means of pressuring Mayor Barkat to withdraw his approval from the current plans, Hadari explained that there are currently 30 councilmen in the coalition, out of 31. All 15 of the religious-party members would have to quit in order to leave Barkat in the minority — "and this does not look likely at the moment," Hadari said. When it was pointed out that another councilman, of the Israel Our Home party, could also be counted on to object to the current plans, Hadari still insisted that this was not his preferred approach at present. Hadari acknowledged that the far-left Bimkom association, working to advance the cause of Arab housing in Jerusalem and throughout the country, was involved in the planning. "This is something we spoke to the mayor about," Hadari said, "and we will work to ensure that there is no trend to 'balance' out the demography in Jerusalem." At present, the issue is not in the forefront of public opinion. This may change in the coming days, however, and the politicians may then be forced to fall into line. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
FOOLED NO MORE... ONLY 6% IN ISRAEL CONSIDER OBAMA PRO-ISRAEL
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 19, 2009. |
|
This comes from Gateway Pundit |
|
An Israeli man walks past posters hung by an extremist right wing group depicting US President Barack Obama wearing a traditional Arab headdress. (AP) Isrealis see through the hype — Only 6% see Obama as pro-Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported: Only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of American President Barack Obama's administration pro-Israel, according to a new Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MULLAHS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 19, 2009. |
|
This is by Pamela Geller, the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and former associate publisher of the New York Observer. |
|
Iran is spinning out of control. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory in the Iranian elections, riots broke out in Tehran. Huge crowds continue to protest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's allegedly "rigged" victory. The government is trying to clamp down — opposition candidates were placed under house arrest and then released — but the unrest has not yet died down. The CIA should be in Iran, helping the dissidents and reformers, and strategizing the removal of the country's nukes. Instead, Obama said that "it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be," and that he was "deeply troubled by the violence" in Iran. (In contrast, he was "shocked and outraged" when late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered.) He said: "I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all of those are universal values, and need to be respected." (I hope he will remember to respect them in the United States.) "And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, uh, and whenever the American people see that, uh, I think they're rightfully troubled." But what is he going to do, now that he feels "troubled"? Keep talking to the mullahs: "We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries." Many people in the United States seem to think that the uprising represents a major sign of hope in America's relationship with Iran. Both liberals and conservatives have been putting great stock in the outcome of these elections, and they haven't given up hope. They seem to think that if Mir Hossein Mousavi becomes President, things will be different. Balderdash! On the surface it is a hopeful sign. But the bottom line is that the Presidency is not the highest office in Iran. The mullahs are in charge. The election was essentially a show. Mousavi is as radical as Ahmadinejad, but smoother. Nothing would have changed. The Islamic Republic of Iran is going nuclear and annihilationist. That doesn't change. I feel for those terrified souls who are marching through Tehran blindly, acting out in hope that it might effect any change. They are engaging in an exercise in futility. In reality, if they value their lives, they will flee Iran. We should have backed the reformers and the dissidents years ago when free men had a shot. But that was an opportunity missed — and now we are here. The allegations of fixed elections come after polls showed that half of the electorate wanted Ahmadinejad. But if half of the electorate wanted this bloodthirsty jihadi annihilationist, then what are we talking about? Hundreds of thousands of people turned out at rallies for Ahmadinejad before the election. The election was and is a ruse. As Christopher Booker wrote in The Telegraph, "The reality is that this was a completely sham battle between rival factions of a regime as ruthless as any in the world, in which the real power is exercised by the gang of hard-line mullahs round the 'Supreme Leader', Ali Khamenei. In an election riddled with fraud (six million more ballot papers were printed than there are Iranians eligible to vote), all four regime-approved candidates had long been personally involved in the regime's murderous reign of terror." Mousavi positioned himself as a reformer. It was shaping up to be a first-class piece of political theater: the "reformer" would win, and would con the UN and the President while finishing their extensive, comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Not one nuke, not two nukes. Many nukes. The world wants so desperately to be fooled. And so the "new" Iranian President would "engage" in a "new era," "new dialogue," and "diplomacy," to Obama's delight. It was always a ruse. Mousavi is as establishment as they come. He was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981to 1989, and editor in chief of the official newspaper of the Islamic Republic party. Further, he's cut from the same Nazi cloth as Ahmadinejad: he was one of the founders of Hezb'allah, and also helped construct Iran's murderous intelligence services. Mousavi was a favorite of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He said he was running for President because he could "no longer stand to see... [Iran] moving toward dictatorship." Nothing about ending Iran's jihad against Israel, or against America. Yeah, right, a reformer you can ...believe in! The election was and is irrelevant. Iran's objective has not changed, nor will it, since the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979. And at least with Ahmadinejad we know what the drill is. At least he is honest. We know who he is, what he is, and what he says. A Mir Hussein Mousavi win would have been a time wasting distraction. His objectives were the same as those of the mullahs. It was a battle between a wolf and a wolf in sheep's clothing. With an Ahmadinejad victory, be grateful we were spared all the leftist media tripe about "a new era" of "interfaith dialogue," featuring Katie Couric donning the hijab to get to know Mousavi's oh-so-progressive mother — all giving them more time to build more centrifuges. Bottom line: the Iranian election is a non-story, as are the riots, unless the demonstrators push Mousavi aside and topple the Islamic Republic itself. Failing that, it's all smoke and mirrors. The mullahs are running the mahdi madhouse, and they are pursuing their global agenda. This is nonsense. The real news story is the 55,000 centrifuges running twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and what Iran plans to do with them. The real news story is Obama's timidity as Iran's youth tear through the streets of Iran. He is abetting the mullahs. It doesn't matter who won. Iran is an annihilationist state. And either way, Obama is going to bow to these annihilationists. Iran is not going to cut the weak one in the White House any slack. No. They have opted not to give Obama the ruse of a "reformer." There will be no curtain for President Pantywaist to hide behind as he submits to these barbarians. The mullahs are going to show the world what Obama really is. The President is naked at the feast, baby. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
A NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL WREATH: LAYING CEREMONY FOR MURDERED USHMM STGT JOHNS
Posted by Carrie Devorah, June 18, 2009. |
|
Special Officer Johns died so others might live. His murder of is tragic. I proposed to Craig Floyd, president of National Law Enforcement Memorial Fun, that an honorary wreath laying ceremony be held at the Memorial for Special Officer Johns. It was my feeling. I spoke to others, law enforcement an civilian. It is their feeling too, that Special Officer Johns be honored in the tradition of officers honored for dying in the line of service. The National Law Enforcement Memorial is located at Judiciary Square here in Washington DC. The memorial pays homage to law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in acts of safety and protection of others. The National Police Week occurs each year during the week in which
May 15 fall, The Fraternal Order of Police/Fraternal Order of Police
Auxiliary organize a Peace Officers Memorial Day Service at the US
Capitol. Established by a joint resolution of Congress in 1962*
A memorial maintenance fund is for the memorial that sits on federal land, The memorial is managed by the United States Secretary of the Interior, Public Law 104-329 (October 20, 1996). The sale of commemorative coins and donations funs the memorial's maintenance. The memorial, designed by architect Davis Buckley, was dedicated on October 15, 1991. Special Officer John's murder brought attention to Special Officers, clarifying hey are sworn, they are trained, they do save lives. Often Special Officers are former an retired police officers. The memorial was established by an act of Congress in 1984. The decision to hold a special wreath laying ceremony can be the decision of Congress. Speaker Pelosi issued press release honoring Special Officer Johns. Now, it is up to everyday people to make this honor happen. What I can do is limited. All I can do is plant the seeds. With Craig Floyd president of the National Law Enforcement Memorial (craig@nleomf.com [NLEOMF, 400 7th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004 · 202-737-3400 ]); with Wackenhut (SPitcher@wsihq.com [Susan P. Pitcher Exec. Assistant WSI 7121 Fairway Dr., Suite 301 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 561-472-3619 FAX 561-472-3688]); with the Speaker's Office (Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami/Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616); with law enforcement officers (*afried@dc-fop.org [webmaster]); with civilians; with the society of special police officers (Steve Maritas, Organizing Director, spfpa1@aol.com, 646-567-6454); the USHMM (pr contact- Andy Hollinger AHollinger@ushmm.org [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW Washington, DC 20024-2126 Main telephone: (202) 488-0400]); with my media contacts. I am a news photographer here in DC who once worked inside a police Department at UCLA PD. Please take the ball and run with it. Sincerest Regards
Thursday, June 11, 2009 Nancy Pelosi on Holocaust Memorial Resolution: 'We Commit to Continuing Our Work to Build a World Free of Hatred' Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this afternoon in strong support of a House resolution to condemn the violent attack at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum yesterday and to honor the bravery and dedication of museum employees and security personnel. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 413 to 0. Below are the Speaker's remarks. Editor's Note: See also below. Carrie Devorah is an investigative photojournalist based in DC. Former religion editor of "Lifestyles" Magazine, her areas of focus are faith, homeland security and terrorism. Devorah is the sister of Jewish Press columnist Yechezkel Chezi Scotty Goldberg, victim of Egged Bus 19 bombing in 2004. Contact her at carriedev@gmail.com |
|
THE MULLAHS' METTLE — AND OBAMA'S
Posted by Susana K-M, June 18, 2009. |
|
You probably haven't heard about the Andijan massacre, because it happened in Uzbekistan, which I doubt many journalists can find on a map. But it has important implications for what's happening now in Iran. Between 2003 and 2005 — probably not coincidentally just after the U.S. threw out Saddam Hussein in Iraq — there were a series of "color revolutions" in which mostly peaceful popular revolts overthrew authoritarian regimes. There was the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003; the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005. The color revolutions came to a screeching halt after Andijan, where security forces loyal to Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov opened fire on a huge, unarmed crowd. A defector from the Uzbek security service estimated 1,500 were killed. Many were buried in unmarked mass graves. Iran is convulsed by its greatest civic unrest since that of 1979, which led to the fall of the Shah. Some news organizations have estimated the number of those in the streets of Tehran protesting the alleged re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at more than a million (the crowd at Monday's protest stretched five miles long). Many hope this portends the fall of the mullahs. That depends mostly on how ruthless the mullahs are willing to be, and somewhat on the support the protesters receive from the outside world, particularly the United States, because that has an impact on how ruthless the mullahs think they can be. Syria could not do in Lebanon what Mr. Karimov did at Andijan because the world was watching what was happening in Lebanon. Many in the West have a romanticized notion of what can be accomplished by peaceful protest and world opinion. Really ruthless regimes don't fall to popular protests, no matter how large, because they are willing to kill everyone they need to kill to stay in power. And world opinion doesn't matter much if the world isn't willing to back up its opinion with more than words. The democracy protests in China in 1989 drew as much attention as the protests in Iran are today, but that didn't prevent the Chinese government from crushing the unarmed demonstators in Tiananmen Square. (China congratulated Mr. Karimov after Andijan, and reportedly is providing advice on security strategy to the government of Iran.) The young protesters in Iran are as brave as the democracy protesters in Tiananmen were, but whether they triumph, or are beaten to death in dank prisons, depends mostly on whether the security services remain loyal to the regime. There are some hopeful signs. The army has remained on the sidelines, making it clear it will not turn its guns on its own people. The Cyrus News Agency reported Tuesday 16 senior members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps have been arrested for insufficient repressive zeal. The regime's dirty work has been left largely to the Basiji, a militia composed of young religious zealots from the countryside. But the revolution won't succeed unless significant portions of the army and IRGC get off the fence and support the people. This is where world opinion can have an impact. If world leaders strongly and unequivocably support the protesters, and credibly threaten the regime with consequences for repression, this could influence many fence-sitters in the army and the IRGC. It could also influence mullahs wavering between more repression and following their Swiss bank accounts out of the country. One reason why Syria didn't do in Lebanon what Karimov did at Andijan is because President Bush had just made it plain he would support democracy with more than words. The leaders of Canada, France and Germany have harshly condemned the repression in Iran, but President Barack Obama has yet to muster as much indignation for the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he has expressed for the leader of Israel. And Mr. Obama has made it clear there is nothing so horrible Mr. Ahmadinejad can do that will keep him from pursuing rapprochement with Iran. Little could encourage the repressive forces more. "Probe with a bayonet," Lenin said. "If you encounter steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push." The mullahs are probing President Obama. They are not encountering steel. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE COMING STORM: OBAMA AND AMERICAN JEWRY
Posted by Blue Truthe, June 18, 2009. |
|
Shmuley Boteach is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His upcoming book is The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger |
|
There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community of substantial resources but also substantial insecurity — particularly when it comes to charges of dual loyalty — against a popular president of considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israeli settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clash will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their invitation to the White House Hanukka party. The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace Now, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to pressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides." In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth. Is he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstop suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the equivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a "defenseless" foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say, Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing that America now represents a "well-armed, occupying power" against the comparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbidden from defending itself. Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terror onslaught. Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on the settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders are utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even more Palestinians than it does Israelis.
BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak up against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean the drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention disgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against our democratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism. I have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the US after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hanging out on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves. That they have no proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the institutions which host them. Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the president's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela. Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the university's first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi of one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel's rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief of staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easily have basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men in the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power. In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the prime minister of the United Kingdom. That's nice. But a few years ago Sacks spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper, "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew." Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to political power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place." But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From schools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear that when 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We're upset, disappointed and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, write op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be standing with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliable ally. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moral authority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledge to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel. Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the national chairs of "Rabbis for Obama." It was a tempting offer. I was moved by the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his soaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be the culmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter. But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so lopsidedly. Contact Blue Truthe by email at bluetruthe@aol.com |
|
MUSLIM IN CHARGE OF IAEA FINALLY FIGURES OUT IRAN WANTS NUKES
Posted by Cpocerl, June 18, 2009. |
|
This was written by Mark Heinrigh and Sylvia Westall
and is archived at
|
|
VIENNA (Reuters) — Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons to gain the reputation of a major power in the Middle East, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a BBC interview broadcast on Wednesday. Tehran denied the assertion. But International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told Iran at an IAEA meeting that it would not be trusted unless "you go the extra mile" and lift restrictions on U.N. inspections. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election last week has cast doubt on Western powers' hope of a dialogue with Iran aimed at curbing its uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is for generating electricity only. ElBaradei said the Islamic Republic sees a nuclear breakout ability as an "insurance policy" against perceived threats from neighboring countries or the United States. "My gut feeling is that Iran definitely would like to have the technology ... that would enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so," he told the BBC. The enrichment process can be configured to produce fuel either for nuclear power plants or weapons. "(Iran) wants to send a message to its neighbors, it wants to send a message to the rest of the world: yes, don't mess with us, we can have nuclear weapons if we want it," said ElBaradei. "But the ultimate aim of Iran, as I understand it, is that they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East and they are. "This is to them the road to get that recognition to power and prestige and ... an insurance policy against what they heard in the past about regime change, axis of evil." "He's absolutely wrong. We don't have any intention of having nuclear weapons at all," Iranian ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told an impromptu news conference outside a meeting in Vienna of the IAEA's 35-nation governing body. NOT IN IRAN'S DOCTRINE "Nuclear weapons are not in our defense doctrine. We do not consider nuclear weapons any advantage ... we will never have (them). But we are going to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes ... We will continue fuel cycle activities without any interruption because Iran has a legitimate need." Soltanieh said Iran had mastered enrichment technology and Western powers "should cope with this reality. They are unhappy about these facts? It is their problem, it is a reality." In an apparent slip-up during his exchange with reporters, Soltanieh said, in English: "There is no difference between any factions or groups of the Iranian nation on the inalienable right of nuclear weapons." Pressed by Reuters in a phone call afterwards to clarify his remark, he said: "I said our peaceful uses of nuclear energy ... and of course our condemnation of nuclear weapons." The United States told the IAEA's governing board Iran now appeared to be in the position to "weaponize" enrichment. "Iran is now either very near or in possession of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to (further) enrich it to weapons-grade," U.S. envoy Geoffrey Pyatt said. To do that, Iran would have to adjust its enrichment plant to yield bomb-ready nuclear fuel and miniaturize the material to fit into a warhead — technical steps that could take from six months to a year or more, nuclear analysts say. Ahmadinejad indicated on Sunday nuclear policy would not change in his second term since the issue "belongs in the past." ElBaradei rejected this stance. Gazing at Soltanieh in the 35-nation IAEA governors meeting, he said: "If you want to build confidence, you would do (wide-ranging snap inspections). You have to help me... (Otherwise), you are penalizing yourself." ElBaradei also bemoaned the IAEA's inability to enforce transparency in suspect countries. "We are called the watchdog but we don't bark at all if we do not have the authority." Six world powers have offered Iran trade and other incentives to halt enrichment. Iran has not engaged the offer and says its enrichment program is non-negotiable. Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
STRATEGIC CHALLENGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Posted by Susana K-M, June 18, 2009. |
|
This was written by Moshe Ya'alon, who is a fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center. He served as the 17th chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. |
|
To attain peace, we must look reality squarely in the eye, no matter how difficult that may be. The following speech was given June 9, 2009 at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, by Moshe Yaalon, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs Once the mainstream media starts to believe something is true — or, more troubling, where it fails to even investigate, but simply parrots someone else's narrative — and then refers to this as fact or uses it as an underlying assumption, it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to ever thereafter question the veracity of that purported "fact" or the assumption, let alone to uproot and replace it with a different concept. Simply put, it becomes conventional wisdom. The media is pervasive. It affects our perception, and nowadays perception is a major component of the complicated, asymmetrical conflicts in which our weaker foes depend primarily on cognitive warfare, especially in the changing Middle East. There are three examples of this phenomenon that I want to discuss today. One relates to the Iranian issue, the second relates to tensions between pragmatists and radicals in the Middle East, and the third, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Iranian Issue There are two problems with the way the media frames the Iranian issue. The first one is the notion that the Iranian problem is first and foremost a conflict between Iran and Israel. Here we can see, for example, the setting of Fareed Zakaria 's discussion on Iran on CNN. Look at the definition of the subject on the bottom of the screen: "Iran vs. Israel". The second troubling manner in which the media frames the Iran issue is the recurring suggestion in the media that a combination of a sincere dialogue and non-military sanctions will peacefully persuade the Iranians to change their policy and give up the military nuclear program. Unlike the previous example, which has some relationship to reality, this mistaken assumption is based primarily on wishful thinking. If, as much evidence suggests, dialogue and non-military sanctions will not work, then there may indeed be a need to resort to the military option in order to halt the Iranian project. Yet, those in the media who frame the issue as one that requires negotiations and diplomacy do the world a disservice by failing to present to their audiences the evidence that such a strategy in fact won't work. The media approaches this issue with the assumption that Iran is a rational actor, very much like Western states, and that its primary concern is American behavior towards it. While I believe this is unlikely, let's assume that it may be true. But shouldn't the media nonetheless inform their public of an alternative view? That alternative view suggests that the Iranians have a completely different agenda and set of motivating factors. Those facts will not only sound strange, but very uncomfortable to the Western ear, yet there is substantial basis for them. All the media has to do is take note of them and report them to the public. For example, many key Iranian players, in particular the Mullahs, consider the destruction of Israel as just a step on the way to changing the entire world order. The Iranians want to bring about this change, and they have many allies who, though they may not share Iran's Shiite goals, nonetheless share its desire to bring down American-led global liberalization. Syria and Chavez are of course key active partners in this. The goal of such an alliance is not just the conquest of Israel, but the entire Western world as well. To appreciate the fallacy of this notion of Iranian "rationality," it is crucial to understand that the Iranian leadership, just like all the other radicals, is not interested in contributing to stability. On the contrary, they are interested in turbulence and instability — as long as it doesn't threaten their survival and their ability to stay in power — because stability would shore up the very world order they want to replace. Furthermore, the Iranians view the West's reluctance to use force against them as a lack of will and proof that Iran is moving in the right direction. There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider how little of that affects the way the media refers to the Iranian issue. Let me just mention some of President Ahmadinejad's declarations in recent weeks. For example when he paid a visit to his Syrian counterpart, President Bashar Al Assad, in early May he said that "Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge." He called the West's fundamental values "inhuman and belonging to past decades," and insisted that "The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems." Now granted, this may sound silly to Western ears — that we are inhuman and oppressive in comparison with Syria and Iran. But the media censors this material because they either don't take it seriously, or they don't want people to draw the wrong conclusions from it. Ahmadinejad also added: "today the circumstances in the world and in the region are rapidly changing. Those who, for many years, said that Iran and Syria must be pressured, and wanted to prevent [them] from defending the rights of the peoples in the region, now openly declare that they require the help of Tehran and Damascus in solving their problems. Today we are beginning to move on the path of triumph, and even greater victories lie ahead." Note how Ahmadinejad interprets US desire to negotiate as a sign to press their own advantage. In a recent speech in Kerman Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was drawing up a new package of proposals for negotiations surrounding the country's nuclear program. He emphasized that the West was weak, and could not force anything on Iran. "If the United States wants dialogue, there must first be a withdrawal of all Western forces, the destruction of the West's entire nuclear arsenal, and respect for Iran's right to its nuclear program," he said, and added. "Nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking you." "The Iranian nation will not accept domination from oppressive powers," said Ahmadinejad, dressed in his trademark lightcolored jacket and dark trousers as young men and women chanted "Ahmadi! Ahmadi!" "We have to build an Iran that will have a role in directing the future of the world," he added as the crowd kept shouting. Again, some may wish to dismiss this as "mere rhetoric," but is the media acting responsibly when it suppresses the public's awareness of the problem? There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider that none of this gets reported to the Western public in the mainstream media and, more troubling, that the media doesn't even stop to reevaluate their positions. How can the American public intelligently discuss major policy decisions that could have major consequences for the entire world, when the mainstream media withholds basic information that would enable them to conduct a serious analysis of the problem? Moderates vs. Radicals The second area that deserves our attention, where the mainstream media misrepresents the evidence, is in addressing the tension that exists between the radicals and the pragmatists in the Middle East. The mainstream media almost unanimously adopts two basic approaches. One is the dramatically unempirical notion that the radicals are but a tiny minority, while the vast majority of Muslims embrace the same moderate principles of peace, prosperity and coexistence that we exalt in the West. The second, perhaps more realistic approach, rests on the following principles: (1), Radicals are the true representatives of the Middle Eastern society while the pragmatists are too weak to be expected to do anything; (2), the reason for this unfortunate situation is because of the Western policy of confrontation; and, therefore (3), the way to stop the radicals is to engage in dialogue with them and simultaneously strengthen the pragmatists by giving them concessions. This approach does begin correctly by recognizing that the radicals have succeeded to a large extent in influencing the way Middle Easterners perceive themselves and how they relate to the rest of the world. But then it errs by suggesting that the radicals are ascendant primarily because of the behavior of the West which has supposedly alienated a potentially moderate public. This type of reporting works to the advantage of both the radicals and the pragmatists. Indeed, it turns the weakness of the pragmatists into their most valuable asset. Both the radicals and the pragmatists take full advantage of the Western response to avoid accountability and expect the West to keep feeding them with more and more money and concessions, especially those that come at Israel's expense. Since this policy has proven quite successful in recent years and since Middle Easterners consider the new administration even more committed to this set of assumptions than its predecessors, the Middle Easterners have bigger expectations and less readiness to change their way of action. The reaction in the Arab world to President Obama's reconciliation speech last week was very indicative of this approach. The audience was very receptive and supportive to those words they considered a move towards them but very cold at any mention of the need to give up the use of violence or to accept Israel's right to exist. The pragmatists show no intention to adopt these advices but expect the administration to follow up on its demands from Israel. In fact, the pragmatists constitute quite a large part of the Middle Easterners and, with proper encouragement; they can play a major role in controlling the radicals. This was proven again in the impressive victory of the opponents of Iran, Hezbollah and Syria in the Lebanese elections. I would like very much to see the Lebanese leadership follow this achievement, that reflects their understanding that Israel is not their enemy, with an initiative towards normalizing the relations with Israel, but I doubt if this is going to happen, bearing in mind that the main reason for the pragmatists' animosity towards the United States and to some extent even towards Israel has very little to do with the reality of the way they are treated by the Americans or the Israelis, and much more with their being persuaded by the radical's propaganda which portrays all shortcomings of Muslim society as the outcome of a Western plot against them. Thus, despite the best of intentions, it is counterproductive for the West to make more and more concessions and to continue to express regret and contrition, since this mea culpa attitude just plays into the hands of the radicals and strengthens their claim about the plot. In the West, we expect that concessions and apologies will lead to reciprocal moves on their part. In the Middle East, it just strengthens their convictions of victimhood and their resolve to restore their honor. One case which illustrates the dangers of this media-promoted approach is the claim that the Palestinian Israeli conflict is the most important issue for Middle Easterners and that it has to be solved in order to convince the pragmatists to overcome the radicals and help the West and Israel in confronting Iran. But let's seriously look at that claim. In fact, radicalism in the Middle East began long before the establishment of the state of Israel, and was always characterized by anti-Western feelings and was the reason for many wars between rival Arab and Muslim camps that had nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. To sum up these issues, Iran is the main reason for instability in the region. The combination of the strengthening of the radicals and progress on the Iranian nuclear project, both of which are emboldened by the media's selective coverage of these issues, are the main threat to Israeli and American security and other interests. As long as the radicals feel that they are marching towards victory we can not afford to show signs of weakness. They will only make our job harder. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is again a set of so-called facts that have become a conventional wisdom that largely goes unchallenged. The first is that this is primarily a territorial conflict and therefore there must be a solution for this conflict that can be achieved within a short period of time. The media, and with it most Western politicians, wish to believe that if the obstacle for achieving this solution will be removed — such as by conceding territory — a solution will be easy to reach. Second, the only possible solution is a 'two state solution' — in which one state is a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as we call it, and the other is the state of Israel. And third, the Israeli "occupation" and settlement activity are major obstacles for moving towards this inevitable solution and — as I mentioned before — for mobilizing the pragmatic states to the fight against the radicals. These assumptions stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that 'the two state solution' refers to two states for two peoples. In their view one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well. Abu Mazen's public statement a few weeks ago that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (just as he refused to recognize a Jewish state before Annapolis), was but another, more recent manifestation of this approach. This means that there's an asymmetry between the Israeli recognition of the Palestinian demand for self determination and the Palestinian recognition of the existence of Israel. As professor Bernard Lewis has put it before the Annapolis summit: "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence. If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime. If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist." It is obvious that a solution cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this is not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The media's failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its resolution. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan were signed without addressing this fundamental issue because unlike the case with the Palestinians, we do not share the same land with them. Regarding the obstacles that prevented the implementation of 'the two state solution' I would argue that the settlement activity was never a serious obstacle to peace. Israel proved several times that it is ready to reverse its settlement activity both in the framework of an agreement or unilaterally. In contrast, the Palestinian reaction to Israeli withdrawals has demonstrated time and again that the dismantling of Israeli settlements or the Israeli withdrawal from territory does not yield peace, but rather more warfare. Instead of using the implementation of the Oslo agreement as an opportunity to prepare the state institutions, Arafat preferred to establish an authority of gangs, without accountability, allowing freedom of action to terror organizations, and so did Abu Mazen, who turned his weakness into a strategic asset that enabled him to escape accountability. Following Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza, which uprooted nearly ten thousand Jewish people from more than twenty living communities, leaving not a single Israeli settlement or person remaining on Gazan territory, Palestinians had another opportunity to prove that ending the Israeli occupation would lead to fundamental change and bring peace. Yet, the opposite occurred. Terror activities continued and proved that the problem is not the occupation or the settlements. The lessons that we can learn from all of this are that a permanent settlement of the conflict is not easy to achieve as long as the Palestinians do not remove the real obstacles to peace: namely, by accepting Israel as a Jewish state, by stopping terror activity and incitement, and by addressing the lack of preparedness of the Palestinian authority to assume the responsibilities of a state — governability, monopoly over the use of force, security and economic stability. Without these issues being fully addressed, the creation of a Palestinian state will lead to the establishment of an unstable terror entity on the border of Israel that will threaten not only Israel's security but the stability of moderate states in the region, especially Jordan and American interests in the Middle East. So, what is the Israeli policy in view of these realities? First, Israel considers itself a part and parcel of the free world and is committed to its strategic friendship with the United States. Just like the new administration, we too believe that friends should be candid with each other. We also believe that since we are living in the Middle East and that we will face the consequences of any policy most directly; it is our duty to explain to our American friends our concerns. Practically we believe that the radical threat to the world order is the most dangerous challenge of our time. North Korea is a big challenge but the repercussions of a nuclear Iran are much more severe. We consider the prevention of this dangerous development a necessity. If this can be achieved through negotiations and dialogue it's wonderful, but since we doubt it very much we believe that the free world, under the leadership of the United States, has to prepare all the options to deal with this problem and make it clear that it will be ready to use them if it deems it necessary. A credible threat is probably the only effective way to make the Iranians carefully reconsider the direction of their project, and may make them choose another course. We believe that the pragmatists in the Middle East should, and are ready to, contribute to halting the Iranian nuclear program and to countering the strengthening of the radicals, and that Western concessions are counterproductive toward that process. Likewise, the Palestinian issue has no relationship to it either. On the other hand, we do believe that such pragmatists have an important role to play in the Palestinian context by adopting the solution of two states for two peoples' and helping to promoting the preparedness of the Palestinians to assume responsibility. Finally, in regard to the Palestinian issue, we have no intention or will to govern the Palestinians and run their daily life. We want to have a stable peace and for that purpose we are ready to consider further ways to disengage and contribute to the ability of the PA to control the territories under its responsibility in a way that does not threaten the state of Israel. At the same time we believe that an almost exclusively top down approach that characterized the way the Palestinian issue was handled under the Oslo and Annapolis processes should be replaced by a determined performance based, bottom up approach that characterized the road map, which would focus first on building the necessary infrastructure for peace. We have spoken much over the past few years about dismantling the infrastructure of terror. Let us begin to talk about building an infrastructure for peace. This should include five reforms within the Palestinian authority, which at this stage can be performed only in the West Bank:
Conclusion But if we are to succeed in bringing about this change and advancing peace, we must all be ready to challenge the conventional wisdom. I know that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy and that there is a price to pay for it. But I do not demand of others what I do not demand myself. As head of military intelligence, I, a member of the Kibbutz movement, was a believer in Oslo, a believer that it could bring about the peace for which we have waited so long. But when I looked at the evidence, at all the facts, I could not turn my back on the truth. And when I saw the dangers that the disengagement from Gaza would pose to Israel's security, I could not turn my back on the truth. I believe that we always have to look reality squarely in the eye and that we must let the evidence lead us to our conclusions, however difficult those conclusions might be. The reality may be difficult for us to accept. It does not lend itself to simple answers. But if we are prepared to face it honestly, then I am convinced that we can begin to change it for the better — and we can start heading down the path to a genuine and lasting peace. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE PLEASANT-SOUNDING MYTH OF DEMILITARIZATION
Posted by Daniel Pinner, June 18, 2009. |
|
Well, Mr Netanyahu, you've finally done it. You've finally spoken the magic words, "a Palestinian state". Of course you added the rider that "we cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without receiving guarantees that it will be demilitarized". Powerful words, to be sure. Just a few questions spring to mind, chief among them: How you think you will enforce demilitarisation? You see, I remember that when you withdrew from Hebron back in January '97, the agreement that you reached with Yasser Arafat (remember him?) stipulated that the Arab "policemen" who took over Hebron would be armed with nothing heavier than submachine-guns. The reason was obvious — submachine-guns would not threaten the Jews of Hebron (which in itself shows how much you yourself trusted your own peace partners). And I also remember that the very first uniformed terrorists who marched into Hebron that winter's morning were armed with Galil assault rifles. But what were you going to do about it? — Cancel the hard-won Wye River Accord and invade Palestinian territory just because they were carrying the wrong weapons? Threaten to destroy the entire peace process just because of a technicality? — Of course not. So they got away with that violation, and just over four years later the 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass (Hy"d) paid the price when an Arab sniper, in the uniform that you authorised and the rifle that you could not prevent him from deploying, fired his fatal bullet into her tiny body from the area that you gave away. But what was the Israeli government going to do about it then? — Invade Hebron just because of one maverick? What are we — fanatics? Expansionists? Peace-haters? But of course, you have learned this lesson, which is why you added that "we ask the international community for an express commitment that the Palestinian state's area will be demilitarized with effective measures — not like the ones in Gaza". Now this sounds good. "Effective measures" — like, say, an international agreement, guaranteed by Britain, France and the USA? Do you remember the Sinai War (the Kadesh Campaign) back in 1956? At the end of October of that year, in 100 hours, Israel captured the entire Sinai Desert, including the Gaza Strip, from Egypt. Less than half a year later, in March 1957, we withdrew, and there was an internationally guaranteed agreement with Egypt that Gaza would remain demilitarised. Well, that agreement held up...for almost two complete days. But what was Israel going to do? — Start a whole new war against Egypt just because a few soldiers took up positions in Gaza City? What are we — militarists? So we will have an agreement — solemn, internationally agreed, with "an express commitment" for "effective measures" — that Palestine will remain demilitarised. And what are we going to do when the first battalion of Palestinian soldiers take up their position in Hebron? — Invade Palestine because 50 soldiers have marched into the Kasbah? What are we — ruthless occupiers? So when do we respond? When Palestine takes delivery of five T-74 tanks from Iraq? Are you serious? Five obsolescent tanks hardly threaten Israel, so how are we ever going to justify this brutal death-blow to regional peace? And then Palestine will revive Atarot Airport in Jerusalem, which, of course, they will call Kalandia — the old Jordanian name (well, really an old Roman name, but let's not quibble — one foreign occupier is much like another). Well, Israel cannot really object to a civilian airport, can she? After all, Palestine will be land-locked (the "West Bank" part, that is — Gaza is another story), so a civilian airport will be essential. True, the runway is barely 800 metres (2,600 feet, or under half a mile) from French Hill — but how can a small, provincial, civilian airport possibly threaten the country that boasts of having the most powerful air force in the Middle East? And obviously, in this age of global terrorism, every airport in the world needs military protection. After all, even Heathrow Airport in London has military troops protecting it, and even tanks are deployed there on occasion. So how will Israel react when the first tanks and APCs are deployed in Kalandia Airport? Will that be the time to invade Palestine? Because of reasonable counter-terrorism security measures? And how will Israel respond when the Palestinian Air Force deploys its first Mig 23 in Kalandia? By invading the nascent Palestine? What are we — expansionists? Brutal occupiers? Does Palestine not have the right to protect its sole international airport? And obviously, it is eminently reasonable that a modern airport — facing, as anywhere in the world, threats of terrorism, of a 9/11-style attack — needs anti-aircraft artillery to defend it. So how will Israel respond to Palestinian defensive measures against terrorists? — By invading? That hardly seems reasonable. And then, when the first Palestinian (or Syrian, or Iranian, or Hezbollah, or Jordanian, or Iraqi, or Saudi, or pan-Arab) artillery and anti-aircraft division moves into position on the mountain ridges overlooking Ben Gurion Airport — will that be the time to invade? When Saudi, Jordanian, and Iraqi forces took up offensive positions in Judea and Samaria back in 1967, Israel was able to launch first strike. Today that is impossible. Not any more: after all, when Jordanian and Iraqi forces took up offensive positions in Syria in 1973 to reinforce the attack on Yom Kippur of that year, Israel was not able to launch a first strike. Or will we wait until Egyptian tank brigades, reinforced by artillery and infantry, are deployed in the Gaza Strip? Then do we invade? And risk war against Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the rest of the Arab League? Or do we sit quiet, and rely on the UN and diplomacy to protect us? Mr Prime Minister, the people of Israel really have a right to know how you intend to achieve something that no one in history has ever managed before. No demilitarisation agreement has ever held up when the intended demilitarised side has not wanted it to. From Germany which was demilitarised by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, to the Bosniaks who were theoretically demilitarised in the 1990's; from the Tanggu Truce which established a demilitarized zone between Japan and China in Manchukuo in 1933, to the Iraqi/Saudi neutral zone; from the Korean demilitarized zone, created by the UN in 1953 to separate North Korea from South Korea, to the demilitarized zone between North and South Vietnam established in 1954 by the Geneva Conference — every single demilitarization agreement was guaranteed by an "express commitment" that the area in question would be "demilitarized with effective measures". These were all guaranteed by the most powerful forces that the international community could muster — Great Britain, the USA, the UN, and the Soviet Union. So again, Mr Netanyahu, the people of Israel have a right to know: How do you plan to achieve an enforceable demilitarization for the first time ever in world history? And more to the point: How do you propose that Israel react when the other side violates the demilitarization agreement? Will you, or any other Israeli prime minister, ever dare to authorise a full-scale military invasion of Palestine just because of a technical violation? Or will you, or some future Israeli prime minister, have to wait for it to be too late before responding, as invariably happened in the past? Or will you simply ignore these issues, and instead use the awesome power of the Supreme Court and the police to forcibly silence anyone who dares ask these questions? Daniel Pinner blogs at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DanielPinner/ |
|
THE AMERICAN AID MYTH
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 18, 2009. |
|
But what will you do about American pressure? What will you do when they stop allocating funds to Israel? What will you do when they send NATO bombers like they did in Bosnia? What will you do about the whole world? What will you do? Every time that an attempt is made to establish an alternative to the conditioned Israeli thought pattern, every time that somebody suggests an approach that veers from the accepted leftist track, the decisive ammunition is pulled out of the arsenal of claims: "The Americans won't let us..." After that claim, it is no longer possible to debate. The underlying assumption is that we are small and completely dependant on the American superpower and cannot implement any policies not approved by our patrons. That is the way it seems. There is no comparison between the military and economic strength of the rings of enemies that surround Israel — supported by the U.S. — and our own capabilities. Let us analyze the economic and military aspects of this theory. The basic claim is that without American aid, Israel will not be able to exist. But if we check the numbers and history of American aid, we receive a completely different picture. American aid, in its various forms, currently amounts to about 3.5 percent (yes, only 3.5 percent!) of Israel's annual budget. About half of that aid is military. Parallel to the military aid to Israel, the U.S. is supplying modern weapons to the largest and most threatening Arab army — the Egyptian army. Except for Israel, the Egyptian army has no enemies on its borders. Sudan and Libya do not endanger Egypt in any way, and it is clear that the powerful army that Egypt is building is directed only against Israel. There is no doubt that it would be worth Israel's while to forgo U.S. military "aid" if the United States would not simultaneously arm the Egyptians. Everybody would gain, except for the American weapons industry. The U.S. would save billions of dollars that it is currently pouring into both sides and war between Israel and Egypt would be postponed. There is a famous saying that the gun that appears in the first act, will shoot in the third act. In a cynical move to benefit its armaments industry and to create a situation in which both sides are dependant on American weapons, the U.S. has introduced millions of sophisticated guns in the first act. It is reasonable to assume that these guns will shoot as early as the second act. In this way, America promotes the next military conflict between Egypt and Israel, in the guise of military aid. That being the case, it is clear that the entire entity called "American aid" can be reduced to that part designated as civilian aid. The framework of this article does not allow us to prove that even the civilian aid is nothing but fiction. But clearly, the State of Israel, with the GNP of a modern country, can easily do without aid that amounts to just one and one half percent of its budget — aid for which Israel essentially surrenders its independence. It is no less interesting to check the history of American aid to Israel: Israel was not always an economic and military superpower in the Middle East. From the time that the State was established until the Six Day War, Israel's economy was in a precarious state. Israel's military situation was no better. The IDF was spread thin over impossible borders. America had declared an embargo on weapons shipments to the Middle East. All the Arab armies in that era were supplied exclusively with Soviet arms, so that the American embargo was actually a U.S. death sentence for Israel. It seemed that Israel's days were numbered. The sad joke in that era was that the last Israeli to leave the country should please turn off the lights. In those difficult days Israel did not get even one bullet or one cent in aid from the Americans. When did the American "aid" begin to pour into Israel? After Israel's "aggression" in 1967, when it conquered the Sinai, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and after its post-war economy began to boom. Then, when it was clear that Israel was stronger than its neighbors, the American "aid" began to flow. It's strange, isn't it? America always pressures Israel to surrender its settlements to the enemy and to abandon the parts of the Land of Israel that it conquered. Why did it begin to send us "aid" when Israel took action completely opposed to U.S. policy? The question becomes even keener when we continue to examine the graph of American aid over Israel's history. It turn out that the aid — that was initiated, as stated above, after the Six Day War — steadily increased until it peaked in the eighties. Then, at a very specific point in time, the level of aid began to decline until the point that we have reached today — half the aid that Israel received when the allocations peaked. And what is that specific point in time? The Camp David Accords, when Israel destroyed its settlements in the Sinai and surrendered the entire peninsula to Egypt. The question rises again, this time from the opposite angle: When Menachem Begin caved in and gave Jimmy Carter all that he demanded, Israel should have become America's favorite son. It could certainly have expected the aid that it had received up till then to continue at the same level. But once again, reality worked in just the opposite direction. Clearly, then, American aid is not aid at all. It is a cynical strategic investment in a patently American interest. America had no economic or strategic interest in investing in a weak, pre-Six Day War Israel — just as it had no economic or strategic interest in investing even one American bomb on the railroads that carried the Jews to Auschwitz. In contrast, as soon as Israel became a regional power, it was in America's interest to invest in it. In the third stage, when Israel began to divest itself of its Six Day War achievements and to retreat to the pre-1967 border with Egypt, America transferred its economic and military support to the Arabs. Why are these simple, history-proven facts ignored by the Israelis? I have often debated the subject of American aid with Israeli academicians, among them economic experts. The facts stated in this article are completely unknown to them. Why do Israelis insist on developing a sense of imaginary dependence on the U.S. and Europe, specifically at the point that Israel is both economically and militarily vigorous? The answer to that question is not at all connected to Israel's military or economic capabilities. It is on a totally different plane. 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) This article is from Moshe Feiglin's book, "The War of Dreams". |
|
KEY TO SAFEGUARDING JERUSALEM; WHY PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISM?;
SAUDI CHARITY AS A FORM OF WARFARE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2009. |
|
HAMAS ACCUSES ABBAS OF PRO-ZIONISM We reported recently an attack by Hamas on Abbas' men, whom they
stumbled upon in Qalqilya, Judea-Samaria. Hamas asserts that "Tel
Aviv" and the U.S. command Abbas' Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces.
It claims that the P.A. forces stalk Hamas, and that this attack was
coordinated by Gen. Dayton and Israel. Hamas claims that the P.A.
troops opened fire first, are traitors, and executed the Hamas men
Hamas refers to the capital of Israel as Tel Aviv, but Israel's government sits in Jerusalem. Hamas knows that, but refuses to admit it. Too doctrinaire and fanatical to admit the status quo [and then negotiate to try to change it]. Operating by conspiracy, Hamas thinks everyone else does, all the time. Abbas does not take orders from Israel, against which he encourages bigotry and violence. Gen. Dayton threatened that the P.A. troops he was training are likely to attack Israel. This is the first instance of P.A. forces pursuing Hamas terrorists. Usually, Israel has to raid Hamas, itself. If the P.A. were acting against Hamas, it would be to preserve itself and to create the appearance of anti-terrorism such that Israel might be pressured to withdraw from Judea-Samaria. In that case, the P.A. jihadists would have a new base. That is not being a traitor to jihad. That is promoting jihad. Can't blame the P.A. if it did finally crack down on Hamas, after Hamas overthrew P.A. rule in Gaza and threatens to do likewise in the rest of the P.A.. Arab propaganda can be irrational and unscientific. For another
example, click or go here:
KEY TO SAFEGUARDING JERUSALEM A 3,000 acre section of Maale Adumim on government-owned land, called E-1, adjoins Jerusalem. Israel plans to develop it. If Israel does, Maale Adumim would have continuity with, and buffer Jerusalem and other strategic areas. Otherwise, Israel's capital would be exposed to gunfire from abutting Arab areas. Maale Adumim therefore would be kept by Israel even if Israel evacuated from most of Judea. If Israel does not develop it, Arabs would continue their illegal building on it, to prevent Maale Adumim continuity with Jerusalem. They do this so as to be able to assert future claims. To pressure Israel not to build on it, the Palestinian Authority falsely claims that it would bisect the Arab area. No, Israel plans an Arab road without checkpoints, traversing the whole Arab area (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/25). No wonder the U.S. demands no Jewish building! For more on safeguarding Jerusalem, click here:
ISRAEL CURBS FREE SPEECH ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT Israel has laws against "racism" and "incitement," defined vaguely. Instead of debating, the Left accuses right-wingers, who criticize Arab policy, of racism, to cow them. The first application was against the Kach Party, which advocated population transfer, but was not racist. The next victim was Rabbi Elba, whose learned article on Judaism stated religious laws about killing people, but did not advocate killing. Then "A Kahanist was indicted and convicted of racism for selling shirts with the slogan 'Where there are no Arabs there is no terrorism.'" Makes sense, in Israel. Is truth racist? The law is not enforced against leftists and Arabs who demean Jews. Arabs shout antisemitic slogans, and Communists encourage Hamas to murder Jews, but are not prosecuted. Secularists call Orthodox Jews vermin, with impunity. The Left contends that its criticism is free speech. Why isn't right-wing criticism free speech? The law bans ethnic discrimination, but the government discriminates against Jews for civil service and college entrance. Actually, racism as a private feeling is not the concern of government. Discrimination or violence based on it is. The law makes no distinction. Democracies don't prosecute "incitement," except incitement to riot. Arguments that leftist officials find difficult to answer they try to repress by calling it "incitement." This is how the Sharon regime treated opponents of its planned expulsion of Jews from Judea-Samaria [which expulsion actually was discriminatory]. Then there is preventive detention, used to silence some right-wingers. Police state tactics (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/27). For another example in which Israel is undemocratic and
anti-Zionist, click here:
WHY PALESTINIAN ARAB TERRORISM? Strategic Affairs Minister Yaalon said that the Palestinian Arabs'
"extreme violence does not stem from despair over their situation, as
the West tends to assume, but rather from hope — hope that the State
of Israel will disappear."
What gives them hope? Israeli concessions and inhibition against self-defense. For the effect of Arab culture on what they say, click here or go
to:
TERRORISM THWARTED BY CHECKPOINTS A security guard outside of Maale Adumim thought an approaching
Arab suspicious. He detained him. The Arab tried to stab the guard,
admitting he came to commit a crime. Two other Arabs were found
carrying assault knives at a checkpoint. In two places, Arab
rock-throwers damaged Israeli cars but didn't injure anyone
The U.S., however, is getting Israel to remove checkpoints. For
more on that, click here or go to:
ABBAS CRITICIZES HAMAS ON WOMEN, ETC. Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority claims to be letting more women into official posts. He had anticipated that Israel would bar a women's delegation to a conference in his area, but Hamas did. He mocked Hamas' notion of "resistance." When Hamas started firing rockets at Israel, he told them it would do no good. For that criticism, Hamas called him a collaborator. Now, he said, Hamas shoots rocket crews. He derided Hamas for not holding elections
His term has expired, but he is not holding an election, either. I don't blame him, but he is hypocritical in criticizing Hamas for doing what he does. His criticism about rockets being impractical indicates his otherwise approval of that war crime of firing rockets at civilians. His unscrupulousness renders dubious his accusations that Israel commits war crimes. For more on Palestinian Arab discrimination, click here:
SAUDI CHARITY AS A FORM OF WARFARE The financial crisis has given OPEC states the financial advantage, because of their large savings. The non-OPEC states and institutions are needy. Saudi Arabia sometimes steps in. Its charity fosters its extreme version of Islam. It subsidizes mosques, universities, NGO's, and terrorist groups. Muslim refugees fleeing from warfare in Pakistan got 150 tons of dates from S. Arabia. Hamas received much materiel and pledges of about $3 billion. [Note: Hamas is a tool of Iran, which S. Arabia is supposed to oppose.] S. Arabia, Iran, and that ilk consciously wage financial jihad. They approve subsidy outlawed by the targeted country. Although Islam theoretically bans narcotics, "...the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2008 documents the increasing criminal activities of Islamist terrorist groups, sometimes in collaboration with drug traffickers and other criminal organizations. Other crimes include money laundering, human trafficking, arms smuggling, diamond smuggling, counterfeiting, identity theft, and fraud...These operations take place in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East." Western financial institutions try to garner more Muslim patronage by catering to "sharia finance,' which is finance according to Islamic law. What they don't seem to understand is that Muslim advisers are not likely to approve investment in Israeli, Jewish, or Christian enterprises. They approve unmonitored Islamic charity that may reach terrorists. Muslim finance also allows transfer of funds by immigrant workers to home countries by means of cards. These cards evade government controls. They can be used by terrorists, sometimes to transfer large sums (Rachel Ehrenfeld, 5/29). In setting up sharia finance, Western bankers think they are being tolerant. By doing it blindly, they are fostering Islamist intolerance. Notice the different kinds of jihad, not only military: there's
cyberwar, for that, click here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL: PREMIERE WATER RECYCLER
Posted by Mr La, June 18, 2009. |
|
The winner: for the title world's best recycler of water is...ISRAEL, and the prize: a sustainable water supply for a flourishing agricultural industry and an annual billion dollar water tech export industry. The U.N. report, announced recently on International Water Day, credits Israel far and away as the global recycling leader judged by the percentage of water purified and reused — 70 percent, compared to the runner up recycler, Spain at 12 percent. The beautiful Jewish State also garnered top ranking as a global leader in the use of desalinated water, and according to industry experts exported in 2008 alone 1.4 Billion "of water management, recycling and purification, irrigation, desalination and safety technologies to over 100 countries" a booming growth industry comprised of 200 Israeli firms. Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
BIBI — THE SPEECH THAT NEVER WAS
Posted by Boris Celser, June 18, 2009. |
|
Dear President Obama, You keep complaining about the mess the previous administration left behind. But what about the bigger mess we in Israel inherited from our previous government? Yours is just about money, ours is on surrender, and now I'm stuck with you. If your father was a Muslim, then you're a Muslim. Maybe that's what's written in your secret birth certificate. By calling yourself a Christian you risk death, you're an apostate. My predecessor, your favorite, is an "aprostate". Lucky you, at least you get to be Hillary's boss. I know she pestered you for the job, but you can always let her go after a decent interval. Me, I'm stuck with Tzipi Livni. Day in and day out at the Knesset, she keeps yapping "Palestinian state, Palestinian state, Palestinian state" non-stop. I finally said it, so she would shut up. We both know I don't mean it. Yes, you can get rid of Hillary, it doesn't even take a village. But with Tzipi it takes "savlanut", lots of it, and if you don't know what it is, you probably don't have it. But listen, I don't want to be a show stopper. Let's have a Palestinian state, but it has to be an unimportant one. Something like Pluto, demoted from being a planet to being an insignificant ball of ice. And even so, it must be demilitarized. And how do we ensure it? By having the equivalent of a moon circling and keeping an eternal eye on it. In Pluto's case it is called "Charon", and the irony is not lost on me. Now don't say I'm not being helpful. The only other alternative I can think of is to create a Palestinian state in your country. There is already a town called Palestine, in Texas. Make it their capital, and give them Texas as their state. I don't know about the anthem, but the flag is already there. Just substitute the lone star for a crescent moon and they're in business. This would lift a load off your back. The new state of Palestine would border with Mexico. Imagine the possibilities. American weapons to the Palestinians (in this case it can be militarized), who would then sell them to the Mexican drug lords in return for drugs they could market more easily in the US. And there you have it. A source of income to the Palestinian people directly from the US people, but only from those who have the habit. No more taxpayers' money to fund terror. You can use these savings to help fix the US economy. And what would you care if the Palestinians and the Mexican drug lords start fighting each other? Each will demand more land on either side of the river, now the Rio Grande, the Mexican because it is rightfully theirs, the Palestinians because it is in their nature. "Jamas" (never), say the Mexicans. "Hamas", answer the Palestinians. And life goes on, doesn't it? Two peoples living side by side in...blah, blah, blah. However, since one Palestinian state is never enough for them, you need to find another one. Well, Mr. President, you yourself have come up with the answer. You're closing down Gitmo Bay, and paying US$200M to the island of Palau to receive a handful of prisoners. Up the ante, pay them a few billion more (pocket money for someone who only deals in trillions) and there you have it, the "Palaustinian" state we all want to see. So this is my speech, Mr. President. No need to spend the taxpayers' money by financing the relocation of the Mitchell entourage here. On the contrary, all those American Jews who voted for you will start prosperous businesses in the new Palestinian lands, and assuming they declare their income and pay their taxes, your economy will start kicking again, and you may even be reelected. All the best, Mr. President. Bibi P.S. Don't be alarmed if the French see all this as an opportunity to claim Louisiana back. Just have a word with the Germans and everything will be OK.
Boris Celser is a Canadian. He has an MBA, and is a lifelong traveler
and avid reader. He invites comments to this article — please
address them to boriscelser@hotmail.com.
|
|
WHY IS KFAR ETZION ILLEGAL?
Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 18, 2009. |
|
This is a news item that was posted on the Fresno Zionism website.
http://fresnozionism.org/archives/1263 |
|
US President Barack Obama, while saying for a second time on Monday that there was "positive movement" in Netanyahu's speech, called once again at a press conference in the White House, alongside visiting Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, for a "cessation of settlements." "And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means," Obama said, "but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress." Leave aside for now the famously accomplished speaker Barack Obama's sudden inability to distinguish between nouns and verbs, first apparent in his Cairo speech where he said that "It is time for these settlements to stop" — stop doing what? — and yet again when he calls for a "cessation of settlements" and opposes a "continuation" of them. Let's go from the abstract to the concrete and talk about settlements. Kfar Etzion is a 'settlement': it is east of the 1949 armistice line which is also called the 'Green Line'. Here is an excerpt from something I wrote about it last December ("No room for Jews"): One of the places that the Palestinians do not wish to compromise on is Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, south of Jerusalem. Part of the Palestine Mandate from 1917 to 1948, and the Ottoman empire before that, it was purchased from local Arabs and settled by Yemenite Jews in 1927. They lived there on and off (they were driven out several times by Arab riots) until 1948 when the invading Jordanian army overran it and executed all but four of its defenders. All of the West Bank and East Jerusalem were made Jew-free by the Jordanians, who illegally occupied the area until 1967, when the kibbutz was reestablished. So what I am asking Obama to explain is exactly how is Kibbutz Kfar Etzion illegal? And consider another 'settlement', the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Jews had lived there from biblical times, but here is how it became free of Jews in 1948: In 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War, its population of about 2,000 Jews was besieged, and forced to leave en masse. Colonel Abdullah el-Tal, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion, with whom Mordechai Weingarten negotiated the surrender terms, described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, in his Memoirs (Cairo, 1959): "... The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion... I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty... I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction... Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it... As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud — a cloud of death and agony." How can it be that it is — in Obama's view — illegal for Jews to live in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the old city of Jerusalem? In general, how is it that the 19-year Jordanian and Egyptian occupation managed to transform parts of Mandatory Palestine into places like Saudi Arabia, where Jews are forbidden to live? Explain this, Mr. Obama. And while you're at it, explain the significance — since it is obviously not an accident — of your strange and ungrammatical way of talking about settlements. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
PRESIDENT VOTES "PRESENT'; ABC: THE ALL BARACK CHANNEL
Posted by Gary L. Bauer, June 18, 2009. |
|
The yearning for freedom continues in Iran, but Barack Hussein Obama remains sphinx-like in his response. He says he is "troubled" by the events the whole world is watching, but he assures everyone he remains committed to "engaging" Ahmadinejad. 
How about engaging the forces of democracy, Mr. President? How about one sentence from the "Leader of the Free World" urging the Iranian dictatorship to stop shooting, clubbing and arresting dissenters who simply want basic human rights. Unfortunately for those Iranians being shot, clubbed and jailed, Mr. Obama thinks that taking a stand for freedom would be "meddling." Has the president noticed that the demonstrators carry signs written in English? Does he realize the significance of Iranians chanting "Death to the Dictator" in our language not Farsi? They are trying to get your attention, Mr. President. They thought "hope and change" included them too. You may feel the constant need to apologize for America, Mr. President, but oppressed people of color around the world still see the country that embarrasses you as their "last best hope." The president has a lot on his plate, so I don't want to be unfair. It takes a lot of hours to bankrupt a nation while running several major industries and getting ready to direct health care and control our climate. He needs to drop something from the "to do" list. Here's my suggestion: You could stop bashing democracies like Israel, which is on our side, and instead bash tyrants that hate America. ABC — The "All Barack Channel" In a primetime special on June 24th, ABC News will be broadcasting out of the Obama White House in an effort to promote President Obama's government-run health care plan. When the Republican National Committee learned of this planned primetime promo, it asked for the opportunity to include a spokesman for its views. (It's worth noting that nearly 70% of doctors serving in Congress are Republicans, such as Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.) However, ABC News denied the request. Instead, a pre-selected audience will ask the president questions in a town-hall-style format. (I suspect the questions will be pre-selected too!) The reports of ABC's "infomercial" for Obama's socialized healthcare scheme have sparked a tremendous outcry against this blatant example of media bias. A major media news outlet teaming up with the White House to sell its healthcare plan sounds like something that would take place in Russia or China, not the United States. Many conservative commentators are now referring to ABC as the "All Barack Channel." The reaction from ABC was an arrogant statement from Senior Vice President Kerry Smith, who said, "Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience." Really? I wonder how many people know that the Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, a former ABC news reporter who worked at the network for nearly ten years. I'm sure that's just a remarkable coincidence and that Douglass had absolutely nothing to do with arranging this broadcast. TAKE ACTION: Click here to share your thoughts with ABC News about its biased coverage. He's Losing Sleep? President Obama confessed yesterday that he is losing sleep at night. That's understandable given the tremendous strains of the presidency. Every day the commander-in-chief receives classified briefings about the threats posed by our enemies. North Korea is firing missiles, and Iran's Holocaust-denying dictator is threatening to wipe one of our allies off the map. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is still plotting to bring more death and destruction to our shores. I'm sure those classified briefings would give most of us nightmares. But that's not what is keeping the president up at night. Instead, the president says he's losing sleep over the state of the nation's finances. Sadly, much of the president's suffering is self-inflicted. Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of a socialized healthcare bill now under consideration in the Senate. According to the CBO, the cost is at least $1.6 trillion. We're being told we must spend this money in order to control healthcare costs. Before we do that, let's consider the government's track record of controlling the costs in Medicare. Passed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" reforms, the program cost $3 billion in 1966. At that time, congressional leaders estimated that by 1990, Medicare costs would quadruple to $12 billion. In fact, the real cost in 1990 was $107 billion. Eighteen years later, Medicare costs had quadrupled to $470 billion in 2008. And just like Medicare, I guarantee that "Obamacare" will grow by exponential factors. To get an idea of what this president has done when it comes to spending, consider this analysis by the Heritage Foundation. If anyone should be losing sleep at night over the state of our nation's finances, it should be American taxpayers!
Gary Bauer is the president of American Values. Contact him at
gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org. And visit the website: http://www.ouramericanvalues.org
|
|
BARACK OBAMA: LOOKING FOR LOVE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 18, 2009. |
|
This was written by Ben Shapiro, a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the author of the new book Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, as well as the national bestseller Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. Contact him at the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. |
|
President Barack Obama's ego is like an agitated puppy: it requires constant attention and a good deal of petting. Fortunately for Obama, world leaders recognize his insecurities and cater to them. Unfortunately for America, world leaders have realized that by catering to those insecurities, they can keep the president distracted just long enough to do what they want. The president is like an unattractive high school girl desperately looking for a date to the prom: Any boor can take her for a few compliments. It's only when she arrives home the next morning, deflowered, that she realizes she's been suckered. While the world community declaims Obama as a global hero, they ignore his wishes and do precisely what they want; while Obama savors the sickly sweet praise, he ignores their malfeasance. There's only one problem: He's going to feel used in the morning. When Obama was elected, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Obama a personal letter of congratulations. In March, Syrian President Bashar Assad acclaimed Obama as a "man of his word." On June 10, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt praised Obama as "someone who differs from other presidents of the United States." Palestinian terror group Hamas trumpeted Obama's election as a "historic victory for the world." King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Obama "a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position." President Hu of China described Obama's election as the beginning of a "new historic era." Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia said Obama was "an open, sincere person." The Europeans unanimously hailed Obama as a global leader and a champion of fairness. For his part, Obama showers friendliness upon these sycophants. Obama has repeatedly stated that he wishes to negotiate with Iran, and he has clearly implied that military action against Iran is off the table; he has already blessed Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program and he refuses to OK sanctions against Iran even in the aftermath of the ayatollahs' crackdown on the Iranian population. Obama has elevated terror sponsor and Lebanon-rapist Syria to high international rank, with envoy George Mitchell declaring that Syria has "an integral role to play in reaching comprehensive peace." Obama deigned to rest his holy presence on stage in Cairo, Egypt, granting that despotic regime a legitimacy it does not deserve. Anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter has met repeatedly with Hamas — and with Obama, presumably carrying Hamas' handwritten instructions. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have already feted China for its role in propping up the U.S. economy. Obama famously "reset" relations with Russia. And Obama kowtowed to the Europeans, stating that Americans failed to respect their "leading role in the world." For his troubles, Obama has gotten a stocking chockfull of coal. Iran's military-directed nuclear program continues apace; the Iranians recently selected/elected President Ahmadinejad again, despite Obama's direct appeals to the Iranian people. Syria continues to support Hezbollah. Egypt announced this week that it would never accept the existence of the State of Israel. Hamas announced that they would not accept any of Israel's positions. China is supporting the North Korean regime despite North Korea's threats of nuclear war. Russia is undermining Eastern European security. And the Europeans have refused to help our efforts in Afghanistan. We have a president who is "loved" and a country that is held to international scorn. Does anyone miss a time when America was respected and our president disliked? Machiavelli asked whether it was more important for a prince to be loved or respected. "(M)en loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince," wrote Machiavelli, "a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted." When a prince — or a world leader — endeavors to be loved rather than feared, he falls into the trap of attempting to please everyone. That is Obama to a T. He is more interested in applause than freedom or American security. Just because the world community mouths support for Obama doesn't mean they'll stand behind America. Or perhaps they will stand behind America — in order to plunge a knife deep between our shoulder blades. Either way, Obama doesn't truly care, as long as the world keeps telling him how wonderful he is. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
APARTHEID, RACISM AND "SELECTION" OF JEWS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 18, 2009. |
|
This is a Followup of the Blog-Ed "Apartheid, Racism and
"Selection" of Jews at the University of Haifa." See below. The essay below is called
"Sheikh Salah: Netanyahu wants to rebuild Temple" and was written
by Ahiya Raved for NYET.
|
|
Leader of Islamic Movement's northern branch warns Muslim students at Haifa University that prime minister intends on completing plans from his first tenure. 'If they suggest we give up our holy sites, we would rather die and will welcome death,' he says Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement's northern branch, spoke Wednesday afternoon in front of Muslim students at Haifa University and warned them that Benjamin Netanyahu was intending on completing his plan to gain control of the Temple Mount, which he said the prime minister had tried to do during his first tenure. Some 150 Jewish students staged a protest in the area, equipped with Israel flags and drums. "This is not Tehran," they chanted towards Salah. The Islamic leader, who was invited to speak by the IQRAA students' organization affiliated with his movement, briefed the students on the history of his movement and on the criminal proceedings taken against him and his people several years ago. He noted that he had rejected the Shin Bet's offers to agree to concessions in Jerusalem. "We love life, our families, our homes and our children, but if they suggest that we give up our principles and holy sites, we would rather die and we will welcome death." Salah claimed that the government continued constantly to dig tunnels under the Temple Mount and the al-Aqsa Mosque, and that Netanyahu was planning to complete during his current term what he did not complete during his first one — "to dig additional tunnels under al-Aqsa and rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount." 
The Muslim students responded by chanting, "Allahu Akbar" (God is great). At the same time, Jewish students clashed with the university's security officers. Police forces were also dispatched to the area but were no required to intervene. Jewish students banned The Jewish students were protesting against the event and the fact that the university only allowed Arab students to take part in it. A Haifa University official said that Salah had not been invited by the institution and that there was no legal way to prevent him from coming. "The university has reservations about Sheikh Raed Salah's remarks, as made in the past, within the walls of other universities as well, but it cannot prevent him from speaking to students. The university hopes that the sheikh will not take advantage of this for incitement but will rather call for peace and coexistence." University officials noted that they had reservations over the event and that they had managed to prevent Salah from visiting the place for several years, including on the recent Land Day, but that legal advice given to the university recently stated that it could no longer reject students' requests to have the Islamic leader lecture to them. Addressing the Jewish students' claims, the university officials said that they were banned entry to the event so as not to disrupt public order. "In previous charged events as well, in which (Foreign Minister Avigdor) Lieberman and (former Defense Minister Shaul) Mofaz gave lectures, we banned the entry of Arab students," one of the officials said. The Students' Union said in a statement that it condemned "any racist act which includes hatred and a desire to incite. We hope for coexistence, and such a speech and such a person creates provocations and disrupts the order within the university's walls. We will not sit idly by as such a serious incident takes place in our home." The Union said its members had only found out about the events on Wednesday because the invitations were written in Arabic. They estimated that had they known about the event earlier, the number of protestors would have been much higher.
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: SHIFTING FOCUS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 17, 2009. |
|
From where I am sitting, there is currently a surfeit of articles and analyses about Netanyahu's talk. And while, undoubtedly I'll return to the subject — if not today, then soon — I think it important to widen our lenses a bit and take a look at some other matters. Before I do, however, I provide here a link to the full speech Netanyahu gave, in English translation. (Scroll down for the speech.) I apologize for having neglected to provide this earlier. This is the full speech; I had found some translations were truncated.
~~~~~~~~~~ I repeat here, verbatim, substantial parts of a letter to the editor that appeared in the Post on Friday, written by Jan Sokolovsky, an American-Israeli and a lawyer, in consultation with a exceedingly knowledgeable international lawyer. It addresses the question of whether Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon regarding settlement blocs is binding, and was written in response to an article that said it was not because it was not ratified by the Senate. It is true that the US Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty. But, in addition to treaties, for over 200 years American presidents have conducted foreign policy by executive agreements, which are generally an exchange of commitments between the president or his agent and the head of state of another country, or his agent. The Litinov Agreement signed in 1933 by FDR and the Russian commissar for foreign affairs is an example, providing for US recognition of the Soviet Union in exchange for the assignment to the US of all calms by Russia against US citizens. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1942, holding that tit had the same binding effect as a treaty. Executive agreements have become an essential tool of US foreign policy. In fact, since the 1960s, each year has seen, on average, 250 executive agreements, compared to 30 treaties. Ariel Sharon's undertaking to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in exchange for the commitments in the Bush letter constituted an executive agreement. We have every right to continue to rely on those assurances, and should be shocked that the Obama administration appears to have avowed them. While the president can renege on US commitments...his doing so would call into question this administration's repeated statements that it intends to abide by international law. ~~~~~~~~~~ This very issue was in the news just today, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is in Washington and has met with his counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She reiterated the demand of Obama that settlements be frozen. But Lieberman told her it wasn't going to happen: "People are born and people die in Judea and Samaria, and the settlements cannot be completely frozen. ~~~~~~~~~~ Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, yesterday cited a statement by Obama at a press conference, with regard to settlements: "[Obama:] 'And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means, but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress.' ~~~~~~~~~~ I will note here that Condoleezza Rice, as Secretary of State, knew the settlements weren't illegal. That's why she would, most irritatingly, refer to settlements as "not helpful," or "not in the spirit." As if we had to go above and beyond. But this is worse. ~~~~~~~~~~ And there's yet more to say about Obama. (Isn't there always?) I was going to address his insistence that he still intends to "dialogue" with Iran, the serious questions of recent electoral improprieties not withstanding. But the situation, with regard to the US position, has morphed from merely seriously stupid to shameful. This is with regard to the refusal of his administration to lend even a modicum of support to those currently protesting in the streets of Iran in the face of considerable repression and official violence. After a long period of silence, Obama has now said, "I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be." ~~~~~~~~~~ As Jeff Jacoby has just written: "Obama made it clear that he was not going to lift a finger for the courageous throngs in the streets — and that he was keen to engage the junta, no matter how vicious or contemptible its behavior. 'We will continue,' he said, 'to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries.' Yesterday he repeated that while he does not like to see 'violence directed at peaceful protesters,' it would not be 'productive' for the president of the United States 'to be seen as meddling' in Iranian affairs. http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5739/obama-iran-and-the-tiananmen-playbook ~~~~~~~~~~ Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, delivered a similar message: "On Saturday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House 'was impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians.' [Vigorous debate and enthusiasm????] On Sunday, Joe Biden allowed that there 'was some real doubt' about the election, but said the U.S. would continue its outreach to Iran anyway... "This is a strange turn of events. In Cairo two weeks ago, Mr. Obama trumpeted 'my commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people.' "Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. 'WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT,' this demonstrator wrote. 'Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one.' "...As for the hope — expressed over the weekend by one unnamed senior U.S. administration official to the New York Times — that Mr. Ahmadinejad would moderate his course in foreign policy to allay concerns about his legitimacy, the president [Ahmadinejad] made his views plain on Sunday. 'It's not true,' he said. 'I'm going to be more and more solid.' "...Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his [Obama's] approach to Iran in his first months in office." (emphasis added) ~~~~~~~~~~ What does it take, to get avid supporters of Obama to hang their heads in shame, for what they have wrought? Coming full circle, this dishonorable and pig-headed policy of Obama's teaches us what we might and might not expect from him vis-a-vis Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, the Post reported that Palestinians associated with Hamas are in Teheran and helping Iranian authorities to crush the street rebellion. They know who butters their bread. But this doesn't disturb Jimmy Carter. After meeting with Hamas officials, he announced that he plans to ask President Obama to remove Hamas from the US-designated list of terror organizations. Carter, the man who was in the White House, and blew it badly, when the current Iranian regime violently grabbed control of the country. No remorse, it seems. No good advice for the current White House resident on making genuine national amends. What moral obtuseness! What lost opportunity. ~~~~~~~~~~ I'd like to recommend this article, Willful Deafness About the Meaning of Two States." You might find it useful to share with others, to help them understand the parameters of what we are dealing with. Writes author Peggy Shapiro: "The Palestinians, Saudis and Egyptians propose two states. The U.N., E.U., U.S. demand two states. Most Israeli governments have agreed to the concept of two states. Other than Israel, none of the proponents of a "two-state" solution ever planned for one of the states to be the Jewish State of Israel." ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" — The Israel Antiquities Authority has announced it will be re-excavating a well-preserved 1,700 year old mosaic floor, approximately 180 square meters in size, which colorfully depicts detailed mammals, birds, fish, and ships of the time. It was discovered in 1996, in the course of widening of a street in Lod (south of Tel Aviv) and was then covered over for protection until the funding could be found to complete the excavation and turn the site into a public attraction. Right now, approximately 43% of all bio-tech research and about half of all clinical research in Israel is done at Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical Center, both in Jerusalem. Additionally, Jerusalem hosts the only technological incubator in Israel dedicated to drug development, BioLine Innovations Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ A few housekeeping matters: [] It is not unusual for one of my postings to a reader to bounce back — because it has been rejected by a server (which perhaps identifies my material as "spam) — or because a mailbox is full. I am certainly not in a position to notify each of you when this happens. If my mail stops arriving for a substantial period of time (and I haven't indicated that there will be a hiatus), you might check space in your mailbox, then your own spam settings and finally your server. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA'S CHOICE IS NOT TO CHOOSE ON IRAN
Posted by Susana K-M, June 17, 2009. |
|
Do it, President Obama, please. Take the side of democracy. Declare yourself and your nation on the side of hope and change where it is more than a slogan and better than a rationalization for ever-bigger government. Stop measuring the success of your diplomacy with Iran by the degree to which the grinning, hate-filled stooge of a clerical junta will "temper" his rhetoric about the pressing need to destroy Israel and slow his ineluctable pursuit of nuclear weapons. Instead, choose a higher standard. Look to history. Look to the aspirations of the students risking their lives and livelihoods to protest a sham election. Stop fawning over the mythological Muslim street only when it hates America, and look to the real Iranian street at the moment of its greatest need, when its heart may be open to loving America. You often invoke President Kennedy's pledge to put a man on the moon to justify your domestic agenda. You and your supporters invite comparisons to Camelot. Well, what of John F. Kennedy's most solemn vow? "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." No, we should not bomb Iran, or invade it. Those prices are too steep; those burdens are too heavy. But maybe you could lift a finger for democracy? During the campaign you mocked those who belittled your rhetoric as "just words." Well, what you've offered so far is less than just words. You've put a fresh coat of whitewash on Iran's sham "democracy." On Monday, you proclaimed yourself "troubled" by the events in Iran, before hinting that you'd negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what an official investigation into his "landslide" victory found. (Would you trust Mafia internal audits, too?) Before the sham election you cheered Iran's "robust debate." But that debate has been robust only if you are grading on a curve. Ahmadinejad's main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was an accidental reform candidate. The mullahs had disqualified about 400 others, leaving in the race only four presumed hacks deemed pliant enough not to rock the boat. Mousavi's popular support and the robustness of the debate he ignited were an unintended consequence of a rigged election and a clerical politburo indifferent to its people's desires, not the intention of a democratic regime. Reportedly, you are biding your time, waiting to see what happens, as if it is a great mystery. Your campaign lived and breathed YouTube. Check it now, check it often. You and your team promised "soft power" and "smart power." How about moral power? Because by not clearly picking a side, it appears you have chosen the wrong side. Do you fear antagonizing the powers-that-be in Iran? That ship has sailed. Though I am sure they're tickled by your eagerness not to roil the seas around them. Is it because you think "leader of the free world" is just another of those Cold War relics best mothballed in favor of a more cosmopolitan and universal awe at your own story? "Enough about those people bleeding in the street. What do you think of me?" Is that how it is to be? During the Bush years, what was best about liberalism had bled away. One of the worst things about the Republican Party has always been its Kissingerian realpolitik, the "it's just business" approach to world affairs that amounted to a willful blindness to our ideals beyond our own borders. The Democratic Party may not have always gotten the policies right, but it had a firm grasp of the principle. In the 1990s, liberals championed "nation building," and many conservatives chuckled at the naivete of it. Then came Iraq, and Republicans out of necessity embraced what liberals once believed out of conviction. The result? Liberals ran from their principles, found their inner Kissingers and championed a cold realism whose chill emanated from the corpse of their ideals. Labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO, once battled tyranny abroad on the grounds that workers everywhere need democracy. Today, the president turns a blind eye to the independent labor movement in Iran, and the unions and Democrats spend their time trying to figure out how to eliminate the secret ballot in the American workplace. So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished. Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. Stop voting "present" on democracy.
Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com
|
|
TO INSIST ISRAEL HAVE RIGHT TO INVADE PALESTINIAN STATE EVEN IF IT IS OFFICIALLY DEMILITARIZED IS OXYMORONIC
Posted by Janet Lehr, June 17, 2009. |
|
TO INSIST ISRAEL HAVE RIGHT TO INVADE PALESTINIAN STATE EVEN IF IT IS OFFICIALLY DEMILITARIZED IS OXYMORONIC This comes from Dr. Aaron Lerner 15 June 2009 IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) (Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava) Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730 INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il Website: http://www.imra.org.il IMRA has learned that during the course of a telephone conference briefing today for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his top political advisor, Ron Dermer, Dermer told the group that Israel would insist it be guaranteed the right to invade the Palestinian state in the even that the state is not demilitarized. Dermer did not explain either which body Israel would insist grant Israel this right (UN?) nor the mechanism for establishing that the Palestinian state is not demilitarized. It should be noted that the United States has a long tradition of declining to recognize or certify Arab agreement violations when recognizing the violation would not serve American interests. During the early years of Oslo, for example, when Congress made PA funding contingent on the issuing of a periodic report that the Palestinians were in compliance, the White House simply lied — in writing — solemnly notifying Congress that the Palestinians were in full compliance. As Henry Kissinger said to President Richard Nixon back in 1970: "Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances.... The nature of the Israeli's situation is bound to influence their interpretation of ambiguous events. We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant. Violations force us to choose between doing something about them and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action. JEWS 'VERY CONCERNED' ABOUT OBAMA, LEADER OF JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS SAYS This is by Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. A former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal award-winning reporter, he is the New York Times bestselling author of 18 books. His next book, "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect," will be published Aug. 4 by Crown Publishing and reveals for the first time the secrets of how agents protect the president and what they see behind the scenes, from John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson through George W. Bush and Barack Obama. President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. Though Hoenlein says he is only offering his personal views, the conference he represents is a political powerhouse that includes 50 major Jewish groups. Among them are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah, and the Anti-Defamation League. Hoenlein has been the professional head of the conference since 1986, overseeing its day-to-day activities as the coordinating body for American Jews on issues of concern in the U.S. and globally. Jewish leaders "are expressing concern about what was said [in Obama's Cairo speech]," Hoenlein says. "I've heard it from some of his strongest supporters. It's expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them." Obama's speech to a Muslim audience in Cairo in early June was his second effort early in his administration to re-define America's posture toward the Arab world. In April, Obama traveled to Ankara, Turkey, to offer a similar outreach to the Muslim world. But many in the Jewish community, including some of Obama's most ardent supporters, are troubled by his comments in the Middle East, especially his remarks to his Cairo audience. Others are concerned that, facing a multitude of problems on the domestic front, Obama has traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel, America's stalwart ally in the region for more than a half-century. "There's a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for," Hoenlein says of Obama's outreach. Reaction to Obama's speech has drawn a range of reaction from many Jewish leaders. On the right, some have condemned it as a revision of the long and close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But many on the left who backed Obama were also surprised and dismayed over Obama's speech. Such reactions from major Jewish leaders have largely remained beneath the surface, exchanged privately among them. Hoenlein's comments to Newsmax are his first detailed appraisal of Obama's speech and represent the first time a major Jewish leader has spoken openly about the erosion of Jewish support for Obama. According to the exit poll conducted by major press organizations during the 2008 election, Obama captured overwhelming support from American Jews, winning 78 percent of their vote. Despite the fact that Republicans are stronger on national security and the war on terror, Obama also won support from Jewish leaders who have been champions of Israel's security, such as the former Democratic mayor of New York, Edward I. Koch. Koch crossed party lines in 2004 to back George W. Bush. Reacting to Obama's Cairo speech, Hoenlein tells Newsmax, "I have no problem with addressing the Muslim world. I'm in fact in favor of outreach, and we here at the conference have done it for about 12 or 15 years, visiting Muslim countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. But the question is, what is the message they get? It's not so much what he says, but how do they perceive what he says?" On the one hand, Hoenlein says, "His reference to Israel and the special relationship being unbreakable is important, and references to persecution and Holocaust denial were important, and some of his references to some human rights issues also were important." But Hoenlein notes the speech included a number of troubling references and comparisons. He cites the fact that Obama claimed America has seven million Muslims. That is a figure "Arab propagandists have put out," he says. "In fact, they say only six million, when in fact there's no study that shows even half of that." In 2007, the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population at 2.35 million. Hoenlein is disturbed that Obama did not mention the Jewish people's ancient connection with the land of Israel. "There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says. "And that is again one of the propaganda lines that the Arabs have used: that the Jews are interlopers, that the two temples never existed, that there was never any Jewish history in the land of Israel. Even Yasser Arafat and others have used that argument because they're trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don't believe that was the president's intent, but not making those references I think is troubling." Jews have claimed a connection to the land of their forefathers since 1400 B.C. Even after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and the dispersal of many Jews throughout the Roman Empire, many Jews continued to reside in Jerusalem through the centuries, surviving various invasions. An Ottoman census of Jersualem conducted in 1845 showed Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 and were the dominant ethnic group in the region. Hoenlein believes that the most troubling aspect of Obama's comments in his Cairo speech was his effort to equate the Nazi killing of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Israel's struggle with the Palestinians over six decades and the suffering caused by the displacement of the Palestinians. "There's no comparison between the Holocaust, even if it was an indirect one, and what happened to Palestinians," Hoenlein declares. In his speech, President Obama addressed the issue of the Holocaust head-on, saying "Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today." But he quickly changed the subject, comparing Hitler's genocide of the Jews to the Palestinian struggle. "On the other hand," Obama said, as he transitioned from the Holocaust to the modern Middle East, "it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." Hoenlein doesn't buy Obama's line of reasoning. "The Palestinian refugee problem, or dislocation as he said, didn't come about because of the creation of the Jewish state," Hoenlein says. "It came about because the Arab states declared war on Israel and warned the Arabs that they would suffer the same fate as the Jews if they didn't get out. And then they kept them as political pawns." Obama made no reference to the fact that "the reason the Palestinians don't have a state is because their leaders rejected every offer for peace," Hoenlein says. "Whether it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1967, or later on, up until Ehud Olmert's offer and Ehud Barak's offer, they rejected everything, even when they were getting virtually everything they had asked for." That is because, "The problem really is not what Israel does, it's that Israel is," Hoenlein says. "And they're not ready to accept the existence of the Jewish state." In discussing the Palestinian refugee problem, Obama failed to mention the other refugee problem involving nearly a million Jews, Hoenlein says. At the time of the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, Jews populated all of the major Arab cities from Baghdad in the East to Casablanca in the West. Hoenlein notes that after modern Israel saw its rebirth, Jews "were driven out of Arab countries penniless, and some of their families had lived there for a thousand years, and yet there was no reference to them." He adds, "This is not a question of tit for tat. It's a question of the realities that are communicated to a vast audience in the Arab Muslim world." As troubling as Obama's references to Israel and the Palestinians were, Hoenlein found the president's failure to mention the radical regime now running Tehran equally disturbing. "What concerned us, concerned many people, was the message to Iran that we didn't hear," Hoenlein says. Iran, controlled by powerful Shia Mullahs, is set to acquire a nuclear device. Many Sunni Muslim states, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Morocco, are concerned about this prospect. Hoenlein says these Arab states also wanted to hear "an absolute assurance about the U.S. commitment not to allow Iran to be nuclear, not to allow it to continue to support terrorism, not to allow it to continue being the major state sponsor of terror around the world." Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared himself the winner in the election in Iran this past weekend, has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. In 2005, he declared that he is a devout follower of Iran's late ruler Ayatollah Khomeini. He has vowed to fulfill the Ayatollah's dream that the "occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map." Asked if he sees Obama's perceived tilt toward the Palestinians as reflecting some of the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Obama's former pastor who accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and "terrorism," Hoenlein says American Jews are concerned about Obama's policies today. "That issue has been discussed and debated, and I don't know that it's a relevant concern for right now," he says. "I do feel strongly about what the [current] policy will be." Hoenlein says flatly, "People [Jews] are genuinely very concerned...about President Obama." TIME FOR A NEW ALL? This is by Leon De Winter. US President Barack Obama's Cairo speech was a historic event in many aspects. First of all it was remarkable that a Western leader felt legitimized to talk about Islamic truths, as if he were a Muslim theologian. Secondly, he approached the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even-handedly, as if the Jewish right to Israel and the Arab resistance to it have the same moral weight. "For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security." Within this historic speech, Obama couldn't find words to describe the attack by various Arab armies on Israel the day it was created. He couldn't describe the terrorist attacks that followed the 1949 armistice. He omitted the growing anti-Semitism in the Arab media, the Arab schoolbooks, Arab radio and TV, in the preaching in the mosques. Twice Obama mentioned the anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas: "Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist." Obama didn't mention the core message of Hamas: the worldwide destruction of the Jews. Ayatollah Khomeini, the instigator of the present Islamist revolution, defined world history, the course of human events, as follows: "From the beginning, the Islamic movement has been obstructed by the Jews. They were the first who developed anti-Islamic propaganda and conspiracies. And this is still the case." In other words, opposing Israel, the nation of the Jews, is the driving force of the Islamist revolution, both Sunni and Shi'ite. It is its core. It cannot exist if it would give up its ambition to erase Israel. The destruction of Israel is its ultimate goal, its fuel, its body, its nature, its direction and its destination. Only through the destruction of the cunning, conspiring, obstructing Jews the Islamist revolution can reach its goal: the resurrection of the caliphate. OBAMA EXPLICITLY decided to ignore this threat, and decided to leave Israel in the cold, or better in the heat of a nuclear explosion. This is what he said: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons." The president meant: Israel, a single nation, doesn't have the right to deny Iran nuclear armament. Iran, an existential threat to Israel, cannot be stopped by Israel on its own — this should be matter of the international community, according to the president. Through his Cairo address Obama made an end to America's alliance with Israel that has lasted over 40 years. Israel's strategic early allies were Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and especially France, which delivered its famous delta-winged Mirage jets that gave Israel its 1967 victory in the Six Day War. In that year, America, although with a public that was sympathetic to Israel, replaced the tanks Jordan lost. The French refused to deliver new Mirage jets and America hesitated for some time to sell F-4 Phantoms to Israel. AMERICA WILL now act as even-handedly to Israel as the European Union. This approach hasn't created any progress in the years since the 1993 Oslo Accords. Corrupt Palestinian leaders have transferred billions to their Swiss bank accounts and the international community wishes to look the other way. Gaza could have been a better place by now if Hamas had tried to peacefully build civil institutions. Hamas did not. Without any necessity it fired thousands of rockets at Israel. The problem is — it is Hamas's core business to oppose the Jews. The EU wishes to ignore all these events and clings to the idea of a "viable Palestinian state," which is an oxymoron. The Palestinians have tribal communities and only fake having a modern civil society. No civil institutions have been built because they are not in the interest of the leading Palestinian families. The famous Jewish lobby has not been able to prevent Obama's change of direction. The truth is the lobby has always been a myth, and American Jewry, which is in majority an affluent, liberal, assimilated and only vaguely religious group, has been distancing itself more and more from Israel, which it considers right-wing, militaristic, chauvinistic, belligerent. For liberal American Jews, Israel is a confusing phenomenon. They feel connected to Israel through the remembrance and legacy of the Holocaust, but they are highly politically correct and feel solidly at home on the campuses where generations of students have been brainwashed by the works written by the holy spirit of Arab studies, Edward Said. American Jewry was aware of the president's spiritual mentor in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, a black racist and anti-Semite, and of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian intellectual and anti-Zionist with whom he had a strong personal relation. The Jews preferred to side with him instead of worrying about his opinions about Israel. And now, after the Cairo address, they will keep standing by him and distance themselves from an Israel that produces awful pictures of bombed buildings and mutilated bodies of women and children — American Jews, at cocktail parties in the Village or the Upper West Side, prefer Israel to act proportionately and to behave as decent, civilized, upper-class Jews, not as Middle Eastern warriors. Since the 1982 massacres in Sabra and Shatila, committed by Lebanese Maronites but attributed to Israel and Ariel Sharon, liberal American Jewry went on a long journey and arrived at a historic point: just like Obama, it gave up on Israel. A SMALL NATION like Israel, a single and lonely modern democracy in a part of the world in which autocracies and tyrannies are the norm, cannot survive without a strategic partnership with a major international power that is forced, by the sheer size of its interests, to play the complex fields of the Middle East. It is too soon to create a lasting bond with India, a natural ally for Israel. India will emerge during this century as a major international power, both militarily as economically and scientifically, but it cannot give Israel yet the diplomatic and military backup it needs. But there is another strategic player in the field who would welcome a partnership with Israel, especially with its cutting-edge electronic industries. Of Israel's 5.7 million Jews, more than 1 million have Russian roots. Despite the old anti-Semitism in Russia, there has been a strong melancholic bond between the two populations. In Russia, Jews have excelled in sciences and the arts. Because of its continuous counterbalancing act with America, Russia has been maintaining ties to Iran and Syria, but it needs to diversify and update its economy and reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas income. It could use scientific and commercial ingenuity, qualities Iran and Syria are not able to deliver — Israel is. And Israel could use Russia's vast resources and the determination of its leader Vladimir Putin, a smart and ruthless leader who understands the cruel rules of the international power game. Obama's loyalties, and those of the majority of liberal American Jewry, don't lie with Israel. So Israel needs to shop for another ally. In his offices in the Kremlin, Putin will receive its leaders with open arms, dark bread, marinated herring and some bottles of Stoli.
Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily email called "Israel Lives."
She can be contacted at janetlehr@israellives.com
|
|
ON WAR — AND PEACE TREATIES
Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, June 17, 2009. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
During the past 2,500 years there have been more 1,000 wars in the western world alone. That's an average one war every 2.5 years! Hence the norm of international relations is not peace but war. This means that "peace" is little more than a preparation for war, and that peace treaties are worthless. This is the conclusion of Lawrence Beilenson's book The Treaty Trap. After studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times, Beilenson concludes that treaties can only benefit nations governed by rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient. Serious research on war and peace yields two basic lessons: First lesson: There is no such thing as a "peace process" except for fools and scoundrels. Israel's 1979 peace treaty with Egypt is nothing more than a cease-fire, and hardly that, since Egypt facilitates the smuggling of arms to terrorists in Gaza. Even Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has admitted that Israel's treaty with Egypt — which he initially supported — has been a failure. As Anwar Sadat said: "Poor Menachem [Begin], he has his problems ... After all, I got back ... the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper." Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il |
|
ANOTHER AXIS OF EVIL
Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 17, 2009. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips
|
|
Yesterday, there were suggestions that Hezbollah forces were being brought into Iran to help put down the revolt against the regime. Today, as reports seep out of the brutality being meted out to the protesters — the anonymous post here at 6.03 pm is particularly affecting — which suggest that the casualty toll is far higher than has so far been claimed, the Jerusalem Post reports that Palestinian Hamas thugs have been imported into Iran to crush the uprising: On Tuesday two protesters told The Jerusalem Post that Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of Mousavi... 'The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of,' the young man went on, 'is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots.' Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran. On Monday, he said, 'my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too.' It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad 'tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel.' His hope, he added, was that Israel would 'come to its senses' and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians. When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. 'Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets... The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want... [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country.' It would indeed be ironic if, while Obama is putting the thumbscrews on Israel to facilitate a Palestinian state as a precondition for America getting tough with Iran, the Palestinians are being used to keep the Iranian regime in power. Hamas is, of course, an arm of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The Iranians are Shi'ites, the supposed deadly foes of the Sunni. Hamas is, however, known to receive funding, arms and terrorist training from Iran, an alliance which has been dismissed as implausible by those who appear never to have heard of the Molotov /Ribbentrop pact. But then, the refusal to grasp that the real agenda behind the violence in the Middle East is the brutal imposition of Islamic theocracy, first upon the region and then upon the world, is the tragic delusion of the west — which extends now all the way into the Oval Office. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA VERUS ISRAEL: BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID
Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 17, 2009. |
|
The President's stance vis à vis Israel has little to do with America's national interests or with an accurate reading of political and historical dynamics. It smacks much more of a private agenda on the part of a man who sat for twenty years worth of Sundays in a pew in Pastor Wright's church, absorbing his anti-Jewish sermons and jeremiads; who counts among his personal acquaintances the director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, as well as many other Islamic and pro-Islamic supporters such as his campaign coordinators Mazen Asbahi and Minha Husaini and consultant Shakir Muhammad; and who has surrounded himself with demonstrably anti-Israeli advisors and colleagues, too numerous to name here. This below was written by David Solway, the award-winning
author of over twenty-five books of poetry, criticism, educational
theory, and travel. He is a contributor to magazines as varied as the
Atlantic, the Sewanee Review, Books in Canada, and the
Partisan Review. His most recent book is The Big Lie: On
Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity. The article appeared in Front
Page Magazine
|
|
Be Afraid, Be Very, Very Afraid
We know how cats, when they inadvertently stumble, tumble or meet with some unexpected embarrassment that disrupts their feline grace, tend to save face by stopping and proceeding to groom themselves, appearing to be sublimely indifferent to whatever obstacle has impeded their progress. Poise is everything. Human beings are no different and the gestures we make to dissemble our discomfiture or mortification are generally quite innocuous and often amusing in themselves. The raised hand to summon an oblivious waiter completes its trajectory by smoothing down one's hair. It is only when these deflecting maneuvers are raised to another dimension of intent and practiced by those in a position of great power, especially when embroiled in grave or fateful situations, that they cease to be harmless and diverting. President Obama's recent foreign policy decisions are a case in point, in particular with regard to Israel. What is it that might plausibly explain Obama's obsessive focus on the Israeli/ Palestinian nexus to the exclusion of far more serious and potentially catastrophic world events? Does he have some farsighted plan many of us cannot see that will culminate in unanticipated harmonies? Or is he, like Dubya, too easily swayed by the poor advice of his cronies and confidants? Does he suffer from a debilitating absence of political courage? Or is he, perhaps, not quite as intelligent as adoring multitudes give him credit for, arriving at thoroughly misguided conclusions and policies from mere lack of analytical capacity — as, for example, his stated conviction that Palestine and Iran are mutually implicated, in other words, if the Palestinians get what they want at Israel's expense, then Iran will obligingly shut down its nuclear facilities? Is he, Heaven forfend, an Islamic mole disguised as a Christian? Perhaps swagger and self-regard provide an explanation, as the President may be bent upon proving that he, and he alone, can solve a problem whose solution has stubbornly defeated his precursors' best efforts? The phenomenon is initially rather baffling. Consider. There is a actual genocide taking place in Darfur, but the President is apparently more concerned by the presumed atrocity of "natural growth" in Israeli settlements that were acknowledged and vetted by the previous American administration and whose legitimacy can be historically validated. This is apparently a much bigger deal than the 500,000 dead (according to National Geographic News for September 14, 2006!) and millions displaced in the Sudanese ethnic cleansing campaign. North Korea with its now, almost routine, nuclear tests, its proliferation of nuclear and ballistic technology to the world's rogue regimes and its defiance of the "international community" surely merits a more studied and effective response than expressions of disappointment by the President, a verbal spanking administered by a pitiable Hilary Clinton, and the threat of revocable sanctions. It clearly requires appreciably more attention than does a scattering of huts and outposts in Judea and Samaria that are, in any case, being dismantled by the Israeli government. But there is one issue that eclipses them all. Iran is racing to the nuclear finish line, determined to become what Middle East Terrorism expert Walid Phares has called a "Jihadist USSR." It is developing solid fuel missiles capable not only of reaching American military bases in the region but of targetting major European cities. It is perfecting an EMP platform that constitutes a devastating menace to the United States. Disregarding the United Nations Charter, it has promised to annihilate a sovereign nation, with which it is not officially at war, by atomic holocaust. The potential for a planetary cataclysm is enormous and dwarfs by several orders of magnitude any other geopolitical concern in the world today. Yet Obama is intent on preventing Israel from constructing apartment units in East Jerusaelm while doing nothing to prevent Iran from constructing centrifuges in Natanz. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Mubarak of Egypt, nominal allies of the United States, must be asking themselves why their distinguished counterpart gets so excited over these Israeli apartment annexes when Iran is about to launch a veritable game-changer, one that will alter the entire political complexion of the Middle East, putting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and the Gulf Emirates at risk — and, indeed, the world along with them. The President's stance vis à vis Israel has little to do with America's national interests or with an accurate reading of political and historical dynamics. It smacks much more of a private agenda on the part of a man who sat for twenty years worth of Sundays in a pew in Pastor Wright's church, absorbing his anti-Jewish sermons and jeremiads; who counts among his personal acquaintances the director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, as well as many other Islamic and pro-Islamic supporters such as his campaign coordinators Mazen Asbahi and Minha Husaini and consultant Shakir Muhammad; and who has surrounded himself with demonstrably anti-Israeli advisors and colleagues, too numerous to name here. The President also knows that dumping on Israel is a popular move in the current international climate and will not be faulted by his legionary supporters at home, in Europe and in the radical sectors of the Arab realm. As noted columnist and author Barry Rubin writes in the GLORIA center bulletin (June 3, 2009), "Israel is a soft target against which to play hardball." But in focusing so relentlessly on Israel, Obama is taking the easy way out, for the fact of the matter is that he has absolutely no idea what to do about Iran — the very question that will ultimately define his Presidency — except to extend his open hand and, when that is ignored, to smooth down his hair. When it comes to the principal dilemma confronting American foreign policy, Obama is utterly clueless. He is the wrong President for the wrong time. The undeniable truth is that he is totally out of his depth — or shallows. And that his main talent resides in the art of parrying instances of political awkwardness, diplomatic gaffes and visionary impotence by drawing on his undoubted charm and self-assurance, which his admirers interpret as presidential savvy. As for Israel, a country to which he is anyway ill-disposed, it serves Obama's purposes wonderfully, allowing him to preserve his sense of aplomb and to keep his ostensible gravitas intact as the international situation continues to worsen. Obama is not unintelligent nor is he overly impressionable — at least, not any longer — but he is, on the evidence, exceedingly vain and disturbingly arrogant. This is a man who relies on his urbanity and pizzazz to impose his will upon an awed electorate. A man who responds to an unwelcome query with the rejoinder, "I won" and who appears to regard himself as pretty well infallible, irrespective of what reality is telling him. It is this character trait which likely disables him from scrupulously assessing the real nature of the world's preeminent conflict. It is this which may well account for his obvious reluctance to develop a robust and workable strategy on the Iranian file. Obama is very good at stalking his smaller domestic adversaries but is extremely wary of anything that imperils the suave kinetics of his savoir faire. Obama is wholly cat, supple in his manifestations and graceful in his demeanor, but a cat who has faltered upon an issue before which he cannot admit his helplessness and lack of moral resolve, his failure of audacity. All he can do is divert attention from his incompetence and partisanship by seizing upon a lesser and comparatively nugatory matter — the natural growth of several previously accepted Israeli settlements. By concentrating on a few square kilometers in the Middle East, he is able to avoid facing the greater problem of the danger to his own nation and to the world as well, a problem he is simply not equipped to manage. It is obvious that Obama has stumbled over Iran. It is equally obvious that he is intensely preoccupied with grooming his image. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
MUSLIMS HARM CHRISTIAN ARABS; ISRAEL TO EXPEL THOUSANDS OF JEWS?; US DENIES ACCEPTING ANY SETTLEMENT BUILDING
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 17, 2009. |
|
MUSLIMS HARM PALESTINIAN CHRISTIAN ARABS The supposedly independent Palestine News Network did not report the Muslim rampage that desecrated 70 Christian graves just after the Pope advocated statehood for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Instead it reported a Muslim-Christian meeting on tolerance between Muslims and Christians. Divert attention from actual intolerance to theoretical tolerance. The Territories had much better economies from the time Israel took them over relinquishing them to the P.A.. The P.A.. Reuters and other foreign news agencies blame Israel for the Territories' poor economy and Christian emigration. Persecution prompts emigration. "Two months ago, a fire caused damage to a Coptic Christian church near Ramallah..." Arson suspected. "P.A. terrorists in Kalkilya three years ago set fire to the YMCA headquarters. The previous year, a Muslim mob armed with clubs beat Christians in a Christian Arab village near Ramallah, looting their houses and burning cars and houses." In Hamas-run Gaza, Christian book stores and churches are bombed. Muslim threats have intimidated Christians into appeasing the Muslims by blaming Israel for their hardships. P.A. Christians often accuse Israel of barring them from entering Jerusalem to visit holy sites, although it was Israel that in 1967 opened to Christians the sites from which the Muslims had barred them. When Jordan controlled the Old City during the prior 18 years, it barred Christians and Jews from holy places. Actually, the Christian exodus from the Ottoman Empire began before
Israel was re-established
For more on Muslim persecution of Christians, click here:
KING DENIES JORDANIAN CITIZENSHIP TO ARAFAT'S ARABS An opposition Member of Knesset suggested that since Jordan is in
Palestine, let the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli jurisdiction have
Jordan as their state. This upset King Abdullah
Radicals among them could join with his own Palestinian Arabs to overthrow the monarchy. Nor does he want to relieve Israel. On the matter of how many states the Arabs should have, click here:
NY TIMES CONFIRMS MY CRITIQUE OF JOURNALISM The NY Times public editor confirmed a problem of journalism that I often point out afflicts his paper. He referred to a dubious and hastily leaked Pentagon report about former Guantanamo prisoners returning to terrorism. "Most of the caveats about the report were deep in the article, where they could hardly offset the impact of the headline, the first paragraph, and the prominent position on page 1." In other words, the warning is put where it is not effective. The placement of the caveats about the Pentagon report was inadvertent. Public editor Hoyt, however, thinks that the journalists should have been aware of the importance of placement (Week in Review, 6/7, p.8). I think they usually are aware of it. I have been warning about the placement of arguments made by the Israeli side further back in lengthy Times articles than most people read. This is in addition to the briefer and less emotional presentation of the Israeli side than of the Arab side, and without the articles' identifying which side is factual and which is fabricating its case. This is part of anti-Zionist prejudice coupled with advocacy journalism. I sent Mr. Hoyt lengthy proof of NY Times prejudice. He has not taken it up. For more on Times anti-Zionism, click on my category "media
bias" or click here:
AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, PAKISTAN SEPARATE WARS? Thomas L. Friedman: "I have never bought the argument that Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan the good war, and Pakistan the necessary war. Folks, they're all one war with different fronts. It's a war within the Arab-Muslim world between progressive and anti-modernist force over how this faith community is going to adapt to modernity." A victory in Iraq would bolster the modernists in the other area, especially by setting an example (NY Times, Week in Review, 6/7, p.8). That is just how I put it about one war, separate fronts, except that the jihadists carry the war outside their countries. My liberal friends did not understand that concept. They were hooked on the NY Times campaign for the notion that Iraq didn't matter, even after Radical Muslims made a bid for control there. Friedman has a prejudice and blind spot about Israel, but otherwise perceives how the world is tied together in its economy but has alliances for and against civilization. I think he goes too far in calling the Muslim opponents of the Radical Muslims "progressive," since many of them are dictators. though of the non-ideological type. He doesn't acknowledge that they exaggerated the Arab-Israel conflict to divert attention from their oppression and failure. I think that they no longer need that conflict, now that they can divert attention to defense against Radical Islam. People think that each of Israel's wars were separate. Actually,
each was a campaign in general jihad, as you can surmise if you click
here:
OBAMA NOW REALISTIC ABOUT N. KOREA NUKES? "Now, after examining the still-inconclusive evidence about the results of N. Korea's second nuclear test, the administration has come to different conclusions: that Pyongyang's top priority is to be recognized as a nuclear state, that it is unwilling to bargain away its weapons and that it sees tests as a way to help sell its nuclear technology." Administration officials tired of repeatedly granting N. Korea expensive new concessions that they pocket and then break their end of the bargain. "'This entirely changes the dynamic of how you deal with them,' a senior national security aide said." (David E. Sanger, NY Times, 6/8, A3.) Iran has the same top priority. It has additional motives for getting a nuclear bomb stockpile: (1) Inhibit an offensive against its proxy militias; (2) Intimidate foreign countries; and (3) Destroy Israel and damage the U.S.. Will the Obama administration realize it should deal with Iran differently, too? Or will it retain the conceit that President Obama can talk unscrupulous, vicious fanatics, with their jihad's built-in imperialism, into civility? The rest of the world did not provoke the Islamists; modernism has upset them. The Administration has given no indication of realizing that the U.S. has run out of resources and is stultifying its initiative. China probably realizes it. Pres. Putin of Russia may, but he should be paying attention to the behemoth to his east, China, which may not be benign. When the Soviet Union had a population of about 300 million, the U.S. had about half that. Now the U.S. has about 300 million, and Russia has about half that. Putin needs to think more and strut less. That lesson all formerly great powers learn when their decline has momentum. No longer a superpower, the U.S. has less ability to force its way
upon other countries. For a comparable problem with Iran, click here:
ISRAEL TO EXPEL THOUSANDS OF JEWS FROM TOWNS The government announced intent to expel all the Jews from certain
towns [or is it "outposts"] in Judea-Samaria that were not fully
authorized. The number of residents is said to run into the thousands.
Demolition was set to precede June 6, but the politicians still are
taking up the issue. PM Netanyahu defends the decision as upholding
the law
Clever, isn't Netanyahu? Pretending to be a nationalist, he appoints far leftist Ehud Barak as Defense Minister, and leaves to him the decision for this ethnic cleansing of his own people. Want to uphold the law? Complete the approval process for those towns that government bureaucracy delayed, instead of acting indignant against the residents, as if lawbreakers. Netanyahu does not mind Arab lawbreakers, who steal public land needed for defense, roads, parks, etc.. For more on Netanyahu's defense of expulsion, click here:
U.S. DENIES ACCEPTING ANY SETTLEMENT BUILDING Israel cites U.S. agreements that Israel would keep major
settlement blocs and would build some houses in settlements. The U.S.
denies both provisions. It insists that Israel must negotiate with
Israeli withdrawal from all of Judea-Samaria. [What is the point of
negotiation, if the U.S. dictates the results?] In an earlier report,
I quoted from Pres. Bush's non-binding letter approving Israel's
retention of large settlement blocs. Here is further evidence from
1. 4/18/04, PM Sharon referred to that Bush letter in a Cabinet meeting. 2. 4/22/04, PM Sharon referred to the letter's stating that besides Israel retaining large settlement blocs, the rest should be negotiated. Sharon explained that the letter was what Israel got in return for evacuating from Gaza. 3. 10/30/04, the Washington Post reported that Israel never accepted any road map freeze of natural growth in settlements within existing construction lines. It reported concurrence by some U.S. officials. 4. 03/22/05, U.S. Ambassador Kurtzer confirmed at a TV interview that Bush's letter acknowledges that Israel did not have to return to the 1967 lines. [UN Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal, either.] The U.S. has denied other agreements with Israel, before. I omit my source for the issue of Egyptian blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, because the agreement is vague. Israel had interpreted the agreement as a U.S. guarantee to re-open the Gulf. During the blockade, the U.S. denied any guarantee and suggested that Israel depend on the UN. Foreign Min. Abba Eban derided UN utility. I recall Israel citing a U.S. document that Washington then claimed to have misplaced, that guaranteed that Egypt would not move its missiles forward, if Israel stopped destroying them. Israel stopped, Egypt moved them forward such that they were more difficult to dislodge, and the U.S. did nothing about it. In my opinion, the U.S. is duplicitous toward Israel, as it was toward the American Indians. Israeli leaders must think they are clever in attaining these agreements, but get unclear, unsigned agreements. Left open to interpretation, agreements are like putty to the State Dept.. As IMRA suggests, Israel must learn not to give up territory in return for an agreement with the U.S.. PM Sharon had 14, mostly important, reservations about the Road Map. The U.S. ignored those reservations. The NY Times holds Israel to the U.S. version that Israel had not agreed to. That is not fair. Neither is it fair that the NY Times does not hold the U.S. to the promises it makes to Israel. I think Israel should declare that since the Palestinian Authority has not eradicated terrorism in 13 years, but has boosted it, the Road Map is void. Israel should assert that peace won't come from U.S. pressure on the victim of Arab aggression. For a mini-series on PM Netanyahu's arguments against freezing
settlements, click here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
BUT, SETTLEMENTS OBSTRUCT PEACE
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 17, 2009. |
|
Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong to assume that his June 14 speech will soften President Obama's strident criticism of "settlements" (Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria). At the same time, President Obama is wrong to consider "settlements" as an obstacle to peace. In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein, in order to, ostensibly, advance peaceful coexistence. However, expectations were frustrated. The dismantling of the Jewish communities was perceived by Arabs as a further erosion of Ariel Sharon, the role model of Jewish tenacity. It induced escalation of smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace... President Obama defines "settlements" as the root cause of Arab hostility toward the Jewish State. However, the Arab-Palestinian offensive against the Jewish State was not ignited by "settlements." In fact, "settlements" were established in Judea and Samaria after the wars of 1967, 1956 and 1948, after the sustained 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, after the 1964 establishment of the PLO, after the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, after the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace... President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?! Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?! Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to any Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria — even under Arab rule — would he tolerate Jewish opposition to any Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within Israeli-controlled areas in Judea and Samaria and in pre-1967 Israel. Does such a reality alert President Obama to the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?! But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace... Obama pressures Israel, vociferously, to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Does the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome, thus severely violating the spirit of negotiation?! Does it reward Arab terrorism, undermining Israel's posture of deterrence, and therefore radicalizing Arab expectations, demands and violence?! But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace... The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan. The most recent internationally-recognized sovereign over Judea and Samaria was the League of Nations-authorized 1922 British Mandate, which defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish history. Article 6 of the Mandate indicates the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School and former Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Security Council Resolution 242, asserted that 242 entitles Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Oslo Accord and its derivatives do not prohibit "settlements." Moreover, Israel has constrained construction to state-owned — and not private — land, avoiding expulsion of Arabs landowners. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace... President Obama is facing unprecedented challenges of a melting economy, healthcare reforms, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a potential post-evacuation volcano in Iraq, North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats, a possible nuclearization of Al Qaeda, Islamic terrorist threats to pro-US Arab regimes, imperialist Russia and China, an increasingly violent border with Mexico, Hugo Chavez' "mischiefs," etc. But, Obama claims that he is preoccupied with "settlements" because they are, seemingly, a critical obstacle to peace... Obama's pressure to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Arab rejection of the existence — and not just the size — of a Jewish State in the supposedly abode-of-Islam. Inadvertently, Obama is adding fuel, and not water, to the fire of Middle East turbulence and violence. But, Obama regards "settlements" as a critical obstacle to peace... 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 |
|
THE PERSIAN ABYSS: A NEW CHAPTER IN IRAN'S HISTORY
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 17, 2009. |
|
This was a comment posted by A.A. Sheida in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
June 12th 2009 will go down as a turning point in the history of Iranians' awakening. The race for the presidential election officially started three weeks ago. The reform movement had long been pronounced dead, following the inability of the former President Khatami to deliver on promises he had made. The reformists voters were expected to sit home. The reformists could have easily been disqualified. They were allowed to stand, however, so that the presidential election would have a pretense of competition; so that the regime could claim legitimacy by luring people into participating. Ahmadinejad was expected to win. Life in the Islamic Republic was moving along as it has been for the past several years. The young people of Iran were making the best out of the situation they were in. In South Tehran, they divided their time between praying in the mosques and taking puffs of their Opium bongs. In Northern Tehran, the youth divided their time between house parties with exuberant amounts of alcohol and TOEFL classes. Their only dream was to leave Iran. And then a spark came and the whole of Iran was caught on fire. The spark came in a televised debate between Ahmadinejad and the reformist candidate Mousavi. In this debate, Ahmadinejad accused all of the previous administrations in Iran of corruption. More importantly, he set aside all Iranian social manners and took a virulent shot at Mousavi's wife, a respected academic, artist, and the designer of several sculptures in Teheran's main squares. Iranians were outraged. An unprecedented wave of sympathy and support poured into the streets. Green, the color chosen by Mousavi's campaign, became the fashion of the season. Overnight, the stores in Iran were emptied of anything green. In a matter of days, Mousavi managed to move into the position of the front runner. Hundreds of thousands of young people joined hands to form human chains across the capital in support of Mousavi, creating scenes unheard of since the revolution in 1979. The election fever spread beyond the borders of Iran to the Iranian communities in exile. From Istanbul to London, from Los Angles to New York, the Iranians prepared to vote. It is as if everybody had been reminded, just in time, how terrible Ahmadinejad has really been. An unprecedented number of people showed up to the ballot box. An astonishing 85% of those eligible cast their vote and anxiously awaited the results. All indications were that Mousavi had won the elections by a landslide. An hour after the voting was over, Ahmadinejad is pronounced winner by the state media. Iran was in a state of shock. Nobody believed this results. People poured into the streets and started chanting "Death to the Dictator." An Intifatha broke out in the streets of Teheran and many other major cities in Iran. 
I CALLED my 24-year-old cousin in Teheran who had just come back from a protest. "They are beating people mercilessly," she said. I tell her that I think protesting will not get them anywhere. "We know they are going to suppress us," she said. "We know they are going to re-install their man. But we want the whole world to know that this government is not legitimate." Three weeks ago, a BBC correspondent wrote that anybody who has spent time in Iran recently knows that people are not in the mood for a regime change. Neither he, nor anybody else, could have predicted the turn of events in the past few days. The currents guiding the Iranian national psychology have been developing for 2500 years. Most of the time they are just beneath the surface, invisible to both Iranians and foreigners. Occasionally, they break out creating an earthquake in the socio-political scene. This makes Iran one of the most unpredictable countries in the world. Iranians of all ages, ethnicities and religions came out to vote because they believed that the only way to change the country was through slow reform within the parameters set by the regime. June 12, 2009, will be remembered as the day that the hope was pronounced dead.
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF IT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 16, 2009. |
|
The majority of communications I've received with regard to my last posting indicates that those responding to my material, in the main, seem to agree with me. But not everyone does (of course), and those e-mails that have come to me expressing despair at what Netanyahu did in mentioning a Palestinian state, though few in number, are so heart-felt that they merit further discussion. In the end, as I've just written to one reader, we will likely have to agree to disagree. At least for now. For my opinion has not changed. Which doesn't mean that it might not change in the course of time. (I fervently hope not, not because I need to be correct, but because this would mean the situation was going badly.) ~~~~~~~~~~ I hope and trust that everyone who reads my material understands fully that I am not glad Netanyahu did what he did; it is not the way I would have chosen. I would have preferred to have had him allude simply to some autonomy, without a mention of a "state," although — clarifying once again — he did not actually say a sovereign state, and it was clear that he did not intend a sovereign state. But neither am I panicked at this point. And it seems to me important to deal pragmatically in terms of how to best protect ourselves and the nation in the current situation. Some people are upset at the mere mention of a state for the Palestinians because this is seen as an ideological betrayal: The land is ours. Period. No more to say. Others are concerned that while he advanced highly appropriate parameters — recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, demilitarization, etc. etc. — the world will quickly forget them and only remember that he said the phrase "Palestinian state" and push us to get on with it. That is, his arguments will have been futile, and, as he made a concession by uttering the phrase, he will have set himself up for ever more concessions. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the core of the discussion here, I believe, is the question of how much Israel can go it alone in the world, most particularly now. Again, anyone who regularly reads what I write knows that I reject appeasement as a policy and am sickened by an approach, à la Livni, that is founded in seeking approval from other nations. I delight, for example, in the fact that Netanyahu has had the courage to tell Obama we will continue to build for natural growth in the settlements, even as the president demands a total freeze. If we, as a nation, are not for ourselves, if we do not stand up for ourselves, we are lost. ~~~~~~~~~~ And yet, and yet... It is legitimate to also ask whether we can stand against the world totally, in all circumstances, when it is so ready to be arrayed against us. It is not necessarily inappropriate to ponder what we would do if no one would sell us needed military equipment, or if the Security Council passes a resolution, under chapter 7, which is binding, calling for international troops to be sent here. (It should be noted that such a resolution would mean that the US, which is capable of vetoing such resolutions, was no longer with us.) Walking the line between these two poles is an excruciatingly difficult task, obviously influenced by ideology and philosophical bent. I wrote about Netanyahu early on that his style tends not to be confrontational. He is more likely to play the game, as a skilled politician, in an effort to do what he sees as best for Israel. And I believe that is what he did with his speech: He held his head high. He said things which, I admit for the first time here, actually brought tears to my eyes. That he spoke about our link to Isaiah, who walked here! That he said this is our home and where we were forged. He gave nothing on that score. What he gave was the phrase "Palestinian state." With provisos attached. Not free. Not like Olmert who made speeches about how much we must sacrifice. ~~~~~~~~~~ He may have made a serious tactical mistake to have given this much. But I still believe at this point — and it is on this matter that I pray I won't be proven wrong — that he did it with sincerity in terms of what he sees as best for us in difficult times. I have alluded to this several times over the last weeks and months: What Netanyahu has said repeatedly is that we are not living in normal times — that we are confronting extraordinary dangers — and that he must consider this as he makes his decisions. What is implied is that this somehow involves our need to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. This is a major theme of his. We ask, what can he gain via this concession in terms of our ability to attack Iran? And we have no facile or ready answer. We are not sure at all that there is anything. But that is simply the point: we are not, cannot be, sure. And I have not yet been ready to second guess him on this. Caroline Glick, in her most recent piece (which I will come back to), addresses this very issue and says that: "In fairness to Netanyahu, in light of Obama's ideological commitment to the two-state paradigm which blames Israel for the absence of peace, it is far from clear that he has any choice other than to go along with the president and just play for time. If. ~~~~~~~~~~ What I am seeing is that the right wing of Likud is lining up behind Netanyahu. There is no desire to criticize him severely or attempt to take him down. Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to talking tough, is saying that Netanyahu's speech has "exposed the true face of the Palestinians...All their reactions have been refusal and war." There is perhaps the beginning of a model for us here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu, for his part, claims that our situation is better now than it was before the speech. "The American response to the speech was positive. I would be misleading you to say that the way has been cleared, but our situation is better today than before." A source in the prime minister's office said that Netanyahu succeeded in "putting a number of diplomatic balls in the air." While a senior Israeli diplomatic official cited by the Post said, "Before the speech Netanyahu had no credit with the Europeans, and in fact was in deficit. Now he has some credit. Not a lot, but some." ~~~~~~~~~~ Is this true? Will it make a difference? It's too soon to tell. But here is the part that causes unease. When the Americans and the Europeans push for more concessions, will Netanyahu, having done his thing, hold tight? If he continues to give, and, especially, if he backs off on any of the red lines he himself set into place, it will NOT be all right. And it will be time to scream and yell. This will be a time of testing. Already I am seeing that Obama is saying that the mention of a Palestinian state was a great start, but we have to move forward with more. Netanyahu must hold tight. Glick believes that ultimately a confrontation between Netanyahu and Obama will be inevitable. ~~~~~~~~~~ I believe firmly that there is a place for each of us in terms of how this situation evolves. I've said that there is worry that the provisos set out by Netanyahu with regard to a Palestinian state are quickly forgotten by the world. But we can make sure that they are not forgotten. We can raise them at every forum, and in letters to the editor and most especially in communication to elected officials. Caroline Glick says something similar: "At this point, it is up to the public and our representatives in the Knesset to pave the way for a better policy in the future. This we can do by rejecting the two-state paradigm and conducting a public discourse relevant to our national interests." I will be coming back to this with specifics. ~~~~~~~~~~ Glick's article, "Obama's losing streak and us," is well worth
reading in its entirety.
Among her points: "Netanyahu's speech was an eloquent, rational and at times impassioned defense of Israel....a breath of fresh air. But it is hard to see how it could have possibly had any lasting impact on Obama or his advisers. But it is here that she then says he may have had no choice but to play it as he did. ~~~~~~~~~~ One other article of note here: Khaled Abu Toameh asks in the Post why the Palestinian response to Netanyahu was so harsh. His conclusion is that it is because Obama had created false expectations among the Palestinians. The leaders of the PA were so soothed by Obama's courting of the Arab/Muslim world, and so certain that Obama would push Netanyahu to considerable concessions, that they thought they would be given all that they sought. And they were thrown into shock when it didn't happen.
One more danger of Obama's pie-in-the-sky policies. ~~~~~~~~~~ More will follow on this same subject, which remains so critical. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info Editor's Note: Emanual Winston wrote about Glick's article: "Bibi sometimes needs to hear the hard truths — even though — like Obama, he doesn't want to hear the long term liability of his short term acquiescence to Obama's political appeasement to the Muslims and Arabs." |
|
THE TWO-STATE TO NOWHERE: ANOTHER FUTILE ATTEMPT AT APPEASEMENT
Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, June 16, 2009. |
|
"There is reason to believe that [the president] cherished the illusion that presumably he, and he alone, as head of the United States, could bring about a settlement — if not a reconciliation — between Arabs and Jews. I remember muttering to myself as I left the White House after hearing the President discourse in rambling fashion about Middle Eastern Affairs, 'I've read of men who thought they might be King of the Jews and other men who thought they might be King of the Arabs, but this is the first time I've listened to a man who dreamt of being King of both the Jews and Arabs.'"[1] Herbert Feis, a State Department economic advisor, did not say this about President Obama's address in Cairo in June 2009, but after Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, in February 1945. Roosevelt wanted the Arabs to allow thousands of Jews from Europe to immigrate to Palestine to which Ibn Saud responded, "Arabs would choose to die rather than yield their land to Jews."[2] George Antonius, an Arab nationalist, reiterated this point when he said, "no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession."[3] Attempts to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict regularly fail because of the refusal to acknowledge that this dispute has never been about borders, territory or settlements, but about the Arabs refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. "The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a matter of borders, but touches on the very existence of the Zionist entity," declared an Arab spokesman.[4] Unlike the Nazis who carefully concealed the Final Solution, Hamas and the Palestine Authority openly avow their intentions in their Charter and Covenant and in the Arab media which is available in English on the Internet on MEMRI and the Palestinian Media Watch. For Hamas liberating all of Palestine to establish an Islamic state requires a holy war against Israel. Anyone daring to sign away even "a grain of sand in Palestine in favor of the enemies of God...who have seized the blessed land" should have their "hand be cut off."[5] Coercing Israel to make concessions and accept a two-state solution will not bring peace to the region. One-sided concessions have convinced the Arabs of the rightness of their policies and the efficacy of using violence to cleanse the country of Jews and Christians. What compelling reason do Arabs have to stop launching rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities, refuting the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, destroying artifacts and Jewish holy sites, denying the Holocaust, dehumanizing Jews in their media, textbooks, educational system, political discourse, religious sermons by portraying them as Satan, sons of apes and pigs, a cancer, and using children as homicide bombers, if the West does not hold them accountable? Instead of demanding that Arabs cease their incitements and attacks, the U.S issues meaningless statements of condemnation, and then grants them foreign aid, arms and military training. The U.S. pressures Israel to make goodwill gestures in "peace negotiations," yet Israel has never been the aggressor. Is there any example in history where a victor withdraws from territory when the defeated party does not sue for peace, admits there will never be any reconciliation, declares they will not concede the victor's right to exist, and labors relentlessly to destroy him? When Israel opens her border check-points as an act of goodwill, the Arabs dispatch homicide bombers to maim and kill Israeli civilians. After Arab terrorists are released from Israeli prisons, they revert to murdering Jews. Comparing the plight of the Arabs with that of African Americans is a distortion of history and demeans the experiences of the millions of Africans who were brutally abducted from their homes, transported under inhuman conditions aboard slave ships and exposed to torture, murder and rape. Nothing remotely like this has ever occurred with the Arabs in Israel. Had the Arabs not attacked the Jews before and after Israel was established, they would not be displaced persons today. If we are to learn from history, we must transmit what actually transpired and not allow those with their own agenda or ignorance to obscure what occurred. Whether it is naiveté, self-delusion or hubris, a number of U.S. presidents and diplomats have assumed that their powers of persuasion could modify fiercely held beliefs about the sanctity of Arab land. Such reasoning has consistently failed. Those claiming that Jews have a moral obligation to cede land to the Arabs do not understand Israel's legal right to exist as a Jewish state. That right was granted by the British in the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 and later recognized under international law at the San Remo Conference on April 24, 1920 by Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan (who defeated the Ottoman Empire and divided up the empire), the Mandate for Palestine and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, as the Jewish National Home. There are no comparable legal documents conferring the same right on the Arabs living in Palestine at that time or since. [6] Which other country would relinquish land that is legally theirs to anyone, let alone to a people engaged in internecine warfare, who cannot even live in peace among themselves? The West has not learned that Israel represents all that is abhorred about the U.S. and Europe — a free and open democratic society, and an ethical system encouraging individual expression and independence.[7] Through appeasement the U.S. and the West have enabled the Arabs to continue what Ben-Gurion called a "permanent war" against the Jewish people. This latest drive to establish separate Arab and Jewish states will fail because as Yasser Arafat said, "We don't want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel's destruction and nothing else. What you call peace is peace for Israel... For us it is shame and injustice. We shall fight on to victory. Even for decades, for generations, if necessary."[8] Footnotes 1. Herbert Feis, The Birth of Israel: The Tousled Diplomatic Bed (New York: W.W. Norton, Inc. 1969):16-17. 2. Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History 1929-1969 (New York: W.W. Norton, Inc. 1973):203-204. 3. George Antonius, The Arab Awakening, the Story of the Arab National Movement (New York: Capricorn Books, 1965): 412. 4. (Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986), quoted in Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature: A Study of Anti-Semitic Imagery (New York: Gefen Publishing House, 1999):78. 5. Jacob L.Talmon, Israel Among The Nations (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), 172. 6. Lloyd George, The Truth About The Peace Treaties vol. II, (London: Gollancz Ltd, 1938),1149-1201; Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation And Borders Of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008): 136-147, 493. 7. Ruth Wisse, "The UN's Jewish Problem," Weekly Standard (April 8, 2002). 8. Oriana Fallaci, "An Oriana Fallaci Interview: Yasir Arafat," The New Republic (November 16, 1974), 10.
Dr. Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books including "Nations United: How The UN Undermines Israel and The West" and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State. |
|
THE PALESTINIANS ALREADY HAVE A STATE
Posted by USrIsrael, June 16, 2009. |
|
If you think Israeli embassies worldwide MUST clarify that the Palestinians do already have a state — because the state known as Jordan was set up precisely to be a Palestinian state — please sign here and pass this on. Your signature will be submitted to the appropriate government ministries in Israel by an Israeli grassroots organization called Mattot Arim (www.mattotarim.org). BACKGROUND: The fact that a Palestinian state has long
existed, in Jordan, is best explained in British historian Sir Martin
Gilbert's classic work, Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps.
Read more about Sir Martin Gilbert, a scholar at the University of
Oxford and an official biographer of Sir Winston Churchill, here:
Page 8 of Gilbert's Arab-Israeli Conflict is a map of what Sir Gilbert identifies as the "Palestinian Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish National Home". The area of the mandate — Palestine — in which, according to the terms of the mandate, a Jewish National Home was to be established — is clearly seen to include the entire state of Jordan. Sir Gilbert's text accompanying the map explains that the area of Jordan was "separated from Palestine by Britain in 1921.... Named Transjordan, this territory was at once closed to Jewish settlement". 
This map is reproduced in Gilbert's Arab-Israeli Conflict,
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/map%201923%20british%
20mandate%20less%20jordan.gif
|
|
24 IRANIAN PROTESTORS KILLED BY GOVERNMENT FORCES
Posted by Julian, Hana Levi, June 16, 2009. |
|
Iranian state radio has reported that government forces loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shot at least seven people to death and wounded an unknown number of others Monday during demonstrations in Tehran's Azadi Square, but non-Iranian news sources say the number is much higher — at least 24 people are dead. Protests against the disputed results of last Friday's presidential election have continued despite calls by the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini to unite behind Ahmadinejad, who landed early Tuesday morning in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to attend a regional security conference and then meet later in Moscow with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, the country's 12-member Guardian Council, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni, said it would move to recount the ballots in light of the growing unrest, but only at polling places where candidates allege irregularities occurrred. Challenger and former president Mir Hossein Mousavi issued a public appeal for demonstrators to stay in their homes for safety's sake, but several protests were scheduled for later in the day Tuesday. Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani also declared Tuesday that the country's Interior Ministry must react to the attacks on citizens, including students, according to the Iranian Labor News Agency. The former nuclear negotiator made the announcement after Iran's state radio reported that seven people had been shot to death by government militia. Unofficial sources said others had been killed elsewhere in the country as well. Iranian state-run television said the "main perpetrators" behind the demonstrations had been arrested, and searches had uncovered weapons and explosives. The veracity of the report could not be confirmed. Earlier in the day, some 100,000 Mousavi supporters had marched through the streets of the Iranian capital to protest the alleged election fraud. Photos of bloodied and beaten protestors, as well as several riot police officers, have been posted on news websites and blogs around the world. More than a few journalists have risked their own lives, in fact, to cover the developing story. Reporters for news agencies in various countries have been threatened and beaten by government forces and a number of photographers have had their film confiscated. Chatter on Twitter Chatter about the situation in Iran through the Twitter social networking website has been especially brisk, with more than 400 "tweets", or brief comments logged within a three-minute span Tuesday morning. Many were from young Iranians whose icons had been tinted green in the trademark color of the presidential challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi. Twitter agreed not to carry out its usual routine maintenance shutdown in order to allow web users in Iran to continue posting. As text messaging (SMS) and cellular phone service continues to be interrupted in Tehran, surfers in the country are posting requests for overseas proxies that can override the "blackouts" and provide internet access unmonitored by the government's Interior Ministry. Some people in the capital were wearing black clothes Tuesday, "mourning for what is happening in Iran," according to one person who posted a tweet. "Everyone, everywhere, set ur (sic) location 2 (sic) Tehran, Iran! Confuse them. They can't follow everyone!" recommended another. "Khamenei says will review [election result for 10 days when it took only 2 hours to 'count' votes the first time! It's a trap!" a third wrote bitterly. "To Iranians: Take out your SIM card from your cell phones to avoid detection," advised another. Obama to Iranian Youth: 'The World is Watching' U.S. President Barack Obama commented following his meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Monday, "I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected." Obama pointed out that the Iranian government said it would investigate the alleged irregularities that had taken place during elections, and noted that the U.S. had not had observers there. "Butt what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed," he said. "And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views." He added that the U.S. would continue to pursue a "tough, direct dialogue" with Iran on the issue of its nuclear development activities, but said he felt it would be wrong to be silent about the current situation. "What I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching." Hana Levi Julian writes for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel.NationalNews.co). |
|
OBAMA'S REAL AGENDA: ISRAEL'S DIMONA NUCLEAR FACILITY
Posted by Moshe Dann, June 16, 2009. |
|
"I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal." As a policy statement, this means that America (or any other country) cannot deny the right of any country to WMD. It undercuts the reasons for America's attack in Iraq, assents to nuclear proliferation and precludes any action against Iran. It also turns the focus on Israel. Amidst all of the distortions and inaccuracies of Pres Obama's speech in Cairo, this paragraph sends chills through Israel's intelligence community. His reference was not just to Iranian nuclear weapons, but "any nation" that has, or acquires them. That includes Israel. Obama's emphasis on a commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something which Israel has refused to agree, since that means opening all of its facilities to inspection — including its top secret plant in Dimona — is a direct threat to Israel's security. Aware of Israel's long-standing policy in this matter, Obama shifts the attack. By linking support for Israel against Iran with a halt to all settlement building, and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state, Obama has set the stage for his big prize: Dimona. Aware that no Israeli government can agree to a complete freeze in building, Obama can blame Israel for American inaction against Iran, and lack of support for its war in Afghanistan. It's a perfect excuse: 'Israel didn't do enough; it's Israel's fault.' "Israeli intransigence" will be given as the reason for America's failure. 'If only Israel had evacuated more settlements, stopped building, dismantled more checkpoints, given more aid to Hamas, stopped demolishing illegal Arab buildings, etc., we could have done something,' Obama will say. But Obama's real agenda is not settlements; it's Israel's nuclear capacity. Egypt especially has been urging the US to force Israel to open its facility at Dimona. Prior to the "Six Day" War in 1967, Russian spy-planes flew over Dimona and, according to Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez (Foxbats Over Dimona) wanted to bomb it. No doubt, Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaida, Hamas and Hezbullah have Dimona in their sights as well. The key to neutralizing Israel's nuclear capacity is the NPT. As his speech clearly indicates, Israel's agreement to the NPT is the lever to gain Iranian compliance. 'How can Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons,' Obama suggests, 'and not Iran, or any other country?' Unlike any other President, Obama has put Israel in a difficult, if not impossible position. If it refuses to agree to sign the NPT, Israel will be isolated and blamed for lack of progress on Iran. If it agrees, Israel will lose a vital strategic deterrent. Well aware of terrorist threats to America, and concerned about investments and interests throughout the world, Obama sees pushing Israel against the wall as a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they'll refrain from attacking, keep the oil flowing and the prices low. Iran may even be willing to make cosmetic (and temporary) adjustments so that Obama can claim that the crisis has been defused. And Israel will pay the price: sanctions, boycotts, diplomatic and economic isolation similar to the international pressures that broke South Africa's apartheid regime. Obama's speech is an ominous warning of what he is prepared to do in order to strip Israel of its military advantage. Along with the loss of control over Judea and Samaria, territories that are vital for Israel's security and access to water reserves, faced with Arab terrorist militas backed by Arab armies, Israel will be completely vulnerable. The face of this Jihad is not one of ranting, bearded clerics, but smooth-talking, clean-shaven smiling apostles of peace and the Philosopher-King of Hope.
The author, a former asst professor of History (CUNY) is a
writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. Contact him at moshedan@netvision.net.il
This article appeared today in the American Thinker
|
|
ISRAEL, YOU ARE NOT ALONE — OBAMA HAS ALSO BETRAYED ARAB, AFRICAN AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 16, 2009. |
|
This was written by Sam Schulman. |
|
The Obama administration, according to Haaretz, hopes to improve relations with the Arab world by putting pressure on Israel. But these hopes depend on an assumption that the Arab powers are as naive and jejeune as Obama and his foreign policy advisors. Unfortunately for Obama, they are not (to be fair, no one in the world is as naive and jeneune). What lessons would a diplomat in an Arab country learn from Obama's behavior so far? 1. American promises are meaningless. If a solemn, written promise seems inconvenient to the present administration, they will be irritated if they are reminded of it. Memo to my boss: pay no attention to what these Americans say about their intentions or resolve. 2. These Americans don't pay attention to what they've promised even to us. We thought we could rely on the Americans of both parties to take measures against Iran that would prevent them from becoming a nuclear state — the differences between one administration and another resided in style and method, but not in goal. But this administration seems not only resigned to Iran getting its way — but is almost eager to see Iran get it over with. Memo to my boss: start hiring or kidnapping scientists pronto so we can get a bomb too. 3. Obama doesn't care about anything he said he cared about before he was elected. There wasn't a word about Darfur in his Cairo speech. There wasn't a word about how sometimes we may have supported terrorists in the West. Memo to my boss: there is no downside to keeping our native terrorists focused on enemies other than our own regime. It keeps them busy, keeps us safe, and since the US will never do anything to aid us, it will prevent them from doing anything inadvertantly that might interfere with our policy goals. 4. President Obama believes what he is saying and believes that anything anyone other than the Israelis tell him is true. Memo to boss: Let's start telling him things that we want from the Americans — and how getting what we want now will make us more likely to cooperate in the future. He'll give us whatever we want that is in his power — and will forget that we have promised anything in return. 5. President Obama is always willing to sacrifice a weak friend to a strong enemy. Memo to boss: let's make sure we are never in the position of being a weak friend — if we act as if we were strong and angry, we will get far more from him than if we seem friendly and needy. By the way, boss — we can save some money from the budget by cutting the Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, Latvians, Japanese, etc., off our diplomatic entertainment budget for the next few years. And boss — whatever happened to that Russian-Arabic grammar you had from the Nasser days? I'd like to borrow it. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
IS THE UN FACT-FINDING MISSION INTO GAZA IMPARTIAL?
Posted by Maurice Ostroff, June 16, 2009. |
|
Here are the facts — you decide. Israel is being widely criticized for refusing to cooperate with what it calls the "intrinsically flawed" UN fact-finding team led by Judge Richard Goldstone into alleged violations of international law during the recent Gaza war. As many consider Israel's allegation of bias by the Human Rights council (HRC) to be merely an excuse, it is worth examining HRC resolution S/9-1 in terms of which, the mission was established. The full text is available at
"to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission;" Whichever way one interprets OP14, the text unambiguously indicates that the HRC has already "decided" that violations have been committed only by Israel while effectively avoiding any intention to investigate possible violations by anyone else. It fails to call for investigating the casus belli and its preconceived determination of Israel's guilt is emphasized by the fact that no pretence is made to adhere to the convention of referring to such guilt as "alleged," until proved. Only Israel is called upon not to obstruct the process of investigation. Other parties to the conflict are evidently exempted from this requirement. But the flaw runs deeper. As in selecting a jury, one would expect extra care to be taken in appointing the members of a mission of this nature to ensure its credibility. It is a sine qua non that the absolute impartiality of persons who sit in judgment of others must be highly visible. The importance of credibility was emphasized by one of Judge Goldstone's fellow judges in South Africa when the Transvaal Judge President, Bernard Ngoepe recused himself from the rape trial of Jacob Zuma. He said that he did so, even though he disagreed with the reasons given by the defense, because the importance of protecting the credibility of the judiciary weighed heavily with him. It is inexplicable that these considerations as well as the oft-quoted injunction by Lord Hewart that it is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, are disappointingly absent in the appointment to the mission of a person who has anticipated the mission's findings by publicly exonerating Hamas and declaring Israel guilty. On January 11, 2009, long before she had an opportunity to even cursorily examine the facts on the ground, Professor Christine Chinkin signed a letter to London's Sunday Times containing the statement that Israel's operations in Gaza amounted to an act of aggression contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas. Earlier in the year Professor Chinkin was party to a petition calling on the UK government to revoke its support for any new agreements with Israel (The Guardian, January 5, 2009) After a short visit to Gaza with Archbishop Tutu in May last year, she judged Israel guilty in the November 2006 Beit Hanoun incident. No consideration was given to the reaction of IDF soldiers as described the day after the incident by Steve Linde in the Jerusalem Post, who wrote: "Can you imagine how terrible the artillery troops who fired the shells at Beit Hanun yesterday must be feeling now? After serving in IDF Artillery, I can only say that this is every gunner's nightmare scenario: killing innocent men, women and children." Linde pointed out that in response to Kassam rocket attacks gunners were ordered to "fire at the source" — which they did, firing a dozen or so shells. He adds that whereas the Kassams are intentionally fired at civilian targets, hoping for maximum casualties and damage, the troops who fired at Beit Hanun weren't aiming to hit civilians. They were targeting terrorists firing rockets. Without bothering to solicit an opinion from any military expert Professor Chinkin rejected outright, Israel's explanation that the shelling was the result of a rare failure in the artillery fire control system and she publicly declared that the incident was a breach of international law by Israel. (The Guardian May 30, 2008). No account was taken of the fact that malfunctions and human error are known to occur even in such highly disciplined fields as space exploration as well as in every army. How else can we explain frequent reports of killing by "friendly fire" of Israeli, British and US soldiers during military operations? Notwithstanding, the defects in the mandate of the mission, Judge Goldstone's integrity is undisputed and it remains to be seen whether he will be able to impose some balance on a mission governed by a badly biased mandate. In recent open correspondence with Judge Goldstone I raised all the above points and also urged that his mission deal with the gross human rights violations by Hamas in holding Gilad Shalit incommunicado. To his credit Judge Goldstone addressed all my concerns and referred me to his remarks on receiving the MacArthur Foundation Award for International Justice on May 25. He said then "It is not satisfactory that the accountability of Israel for its recent military campaign in Gaza sought by some members of the United Nations Human Rights Council should be partial and not even-handed. The terms of the resolution of the Human Rights Council of April, 2009 appeared to me and many others as being partial and biased... I indicated to the President, Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, that I could not agree to do so unless alleged war crimes and human rights violations on all sides were subject to the investigation". Is it naive to hope against all indications to the contrary, that we will be pleasantly surprised not only by a truly objective and even-handed report, but by a constructive one that will make a positive contribution to peace in this region? Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il This was first published in Global Politician
|
|
"MUTUAL RESPECT AND SHARED VALUES"; OBAMA VERSUS ISRAEL
Posted by Gary Bauer, June 16, 2009. |
|
"Mutual Respect & Shared Values" There is a large photo on the front page of today's Washington Post of an Iranian dissenter on the ground covering his head while government thugs beat him with their clubs. For years, analysts have told us that there are millions of Iranians like this man who want freedom and better relations with the United States. This weekend we saw evidence they exist as hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Tehran and other major cities against the Ahmadinejad regime, chanting "death to the dictator." Any chance for good relations between Iran and the U.S. and between Iran and Israel depends on the people who are being oppressed in Iran right now eventually regaining power in their own country. But at this critical moment for liberty, Obama, Biden and Clinton are shamefully AWOL. The explanation for their silence is simple — and disgusting. The Obama Administration has spent the last 5 months reaching out to Ahmadinejad. The president publicly stated that he is not interested in regime change in Tehran and promised a policy toward Iran based on "mutual respect." The thirst for freedom in Iran is a complication for an administration that has already committed itself to appeasing the tyrants in the current Iranian regime. As a result the United States' moral authority has been absent during the Iranian election and the protests that have followed. Surely even this administration will eventually become embarrassed as they fail to find any words to defend the only people in Iran with whom we may have "shared values." At a bare minimum we should immediately increase radio and satellite broadcasts into Iran and use whatever internet tools we have to reach its people. Obama vs. Israel So far in his five months as president, the only country President Obama has been willing to confront is Israel, which also happens to be our only ally in the Middle East that shares our values. Obama has demanded an end to the building of homes for Israelis in Judea and Samaria, and has insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu endorse a Palestinian state. Netanyahu responded yesterday with his own major speech. He said Israel will accept a Palestinian state as long as it accepts Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. He made it clear Jerusalem will remain the undivided capitol of Israel. He made it clear that any future Palestinian State must be demilitarized so that it does not turn into another launching pad for attacks on Israeli civilians. He invited the Palestinians to turn away from hatred and war and join with Israel to grow the economy and provide opportunities for everyone. The reaction: Major Palestinian leaders said they will never accept Israel as a Jewish State, and they threatened another "intifada," or terror campaign. The reaction proves that Obama was wrong yet again. The obstacle to peace in the Middle East is not Israel or Jews in Judea. The obstacle to peace is Palestinian hatred and Islamic extremism. Gary Bauer is the president of American Values. Contact him at gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org. And visit the website: http://www.ouramericanvalues.org |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: GARDEN OF NIGHT AT JERUSALEM FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 16, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: There are some places, which, like people, are highly photogenic and seem never to look bad no matter when they are photographed. The old city of Jerusalem is one such place, but even after years of studying its moods and personality, it's a challenge to find a new angle on its unique beauty. The past week, however, the city has been celebrating "Light in Jerusalem 09," a first-of-its-kind in Israel artistic event. Several world renowned light sculptors and designers traveled to the city to meld their artistic vision with the city's ancient gates, walls, and plazas. The opportunity for fresh imagery was ripe. This shot, taken below Jaffa Gate, features a solar-powered installation called Garden of Night designed by Israeli artists Gaston Tzahar and Meirav Eitan of the O*GE Interactive Gallery in Haifa. Giant lotus flowers open and close while tulips and balls of dew sparkle and all the lights change color every few seconds. But the lights in the flowers were not the only ones changing. The event began at 8 p.m. and I knew from experience that the walls would look more impressive lit against the last blue light of day instead the dark black of night. Because the electric lights were changing color so rapidly, I fired off several shots over about a half a minute and accumulated a selection of differently colored flowers. While several were appealing, I chose this one because I like the contrast in color between the flowers and the blue sky and the walls. The event drew large crowds to the old city, so getting there early also gave me an opportunity to shoot without any human obstruction. The show continues through June 16 and is free.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
PA DEMOCRATIC?; DO SAUDIS WANT PEACE?; OBAMA AND ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 16, 2009. |
|
IS IT THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT? Calling the Arab jihad against Israel the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict implies a struggle of only a small portion of Arabs, against the much stronger Israel. If the Arab states are out of that conflict, why do they agitate for the Palestinian Arabs? We know that the Arab states do not care for the Palestinian Arabs. The answer is that the Arab states are part of the conflict, a conflict over religion. They are the aggressor. Hence, when Israel was about to declare independence from Britain, Arab states started invading Israel and made many other attacks. During that first intervention, the Palestinian Arabs did not consider themselves "Palestinian." Odd then, that many people now call the Arab-Israel conflict the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arab pro-Arab side keeps changing terminology and its meaning, to foster their case deceptively. For more on the essence of the conflict, click here:
IS THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY DEMOCRATIC? As predicted, letting terrorist organizations such as Hamas (and Fatah) run in Palestinian Authority (P.A.) elections crowded out and cowed independent candidates. Hamas and Fatah are fascistic. Nevertheless, apologists for Abbas refer to him as democratically elected. His party lost the parliamentary election, but he kept the Hamas victors from forming a Cabinet. How democratic is that? Abbas' term has expired. Unpopular, he postpones holding a new election. Democratic? Are those questions so difficult to conceive that the U.S. media, State Dept., and Israel fail to ask them? No, they are ordinary questions. By ignoring them, those agencies reflect complicity with Abbas in pretending that he has a legitimate government with which Israel should negotiate. President Obama proposes two states, living in peace, security and democracy. Democracy? Not the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Peace? Not those terrorists committed to holy war. Security? No security for Israel while the P.A. keeps preparing for war. Obama is posing as an idealist, but to see what the Palestinian
Arabs are like, click here:
DO SAUDIS WANT PEACE? Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal urged the U.S. to pressure Israel to accede to the Arabs' demands. He said, "The Arab League is exerting efforts to criminalize Israel for the crimes it committed during its aggression in the Gaza Strip and to stop the hostilities practiced against the Palestinian people, especially in the city of occupied Al-Quds," Prince Saud said (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/24). "Al-Quds" is what the Arabs call Jerusalem. Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for at least 150 years. "Occupied?" Palestinian Arabs keep attacking Israelis, although the Arabs have pledged non-violence. As for war crimes, those were committed by Hamas, as in firing 10,000 rockets at Israeli cities. The Arabs never admit their own crimes. The language of the Saudi Foreign Minister indicates to me that he remains in a war propaganda mode. Religious wars stem from bigotry. For a typical example of how
Saudi clerics instill bigotry, click or go here:
ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER TO SUE COUNCIL HEADS Israeli Defense Minister Barak wants to sue the council heads of Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria, whose communities have unauthorized outposts. He wants to hold them responsible. [But are they responsible for outposts?] In defense against his proposal, some point out that this is a political matter, not a legal one. Besides, many outposts and towns are not illegal, they just did not complete the final legal steps, often because of bureaucratic procrastination (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/25). The term, "illegal," makes them seem against the law. Only some are. Is the government is undemocratically abusing its power to micromanage where its people build, based on the politics of appeasement? For more on outposts, click here:
ISRAELI DEFENSE DRILL
Israel is about to hold its most comprehensive, annual defense drill. It would prepare for a regional attack on Israel, including rocket barrages, joined by P.A. forces and massive Arab riots. Reserves would be called up for war on the northern front (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/25). Good idea, long overdue. Find out whether Israel is defendable. Why doesn't the drill include the Egyptian front? Civil defense requires a loyal population. Israel has a large
number of hostile Arabs. It also has many foreign workers; for more on
that, click here:
JEWS & PALESTINIAN ARAB "CATASTROPHES" As part of their sympathy-seeking propaganda, the Palestinian Arabs assert in re-establishing Jewish sovereignty, Zionists caused a catastrophe to Palestinian Arabs. Compare the quantity and quality of Arab ill-fortune to the Mideast Jews. The Palestinian Arabs date their misfortune back just six decades, though they did not claim nationhood until well after that. Muslim persecution of the Jewish people began almost 1,400 years ago. Can't blame it on Zionism. The Zionists never committed a documented pogrom against the Arabs. Violent bigotry is alien to Jewish culture. Israeli education stresses tolerance, Arab mosques stress racism and murder. The Muslims committed many pogroms against the Jews in those centuries, fewest under colonial rule. Violent bigotry is part of Arab culture— they mistreat other minorities, too. Arabs murdered Jews by the dozens, hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands in different areas. The notion of a golden age in Spain was not golden for the Jewish people as a whole. Besides pogroms, Jews were treated under Islam as second class citizens, as did the American Jim Crow laws to blacks. By contrast, Israeli Arabs have the same legal rights as Jews, except for some Sabbath shutdowns. If the Arabs offered national service, they would enjoy veterans' benefits, too. The problem is too many rights for Arabs, such as "affirmative" discrimination for their college and civil service applications and a blind eye to their widespread illegality in seditious parties, riots, land theft, immigration, illegal building, and tax evasion. As for the so-called "catastrophe:" in reaction to the successful Israeli defense against Arab invasion in 1947, the Arab states expelled about twice as many Jews as the number of Arabs who fled from the war in Israel. Those Jews had property worth double or several times as much as did the Arab refugees. Zionism did not displace the Arabs, except for a few and for military reasons. Rather, it still attracts Arab job-seekers. When Israel re-acquired the Territories, it greatly improved the Arabs' standard of living. How did Israel and the Arabs treat their refugees? Israel took its refugees in, eventually assimilated them, and stopped whining like the Arabs. The Arab states, including Egypt and Jordan when they controlled the Territories, put the refugees into what then were camps. Most Arab states denied them citizenship and sometimes even the right to work. The Arab idea was to manipulate them into a spearhead for revenge against Israel, waiting for a U.S. President to give them the opportunity. The U.S. may have just such a President. This story of Arab persecution of the Jews has not been told much.
The Jews don't complain enough; the Muslim Arabs complain too much
(Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/25 from
For more discussion on the struggle, click here:
OBAMA AND ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS "Iran seems to be hurtling toward nuclear weapons capacity. Hezbullah could win Sunday's election in Lebanon, and Hamas is smuggling long-range rockets into Gaza, again. So why is President Obama focusing such attention on the building of homes by Israeli Jews in the West Bank,?" asks journalist Ethan Bronner. He says that Israeli PM Netanyahu in effect is asking it, too. In answer, Mr. Bronner explains that Obama considers settlements the key to the Arab-Israel conflict, because: (1) Settlement suspension would reassure the Arabs that the land they want to take over will be theirs for the taking; (2) This would show "the Arab world that the previous eight years of siding consistently with Israel are over..."; and (3) Then Obama could ask the Arab states to make minor normalization with Israel, to re-start negotiations with Israel. If the Arab-Israel conflict were resolved, he could untie the other conflicts with Islam. [Sounds plausible, but is implausible: (a) Iran would get nuclear weapons long before diplomacy could end the Arab-Israel conflict; (2) Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas are fanatical, and Iran's imperialistic view of religion has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict; (3) Jihad is over a religious dogmatism, not territory, so Obama would resolve nothing while favoring the jihadists; (4) I suggest gradual Israeli annexation of the Territories, so the Palestinian Arabs feel a time pressure to end the conflict if they want anything left; (5) The U.S. did not side consistently with Israel, for Pres. Bush and Sec. Rice pressed Israel on settlements, checkpoints, and enemy casualties; and (6) The minor, reversible normalization, if Arab states even comply, would not end jihad. A former leftist Israeli cabinet minister, Yossi Beilin, thinks that Obama will change Israeli policy, because, he asserts, most Jews, even in Israel, want to end settlements. [The Left reiterates such claims, but the polls and elections refute them. Especially polls with clear questions, not loaded ones.] Refuting Obama's theory, Jerusalem Post columnist, Sarah Honig reminds us that Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza settlements was taken by the Arabs as a jihadist triumph, boosting Hamas' ability to take over. [Same for Hizbullah in Lebanon.] "Zionism began 125 years ago through the Jewish purchase of land in Palestine and the building of settlements on what the Jews saw as their ancient homeland. "...Israel won additional territory in the 1967 war, a conflict it felt was imposed on it..." When Jews started building in the Territories, Arabs resorted to terrorism. [Considering that the NY Times uses the word, "settlements," only for Jews and as a pejorative, it is nasty in calling new building in the old country "settlements." The implication is that Jews have no right to immigrate to their homeland, although the Jews were there when the Arabs first arrived, and Arabs immigrated. The NY Times uses a vocabulary with double meanings.] [Zionism is centuries old. Modern, organized Zionism is what Bronner is referring to. If he admitted that Jews returned to their homeland over the centuries, as they did, he would be strengthening the Zionist case. Is that why he doesn't admit it? But the Jews didn't just perceive the Land of Israel as their ancient homeland, it is fact, in the history books and not just legendary in the Hebrew and Christian Testaments.] [Israel didn't just believe that the 1967 war was imposed on it. It was imposed. The Arabs made these acts of war: (1) Launched hundreds of terrorist raids; (2) blockaded an Israeli port; (3) Formed a unified command and mobilized troops on the Israeli border with the express purpose of conquering Israel.] [The biggest misconception about the Arab-Israel conflict is that it is territorial rather than religious, and started as a result of Israel building in the Territories. What a falsehood to claim that terrorism started in reaction to that building in the 1970s! Arab terrorism started about 1920.] The Road Map required Israel to freeze settlement-building, and the Arabs to dismantle terrorist networks. "Neither has done so" (NY Times, 6/6, A1). Israel has not built any new settlements. Neither has it expanded the boundaries of any. The NY Times' last statement makes each side seem equally guilty. The Times never takes the same angry tone against Arab terrorism that it takes against Jewish house building, and it defends illegal Arab house-building. The newspaper asserts a false equivalency, just as housing and terrorism hardly are equally reprehensible. From 1993, the Oslo accords required the Arabs to repress terrorism, but the Arabs have never complied. Their autonomous government organized terrorism and still exhorts to religious murder. This proves their insincerity. Israel did fulfill its requirements until it felt like a sucker for making concessions while the Arabs flout the agreements. In being even-handed about non-compliance, the NY Times was inaccurate and unfair. But the Arabs are worse. They complain about alleged Israeli non-compliance and make up other accusations, without acknowledging their own, deadly non-compliance. For the implications of a settlement freeze, click or go here: www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m6d2-Subtle-NY-Times-bias-against-Israel Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE ELEVENTH SPY
Posted by David Wilder, June 16, 2009. |
|
Listening to Netanyahu's speech, I almost got carried away. Almost. For a fleeting few moments I thought that we might just get through the event without any damage. It almost seemed that Netanyahu had read my 'dream speech' and was actually influenced by it. Even when he mentioned the unmentionable two words (hyphenated with the add-on — demilitarized) I wasn't overly surprised. My immediate reaction was, 'well, he had no choice, and he's laid down conditions that are far beyond the capabilities of our next-door neighbors to even attempt to agree to.' After all, we know that they'll never agree to Israel as a 'Jewish state' because that undermines their basic premise that Israel equals Palestine. The Arab's 'right of return' demand guarantees that this will not only remain a statement, but rather a not too distant reality. Clearly, they will also reject a 'demilitarized state' because these two terms are seemingly contradictory. A 'state' which is sovereign must have the right to a military force, otherwise it really isn't sovereign. So, one way or the other— is it a state, or not? Of course, the password, a 'united Jerusalem' was almost the icing on the cake. (Except that Netanyahu forgot to add on the final clause, 'under Israeli sovereignty.') Much of the speech was positive, speaking of our rights to our land, speaking complementarily of the 'settlers' in Judea and Samaria, and perhaps most importantly, declaring that the major obstacle to peace is Arab rejection of the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. All well and good. Then, with a little thought, reality caught up with me. Clearly Netanyahu believes, and perhaps very rightly so, that Israel's Arab neighbors will never accept the conditions he has required in order for Israel to agree to creation of a palestinian state. But Bibi has made now the same mistake he made 10 years ago, a mistake first made by one of his predecessors, some 30 years ago. At the end of last week my wife and I (celebrating our 30th wedding anniversary) spent a couple of days wandering around Jerusalem. One of our stops was the Davidson Center, adjacent to the Western Wall, which presents a fascinating computer reproduction of the vicinity of Temple Mount 2,000 years ago. Still having a couple of hours free Friday afternoon, we decided to visit the Begin Center, not far from the Old City. We had heard that the exhibit there was interesting and decided to check it out. Tremendous thought and work were invested in telling the story of the life of Menachem Begin, a most significant character in pre-State, and later, post-State Israel. The exhibit was broken up in various periods in Begin's life. I can honestly say that I enjoyed the content, up to a point. When the program was over I told my wife that twice during the presentation I almost cried: when Begin was elected Prime Minister in 1977, and later, seeing a destroyed home in Yamit, with Begin quoted as having said that the pain of the destruction would remain with him till his dying day. She dittoed my thoughts. Begin surely opposed a Palestinian state. He suggested only 'palestinian autonomy.' The magnetic magnitude of peace surely took precedence over a few thousand people in Yamit and the other Sinai communities. So Begin thought. But he never took into account the historic significance of the precedents he established with those fateful decisions in the early 1980s. Autonomy has translated into sovereign statehood and Yamit into the legitimacy to obliterate Gush Katif and north Samaria communities four years ago. One of the most serious repercussions was not only the actual decisions, but the person who made and implemented them. Menachem Begin was the leader of the Israeli right, with a capital T. He set a precedent, not only for Rabin-Peres, but also for Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997 in Hebron, and for Ariel Sharon in 2005. Netanyahu and Sharon were also undisputed leaders of the right. If the right can do it, than what can they possibly say when the left takes power and follows in their footsteps? This was the trap set for Binyamin Netanyahu again, now, in 2009, and he fell for it, hook, line and sinker. When Bibi opened his mouth and spilled out the mantra — palestinian state, despite the fact that he hyphenated that phrase with the word 'demilitarized,' he too acknowledged and sanctioned this vile concept as legitimate, even in the eyes of the Israeli right. This is an historic error of which the ramifications are beyond measure. In 1997, prior to finalizing the Hebron Accords, Bibi met with Hebron leaders. He promised them explicitly that should the community come under attack from the hills or neighborhoods abandoned to Arafat, he would 'send in the tanks.' Bibi made many mistakes, but one of the most serious was his illusion that he'd be Prime Minister forever. When the shooting did start, he was far, far from the Prime Minister's office. As is was then, so too it is today. It might be assumed that Netanyahu really doesn't want a Palestinian state and that the conditions he set down will prevent creation of such a terrorist entity for the time being. At least during Netanyahu's reign. But what about after Netanyahu? He will not be Prime Minister for eternity. Just as Begin's autonomy has filtered into 'a sovereign state,' so too, Netanyahu's demilitarized Palestinian state will transform into a 'palestinian state' with the 'demilitarized' lost in the paperwork. So too, his demand that Israel be recognized as a "Jewish state' will fade into 'acceptance of Israel, leaving the door open for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of so-called 'palestinian refugees' to 'come home.' Where will we be then? After all, THE LEADER — a RIGHT-WING LEADER, gave his stamp of approval! I have no doubt that the 10 spies, some 3,500 years ago, had no idea of the damage they would cause when they rejected Eretz Yisrael, as we read in last week's Torah portion. Had they an inkling of the historic backlash of their words, I'm sure they would have acted differently. But that cannot be an accepted excuse. We are held accountable for our actions, and serious errors can have even more serious aftereffects. Utterances are not just words. They are predecessors of deeds. So too with Binyamin Netanyahu's decision to acquiesce to King Hussein in the White House. He has placed the gods of the 'international situation' above the G-d of Israel. He spoke of the intrinsic value of Eretz Yisrael, while in his next breath admitting that part of our beloved homeland would be sacrificed to the idols of 'peace.' He praised residents of Judea and Samaria, but... what about Hebron and Kiryat Arba, what about Shilo and Beit El, what about Eli and Tapuach, what about Beit Hagai and Maon? What will be the fate of Ma'arat HaMachpela, or more importantly, Temple Mount? Netanyahu's acceptance of a palestinian state in the heart of Eretz Yisrael is the ultimate betrayal of our land, our people, our Torah, our G-d. He has placed himself on a very short list of ignominious people. Binyamin Netanyahu— the latest eleventh spy.
David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron.
You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of
Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il
or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760
Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone:
718 677 6886.
The Dry Bones cartoon was not part of the original text.
|
|
WILLFUL DEAFNESS ABOUT THE REAL MEANING OF TWO STATES
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 16, 2009. |
|
Friends, More and more, this "two state solution" mantra, has the whiff of "final solution" about it. The Palestinians have absolutely no intention of ever recognizing a Jewish State. Period. If there are two states, one of them won't be Israel. This below was written by Peggy Shapiro.
It is reprinted from the American Thinker
Naomi |
|
The Palestinians, Saudis and Egyptians propose two states. The U.N., E.U., U.S. demand two states. Most Israeli governments have agreed to the concept of two states. Other than Israel, none of the proponents of a "two-state" solution ever planned for one of the states to be the Jewish State of Israel. Just the thought of such a state is an insult to those who live in all-Muslim countries. On Sunday, when Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered a Palestinian State if there is recognition of a Israel as the national homeland for Jewish people, a senior Palestinian negotiator responded, "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can wait a thousand years without finding a single Palestinian prepared to accept his offer." The offer of living side-by-side in peace and tolerance is too offensive to discuss even for the "moderate" Arab Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people "schuttles [sic] the chances for peace." So what are these two states supposed to look like? The Arab spokesmen are crystal clear on their intentions. One Judea/Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank, will be 100% Palestinian immediately. Not a single Jew will be allowed to live there. It will be armed and ready to fire at close range into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. If history is a guide, within a short time, Hamas will challenge and beat the P.A., gain control and begin firing. The other state, now Israel, will not only have to defend itself from terrorist and rocket attacks on all borders, it will need to open its doors to millions of Arabs, who have fabricated a "right" to return to Israel rather than a "right" of return to a Palestinian State. Israel will then face destruction from within. The new arrivals won't need to take up arms; they will just need to outnumber the Jews to take over. We all know that in an Arab/Muslim majority nation, there will be no tolerance for Jews. (When the Old City of Jerusalem was in Jordanian control, Jews were denied access to the holiest of sites. The first buildings destroyed when the Palestinians assumed control of Gaza were the synagogues. The examples of Muslim intolerance for Judaism and other religions are endless.) This new state will be a dangerous place for Jews, who will face the choice of flight or merciless subjugation and possible death. So what does the White House have to say about the two-state solution the Arabs have in mind? The President certainly doesn't publicly chastise the Palestinian and other Arabs who reject a Jewish state as he did Israel's Prime Minister for rejecting another terrorist state on Israel's border. There is no White House pressure on Palestinians as there was on Israel's government. The President praises the proposal for two states as an 'important step' forward even though Palestinians and their Arab brothers have for over 60 years flatly rejected countless proposals for two-states if one of those states happens to be Jewish. The president 'believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state.' It cannot do both. Fulfilling the Palestinian aspirations of a state means the destruction of the Jewish state. Does the President not hear what the Arabs are saying? Is he as willfully deaf to their demands for Israel's demise as he was to his pastor's sermons negating Israel's right to exist? 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: RESPONSE IS MUTED
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 15, 2009. |
|
What is muted is the criticism of Netanyahu's speech from the right wing of his own party. Minister of Information Yuli Edelstein, for example, said: "I think PM Netanyahu proved last night why he is the one who should be leading the country during these difficult times; his speech reflected the complex situation we are currently in." While Edelstein didn't agree with Netanyahu's reference to a Palestinian state, he said he understood "the pressure he is facing." And Minister Benny Begin, who said he had some reservations about the speech, praised Netanyahu's "important remarks regarding the root causes of the conflict. "In his speech Netanyahu presented a number of facts that are sometimes absent from public discourse in Israel and the world, such as why are we here. We are here because we have a historic right to be here, as opposed to those who claim Israel was established on account of the Holocaust." MK Danny Danon said the allusion to Palestinian statehood was "one unnecessary sentence in a brilliant speech... [The] sentence was added as a result of American pressure." ~~~~~~~~~~ Less muted was the criticism of Habayit Yehudi (The Jewish House), which is part of the coalition, while MK Aryeh Eldad of Ehud Leumi (National Union), which is not in the coalition, was pointed in his attack on the speech. ~~~~~~~~~~ As I had indicated yesterday, Likud members are beginning to work from inside of Likud to block the formation of a Palestinian state. Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara said the Likud Central Committee would be convened as quickly as possible to vote on policy with regard to this issue. Kara, who is convinced that a majority of Likud members are opposed to a Palestinian state, said that while the party respects Netanyahu, he, in turn, must respect the democratic processes of the party. He referred to the White House as "a branch office of the [Israeli Arab] Balad party." (Kara is Druze.) ~~~~~~~~~~ The work of the Likud party and others in the coalition to block action to establish a Palestinian state will be all important in preventing the slide further down that slippery slope. In actuality, his reference to "a Palestinian state" aside, Netanyahu didn't actually lay out parameters for a sovereign state for the Palestinians (who fully recognize this). A political entity that cannot have an army, cannot make the treaties it chooses, cannot control its own air space, etc. etc. is not a sovereign state. The problem is that the world is all too ready to forget the restrictive parameters that were part of the political plan espoused by the prime minister, and to simply latch on to the fact that he uttered those words, thereby ostensibly endorsing a state. So when the world demands that he proceed, now that he has voiced "endorsement," he will be blocked by his coalition. In truth, I don't believe he will be sorry about this, and he may actually have counted on it. It gives him an out: I cannot do more or the government will fall. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama responded positively to the speech, already doing just what I described: He grabbed ahold of the phrasing, and ignored the provisos that went with it. White House Press Secretary Gibbs said: "The President welcomes the important step forward in Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples. "He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal." Excuse me, Netanyahu did not endorse "the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state." Let us not put words in his mouth. ~~~~~~~~~~ Part of the challenge that Netanyahu leveled last night was against the US government: "Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective securit/y measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory— real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts." This, Obama has conveniently ignored. ~~~~~~~~~~ As NewsMax pointed out, what complicates Netanyahu's stipulations is the fact that the US, via the office of General Dayton, is currently training PA security troops. How can the US work towards guaranteeing a demilitarized Palestinian state if this is the case? Would the US ever come out for a policy that requires Palestinian demilitarization? And what would then happen to the troops that had been trained? There has already been controversy about these troops, who are theoretically being trained to defeat Hamas. First because Dayton is alleged by reliable sources to have said that if the Palestinians don't get their state in a couple of years they may turn on Israelis. Besides which, there are still attempts to forge a unity government that would embrace an unrepentant Hamas. In which case there are serious questions regarding who would command these forces Dayton is training. All of which leads to the most serious of questions regarding the priority of rushing pell-mell to train these troops in an unstable situation. It is unlikely in the extreme that a Muslim/Arab-tilting Obama will grapple with these issues with seriousness. Easier to make glib, pie-in-the-sky statements and reach for the quick fix. ~~~~~~~~~~ As one of many indicators of what a non-starter the whole proposition of a state with the stipulations outlined by Netanyahu is, we have this: Jimmy Carter, former US president and spokesman for the Arabs, says that a demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state is "an obstacle to peace." Doesn't this perverse statement say it all? ~~~~~~~~~~ Even more pertinent: Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has made precisely the same charge: "Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the chance for peace." To those who don't understand the true root of the conflict, such a statement is astounding. For Israel as a Jewish state side-by-side with Palestine as an Arab state would be a given, one might think. But "peace" in the Arab lexicon means destroying Israel as a Jewish state. We've hit a sore point and must hold fast to our rights. Mubarak is now hinting that there will be violence if there is not a comprehensive peace agreement. "The solution to the major problems of the Arab and Islamic worlds is through Jerusalem," he insisted, meaning that we would have to surrender all of eastern Jerusalem, at least. The solution to the major problems of the Arab and Islamic worlds? What garbage. ~~~~~~~~~~ The EU has decided not to proceeding with the upgrade of ties with Israel, which had been in the planning stage, because Netanyahu's talk was deemed insufficient. "We need a few steps more," declared Luxembourg's foreign minister. They should live so long. The PA saluted this action. An aide to Abbas is calling for isolation of Israel within the international community. ~~~~~~~~~~ So here it is, my friends. In his speech, Bibi told the story of our heritage and our legitimate claim to this land. I cannot remember another leader of the State referring to our links here that go back to Abraham and to Isaiah. He spoke of the settlers as Zionists and patriots. He insisted that Jerusalem will remain eternally undivided, under Israeli sovereignty. He identified the true roots of our conflict with the Arabs. And then he asked for the help of the Almighty in finding peace. He did us proud. Yes, he uttered the term "Palestinian state," which makes many of us cringe. But he set out parameters that provide for our rights and security needs — including the absolute right to be recognized as a Jewish state, as well as the right to live in Judea and Samaria, and to not be threatened by terrorists. He demanded a cessation in PA incitement, and demilitarization; and he categorically refused to accept a single Palestinian Arab refugee. He did all this in the face of enormous pressure from Obama, reacting in a way that I believe he is convinced is in our best interest. Because he didn't turn into an eager Olmert clone, running after the Palestinian Arabs to show how many concessions we can make...because he had the audacity to make demands on behalf of Israel, he is facing an enormous amount of hostility from the international community, and most specifically from the Arabs. And so at this point Bibi deserves our support. We owe it to him, and to our nation, which must present a united front now. Once again, I ask you to contact him. Tell him what you appreciated about his speech. Let him know that you want him to continue to speak for our strength — that this is the only way to go, and that you will stand proudly with the nation whatever the difficulties.
~~~~~~~~~~ Is this a glimmer of light? According to an interview Malcolm Hoenlein gave to NewsMax, American Jewish leaders "are expressing concern about what was said [in Obama's Cairo speech]. I've heard it from some of his strongest supporters. It's expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them. "...There's a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for." Hoenlein, is executive vice chairman of the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents
major Jewish mainstream organizations such as B'nai Brith, American
Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League. While he insists
these are simply his observations, he has his finger on a lot of
pulses. Until now the discontent that has been present among Jewish
leaders — including and especially those on the left — has
been expressed only privately.
Not only do we need to hope he's reading the situation correctly, it seems to me there are those who are lay members of these various organizations who might now begin to ask hard questions regarding the positions of their leadership. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS ARAB
Posted by Roberta Dzubow, June 15, 2009. |
|
There are 57 Islamic states, 22 Arab — they vote as a block in the UN hijacking its purpose, bending it to their goal: " eradicating Israel." If a "Palestinian" state is formed, that will make 23 Arab countries. Islamic belief is that " Islamic Waqf land is given to all generations of Muslims until the day of Resurrection. In this respect it is like any other land that the Muslims have conquered by force, because the Muslims consecrated it at the time of the conquest as religious endowment for all generations of Muslims...." (From Hamas Charter). This belief is why the Muslims claim Spain, etc., as their own. Beyond the territorial ultimatum, the Hamas charter demonizes the Jewish people. It accuses Jews of causing the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, World Wars I and II, and with forming "secret organization, all over the world in order to destroy (those countries) societies and serve the Zionists' interests, such as Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, the Lions...." IN ORDER TO INSTILL THIS. "...an indoctrination campaign must involve ulma (clergy), educators, teachers, information and media experts, all intellectuals, young people and the sheiks of Islamic movements." IT REQUIRES " books, articles, pamphlets, sermons, epistles, traditional songs, poems, patriotic songs, plays." 20 / 21 st Century Arab accomplishments: Almost no major contributions to the world in technology, medicine, science, etc., no innovations in any fields. All of their talented people succeed when educated and living in Western modern societies. The indoctrination of hate, harm, homicide, martyrdom is the focus of the Arab educational system. Their all-encompassing hatred campaign is very successful. Arab/Islamic/Sharia Law, in world domination, is the goal. Europe (Eurabia), London (Londonistan) are just two examples of the onslaught. Dominating in the media the "facts" of the Israeli/Arab situation, dominating the UN, increasing leverage in US politics and society in the US — not challenged because of political correctness, and the Left's push for "diversity, " the Islamic snowball rolls on. First, Skip the immediate below, and scroll to Jordan, Egypt, etc., to get a quick look of the hypocrisy of the Arab complaints. The first below is from today's Elder of Ziyon website:
|
|
The biggest problem that the Arab world and others seem to have with Netanyahu's speech yesterday was his insistence on Israel being recognized as a Jewish state. One reaction came from Jimmy Carter, who called this a "hurdle" to peace. So it is time to repost an article from 2007 where we ask why calling a state Jewish is such a problem, but calling it Arab or Muslim is not. If you define "Jewish" in purely religious terms, that would mean that any state that defines itself as "Islamic" is, by definition, equally guilty of this discrimination. If you define "Jewish" in ethnic or national terms, then any state that defines itself as "Arab" would be equally guilty of the racism that Israel is being accused of. Time to check out the official hypocrisy of Israel's critics, and note the deafening silence towards this supposed Arab and Islamic racism: Jordan's constitution: Article 1 The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy. Article 2 Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language. Egypt's constitution: Art.1*: The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity. Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia). Libya's constitution: Article 1 [Principles] Libya is an Arab, democratic, and free republic in which sovereignty is vested in the people. The Libyan people are part of the Arab nation. Their goal is total Arab unity. The Libyan territory is a part of Africa. The name of the country is the Libyan Arab Republic. Article 2 [State Religion, Language] Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official Language. The state protects religious freedom in accordance with established customs. Morocco's constitution: Preamble The Kingdom of Morocco, a Muslim Sovereign State whose official language is Arabic, constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb. Article 6 [State Religion] Islam is the religion of the State which guarantees to all freedom of worship. Yemen's constitution: Article (1) The Republic of Yemen is an Arab, Islamic and independent sovereign state whose integrity is inviolable, and no part of which may be ceded. The people of Yemen are part of the Arab and Islamic nation. Article (2) Islam is the religion of the state, and Arabic is its official language. Article (3) Islamic Shari'ah is the source of all legislation. Syria's constitution: Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic] (1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics. (2) The Syrian Arab region is a part of the Arab homeland. (3) The people in the Syrian Arab region are a part of the Arab nation. They work and struggle to achieve the Arab nation's comprehensive unity. Article 3 [Islam] (1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam. (2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation. Saudi Arabia's constitution: Article 1 The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital. Kuwait's constitution: Article 1 Kuwait is an independent sovereign Arab State. Neither its sovereignty nor any part of its territory may be relinquished. The people of Kuwait is a part of the Arab Nation. Article 2 The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia shall be a main source of legislation. Algeria's constitution: Article 1 [Democracy, Republic] Algeria is a People's Democratic Republic. It is one and indivisible. Article 2 [State Religion] Islam is the religion of the State. Bahrain's constitution: Article 1 [Sovereignty, Constitutional Monarchy] a. The Kingdom of Bahrain is a fully sovereign, independent Islamic Arab State whose population is part of the Arab nation and whose territory is part of the great Arab homeland. Its sovereignty may not be assigned or any of its territory abandoned. Article 2 [State Religion, Shari'a, Official Language] The religion of the State is Islam. The Islamic Shari'a is a principal source for legislation. The official language is Arabic. Oman's constitution: Article 1 [Sovereignty] The Sultanate of Oman is an independent, Arab, Islamic, fully sovereign state with Muscat as its capital. Article 2 [Religion] The religion of the State is Islam and the Islamic Shariah is the basis of legislation. Tunisia's constitution: Article 1 [State] Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is the Islam, its language is Arabic, and its form is the Republic. Article 2 [Arab Nation, Treaties] (1) The Tunisian Republic constitutes part of dhe Great Arab Maghreb, towards whose unity it works within the framework of common interests. Mauritania's constitution: Preamble:...Conscious of the necessity of strengthening its ties with brother peoples, the Mauritanian people, a Muslim, African, and Arab people, proclaims that it will work for the achievement of the unity of the Greater Maghreb of the Arab Nation and of Africa and for the consolidation of peace in the world. Title I General Provisions, Fundamental Principles Article 1 [State Integrity, Equal Protection] (1) Mauritania is an indivisible, democratic, and social Islamic Republic. Iran's constitution: Article 1 [Form of Government] The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Koranic justice,... Article 2 [Foundational Principles] The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in: 1) the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2) Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws; 3) the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God; 4) the justice of God in creation and legislation; 5) continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; 6) the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to: a) continuous leadership of the holy persons, possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Koran and the Sunnah, upon all of whom be peace; b) sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further; c) negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance. "Palestine"'s constitution: ARTICLE 1 Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation. Arab Unity is an objective which the Palestinian People shall work to achieve. ARTICLE 4 1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained. 2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation. So why, exactly, is a Jewish state (whose record of equal rights far surpasses those of any of the Arab nations) morally worse than the large number of Arab and Islamic states? — —
Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com |
|
ISRAEL LIVES. NETANYAHU FROM THE RIGHT. CARTER'S NEW VISION
Posted by Janet Lehr, June 15, 2009. |
|
< IRAN'S ELECTION Iran's state television said the supreme leader has ordered an investigation into claims of fraud and vote rigging in the country's presidential election. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is ordering the powerful Guardian Council to examine the allegations by opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. The government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner in a landslide victory. The move marks a turnaround for Iran's most powerful figure, who previously welcomed the results.
1>A JEWISH VIEW OF NETANYAHU'S SPEECH
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that the conditions Netanyahu laid down for the establishment of a Palestinian state will never be accepted by Arabs or Muslims. By agreeing to a Palestinian state, Netanyahu has given the world opportunity to believe that the Arab claim to Judea and Samaria is superior to any put forth by the Jews! If it was pandering to Obama, it is of no value — as Obama intends to grant statehood to the palestineans all by himself — or thru his proxy, the United Nation who would step in and execute the deed. Know first that Judea and Samaria constitute the heartland of the Jewish people. This land is inseparable from the teachings of the Prophets of Israel. From there our Prophets bestowed on humanity its loftiest and most fundamental ideas and values: first and foremost the idea of Ethical Monotheism. From ethical monotheism we derive the possibility of Truth, of Human Dignity, of Justice, of Kindness, of Freedom, of Progress, of Peace-of peace because there cannot be genuine and abiding peace among men without Truth. Moreover, there cannot be peace between nations unless they acknowledge that lapidary verse from holy writ that God created man in His own image, for this verse affirm unity the human community. These ideas and values are the building blocks of Western civilization. They endow human life with meaning and nobility, with creativity and continuity, with depth and purpose. Yes, and they are tangibly linked to Judea and Samaria-the source of our historic memory. Therefore, to agree to establish an Arab-Islamic state on this land, a state whose inhabitants harbor a religion diametrically opposed to what this land stands for, is a Chilul HaShem-a desecration of God's Name. To agree to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria is to negate God's Covenant with the fathers of the Jewish People. This agreement will never be consummated. I am well aware of the political and rhetorical nature of Netanyahu's speech. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that the conditions he laid down for the establishment of a Palestinian state will never be accepted by Arabs or Muslims; for unlike Mr. Netanyahu, they believe in a deity in whose name they are willing to sacrifice their lives. I wonder whether the people of Israel understand the dreadful transgression Netanyahu committed by saying YES to a Palestinian state on Jewish land? Some observers, trained in law, may say that Netanyahu's YES will not stand the test of international law; I leave this for them to explain. Others have already said that he has violated the coalition agreement that forms the basis of his government. What most disturbs me, however, is his projected violation of Jewish law. In a policy paper in which I collaborated with Professor Louis Rene Beres, I abbreviated a lengthy halakhic disquisition by the Gaon Rabbi Dr. Haim Zimmerman, of blessed memory, in which he sets forth, in a most compelling way, the prohibition of yielding Jewish land to non-Jews. This paper was written and published in opposition to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria in 2005. Serving then as a minister in the Sharon government, Mr. Netanyahu voted for that withdrawal, contrary to the warnings of Israel's highest military and intelligence officials. Hence, he is partly responsible for the death, destruction, and suffering resulting from the government's violation of Jewish law. But Mr. Netanyahu, like so many Israeli politicians, is superior to Jewish law. He is superior to the teachings of Moses and the Prophets of Israel. His highest law is derived not from God but from his own self-serving political calculations. We have known for some time the conditions he would lay down for a Palestinian state: it would have no army, no control of air space, no power to make treaties with other nations, etc., etc. It was obvious that these conditions would not be acceptable to the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu may be cunning, but he is not wise. Surely he should also insist that Arabs cease brainwashing their children to exalt suicide bombers on the one hand, and to hate Jews and Israel on the other. But how could he insist on this without insisting that the Arabs overhaul the Quran, erase the ethos of jihad, rewrite their history, hence cease being Muslims! To be fair, there were some solid points in Netanyahu's speech.
He summed up by saying: "If we receive [a] guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state." However, if the Palestinian state were threatened by terrorists, international law would not require Palestinian compliance with pre-state agreements concerning demilitarization. Leaving this aside, I see in Netanyahu's speech something overlooked by its author and thus far by commentators. Looking beyond his crafted rhetoric, Mr. Netanyahu, in my opinion, has given the Arab-Islamic world a great victory and has inflicted on the Jewish people a terrible defeat. For by agreeing to a Palestinian state, Netanyahu has given the democratic world to believe that the Arab claim to Judea and Samaria is superior to any put forth by the Jews! Arabs thus have all the more reason to despise the Jews and scorn the God of Israel! They will then have all the more incentive to persist in their territorial demands whose ultimate objective is to wipe Israel off the map of the Middle East. How ironic! I said Prime Minister Netanyahu desecrated God's Name. He did so, moreover, at Bar-Ilan University, Israel's one religious university. Contrast President Barack Obama's speech at al-Azhar University-the theological Harvard of the Islamic world. Obama repeatedly praised Islam and its "holy" Quran. I fear for Israel's future. The strength of a nation depends more on its morale than on military might, and I see this morale evaporating while Jews resign themselves — even though it's still not official — to the establishment of an Arab-Islamic state in their heartland. I ask: How should and how will the 300,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria feel now that their Prime Minister has renounced any Jewish claim to this land? They saw what happened to the 10,000 Jews in Gaza and northern Samaria, so many of which were traumatized and impoverished by the Expulsion. Let me ask Mr. Netanyahu: How will these Jews feel while you trifle with their lives and their future while waltzing with Mahmoud Abbas who you know very well is leading the Americans by the nose. You know, Mr. Netanyahu, that the first task of a statesman is to promote national unity by heightening a people's sense of national pride and identity — which requires the nation's territorial integrity. Your speech has alienated the most patriotic citizens of Israel, those who live in memory-filled Judea and Samaria which you are willing to surrender. Of course they know the Palestinians are not going to buy your Alice-in-Wonderland peace plan. But you have deprived them of the moral high ground on which to fight for Israel's survival. I did not realize how much you have in common with Obama. Perceptive writers, including Victor Davis Hanson, Ralph Peters, our own Caroline Glick, Frank Gaffney, Melanie Phillips, Wafa Sultan, have exposed the incredible number of falsehoods that fill Obama's Cairo speech. But your own speech is based the one colossal falsehood that has betrayed Israel since Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accord — that peace is possible with the disciples of Muhammad. You may know this in your heart of hearts, but like so many policy-makers in the democratic world, you lack the courage and wisdom to face the truth and act accordingly — with decisiveness and Jewish vision. What is the difference between Obama's reaching out to Ahmadinejad — which you deem futile — and your reaching out to Mahmoud Abbas? I don't see Muslims or Arabs reaching out to Jews. Why not? Because they have pride, overweening pride, groundless pride, destructive pride — call it what you will — but it means you will blink first, you will make concessions to them, and you will get nothing but more than contempt and violence in return. And so the Big Lie of the "peace process" will continue. The shoddy domestic politics of Israel along with the Saudi infested politics of America will continue. Yes, and the terrorism will continue. Is there a way out of this maze? Perhaps, but I've said enough for this report. 2>SETTLING THE LAND OF ISRAEL
According to the Torah, nothing is more important than settling the land of Israel. So central is the commandment to settle the Land of Israel that the Torah instructs us to risk our lives in order to conquer and hold on to the Land (Minchat Chinukh 425). The Torah even permits violating certain aspects of Sabbath in order to hold on to her — even if just to purchase one house (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 307:5). An eternal, never-changing Torah commandment. Equal to All of the Mitzvot The sages teach (Sifri, Re'eh 53), "The mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel is equal to all of the other mitzvot in "The foundation and underpinning of religious Zionism's approach." the Torah." This is due to the fact that, in addition to its own inherent value, the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel serves as a foundation for the healthy national existence of the Jewish people. Such an existence allows the Jewish people — a people whose task it is to spread faith in God and the Divine word — to bring about the perfection of the entire world. It is for this reason that the prophets of Israel prophesied at length regarding the settlement and burgeoning of the Land of Israel; the poets crowned her with a thousand crowns, and all of the great rabbis longed to reach her soil. This mitzvah also embodies the principle of unity and love among the Jewish people, because it is fulfilled by the people and for the people. So central is the commandment to settle the Land of Israel that the Torah instructs us to risk our lives in order to conquer and hold on to the Land (Minchat Chinukh 425). The Torah even permits violating certain aspects of Sabbath in order to hold on to her — even if just to purchase one house (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 307:5). In extreme cases, the Torah even allows for divorce in order to fulfill this commandment (Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 75:4). Religious Zionism The commandment to settle the Land of Israel — i.e., that the Land be in our hands, and not left barren — has always served as the foundation and underpinning of religious Zionism's approach to Aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel), settlement, defense and state. It lies behind our viewing today's events as the "first flowering of our redemption" as foreseen by the prophets. True to this philosophy, all religious-Zionist educational institutions educate toward love of the nation, the land and the state; they advocate sharing the burden of military service, economic and social responsibility, and participation in all aspects of Jewish life, and in the entire Jewish world. In the words of Rabbi Moshe Sofer, the Chatam Sofer (on Sukkah 36): Any action or enterprise that serves to advance Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel is included in this mitzvah. Joining Forces With Irreligious With the appearance of modern Zionism, an intense dispute arose among rabbis. The debate centered on the question: Is it permissible to join forces with irreligious elements of the Zionist movement? Because of the great importance of the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel, and despite the great difficulties involved, our prestigious and eminent rabbis concluded that such cooperation was indeed necessary; this was the path that must be taken in order to settle the Land and harken the redemption of Israel. This was the position taken by renowned Torah authorities such as Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Reines, Rabbi Herzog, Rabbi Amiel, Rabbi Uziel, Rabbi Adaya, Rabbi Ratah, Rabbi Charlap, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, and others. Prohibition Against Uprooting It is clear, then, that participating in any sort of action that aims at violating this great mitzvah — a mitzvah that guides our every step and for which we are willing to sacrifice so much — is forbidden. Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook and Rabbi Shlomo Goren, of blessed memory, thus ruled that it is forbidden to hand over portions of the Land of Israel to non-Jews, not to mention uprooting a Jewish settlement for this purpose. When, in time, the question arose as to what ought to be done in a situation where a ruling of the Israeli government clashes with the essential commandment to settle the Land of Israel, it was declared that there is clear and unquestionable preference for the law of the Torah. Eternal, never-changing Torah commandments take precedence over any type of government decision, which, by its very nature, is given to change. This principle holds true not only regarding the commandment to settle the Land of Israel; it is the case "It is forbidden to follow the law of a king or government that negates the word of the Torah." concerning all of the mitzvot of the Torah. It is forbidden to follow the law of a king or government that negates the word of the Torah. Then-Chief Rabbi of the Israeli Defense Forces, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, z.t.l., publicized this ruling and, despite the rebuke of the Chief of Staff, refused to reverse it. The precedent for this ruling can be found in Sanhedrin 49a and in Yad HaChazakah, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:9. Clearly, it is preferable to do everything possible via the Knesset, the government and the public, in order to prevent the emergence of a ruling which negates such an important mitzvah. Yet, if this is not successful, then it becomes necessary to stand in adamant, passive opposition to the government ruling — a ruling which, in the words of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, is "null and void in comparison to the eternal law of the Torah." Yet, even if we accept the fact that not all Knesset members understand the Halakhic prohibition involved here, how can anyone even consider commanding a Jew, for whom the mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel is so central, to destroy a settlement and to displace its residents? How is it possible to order a Jew to uproot with his own hands the very foundation of his faith? Could their hearts be so hard? Would they even command a person to dislocate his own parents? Are they not ashamed to command a person to assault that which is most dear to him? Poor Public Image Many are concerned about the bad image that resistance is liable to cause the settlers of Judea and Samaria. True, the issue of public image must be taken into account; the advice of rabbis and experts must be sought so that people know in what manner to speak and how to act. On the other hand, it must be remembered that it is not always the short-term effect that needs to be taken into consideration; sometimes the value of the long-range lesson is of greater importance. Sometimes, an act which results in severe short-term damage serves the important role of making a clear statement concerning the importance of settling the Land, and impresses upon all the preference of Divine law over transient political rulings. Even if our efforts to settle the Land do not produce the sort of fruits we would like them to, we, in our determined stand, have at least established the desired goal — and eventually we will reach it. Indeed, Judaism and Torah leaders have followed this path numerous times throughout history. Fear of a Rift in the Nation The media's ranting that resisting settlement evacuation causes a rift in the nation is simply untrue. How can passive resistance to participating in civil action possibly have such extreme repercussions? The religious community is overly sensitive to these sorts of attacks and the leaders of the Left, along with the media, take advantage of this sensitivity. The more we allow ourselves to be flustered by such accusations, the more they will be hurled at us. The more that we argue amongst ourselves and make biting allegations against one another, the more accusations will be made against us by the media. We will be labeled inciters, agitators, and criminals. This is precisely what the media did to Effie Eitam. He made rational and pointed remarks concerning the mass desecration of Sabbath, yet was portrayed as an inciter. It is important to note that all of the accusations insinuating that somebody permits using violence against soldiers, police officers or anyone are complete lies. Only passive resistance was permitted by rabbis. And if the Left should Choose to Refuse? Do we not run the risk that our refusal to follow orders on Halakhic or patriotic grounds will bring in its wake a refusal on the Left to take part in protecting the settlers or conquering the Land of Israel? In this matter, one must make a distinction between truth and falsehood. Our position is genuine, and based upon both Torah and human rationale. Their position, on the other hand, is based upon mistaken human leanings — of the sort which at one time led men to prostrate before Stalin, the "Sun of the Nations," or later to kiss and embrace Yasser Arafat and his cohorts. We come in the name of moral values that build the nation. Values that call for uprooting settlements and refusing to do battle with the enemy are outright destructive and undermining. In the same respect, such people could claim that if it is permissible for Jews to sacrifice themselves for Torah "Is the dismantling of outposts considered a definitive act of Torah violation?"and faith, it is permissible for idolaters to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their beliefs. All of the prophets of Israel cried out against such rationale, for they were able to distinguish the essential differences. We pray to the living God; they pray to wood and stone. Countless sources could be cited to this effect. The Present Dispute During the reign of the Rabin government, a practical question arose: Does Halakha permit taking part in the dismantling of settlements and army bases? Leading rabbinical authorities, amongst them Rabbi Goren, Rabbi Yisraeli, Rabbi Yosef Kapach, Rabbi Nerya and Rabbi Shapira ruled that a Jew was obligated to refuse participating in such an action. At present, the question is slightly different: Is the dismantling of outposts considered a definitive act of Torah violation? There are those who hold that where the intention is to uproot a settlement in order to hand it over to Arabs, then it is clearly a violation of the mitzvah to settle the Land, and one is obligated to refuse participation in such an act; when, however, an outpost whose site will not be given to Arabs is at issue, and opposition to its existence stems from formalities alone, the government's order does not contradict the Torah, and it is permissible to carry out such an act. Other rabbis, among them myself, hold that the intention of the present dismantling violates the mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel, for it uproots vibrant Jewish settlements and leaves their locations barren. The fact that this act is being carried out, as some claim, for political reasons, certainly does not make it any more acceptable. At any rate, in light of the above dispute, the Committee of the Rabbis of "Yesha" (Judea and Samaria) publicized the following statement: "We call upon all soldiers to approach their commanding officers with the request that they be released, on conscientious and faith-related grounds, from any activity connected to the evacuation of outposts." In addition they declared that "every outpost in the Land of Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the mitzvah to settle the Land; accordingly, it is forbidden to evacuate such outposts." What, though, does a soldier do if his commanding officer refuses to respect his request? In this regard there are differing opinions among Halakhic authorities, and each individual must follow the decision of his own rabbi. The Committee of the Rabbis of Yesha plan to convene again in order to reach a clear and unified position on this issue. Send comments or questions for Rabbi Melamed to Yonaton Behar at yonatonb@yahoo.com. 3> NETANYAHU OFFERS OBAMA ROOM TO MANEUVER by David Alexander — Analysis
The only approval was held by diplomats on the left — Martin Indyk, the director of the Saban Center at the liberal Brookings Institution think tank said, "In terms of the concern that President Obama had about the need to promote a two-state solution, Netanyahu has said things now that he, that is President Obama, will be able to work with." WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave U.S. President Barack Obama a narrow opening for pursuing Middle East peace on Sunday by offering a highly qualified endorsement for a demilitarized Palestinian state. In a speech aimed at Obama as much as the Palestinians, Netanyahu said he would support a Palestinian state but insisted it be demilitarized and that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its undivided capital. Obama welcomed Netanyahu's remarks as an "important step forward" and accepted them as an endorsement of his goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although generally restating previous Israeli positions on most issues, Netanyahu gave Obama just enough latitude to enable the U.S. leader to move ahead with peacemaking. "In terms of the concern that President Obama had about the need to promote a two-state solution, Netanyahu has said things now that he, that is President Obama, will be able to work with," said Martin Indyk, the director of the Saban Center at the liberal Brookings Institution think tank. He said a demilitarized Palestinian state was very similar to the nonmilitarized state put forward by President Bill Clinton during negotiations toward the end of his administration. And treaties with limitations on sovereignty are not new. The Israeli peace treaty with Egypt, for example, allows only police forces and not military troops in the Sinai, he said. "So a demilitarized state on its face as an opening position is, I think, something that the United States can work with," said Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. UNDERMINE ABBAS Steven Cook, a senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Netanyahu had couched the endorsement of a Palestinian state in terms that would undermine and weaken Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his struggle with the Islamic militants from Hamas. "He did say a Palestinian state, which is somewhat of a breakthrough for a Likud leader," Cook said. "But he repeated the same kinds of conditions on that Palestinian state that he has repeated over and over again. Demilitarization. No control over its air space, Israel can basically control its borders." Netanyahu also insisted that Palestinians give up their demand that refugees be allowed to return and resettle within the borders of the current state of Israel. "That, interestingly, is something that I think everybody pretty much recognizes, but to articulate it puts the Palestinians in a deeply awkward, awkward position," Cook said. "It really does very little to help Abu Mazen (Abbas) in his struggle with Hamas." Netanyahu also stopped short of declaring a full freeze on Israeli settlement activity as sought by Obama, agreeing only that Israel would build no new settlements and would not expropriate more Palestinian land. That leaves an issue that will continue to cause friction in U.S.-Israeli relations. But David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institution for Near East Policy, said Netanyahu had given Obama "something to work with, even if there are still differences on the settlement issue." "Netanyahu took a major stride by making clear that the issue is no longer his refusal to accept a Palestinian state but rather the very shape of the state," said Makovsky, co-author of the new book "Myths, Illusions and Peace." "It's important because Netanyahu represents the right-of-center parties that have always been more wary of the peace process, believing that it was a trap that would encourage terrorism," he added. But Cook said Netanyahu had left Obama with a tough job to move the peace process forward. "He did recognize a Palestinian state, but that's a thin reed to hold on to given all the other conditions," Cook said. "I don't expect that President Obama will throw up his hands and say, 'OK, that's it.' But he certainly didn't give Obama much to work with." (Editing by Philip Barbara) 4>'ISRAEL MUST PROVE ITS GOOD INTENTIONS' — HEAD OF OIC: LET ISRAEL PROVE ITS DESIRE FOR PEACE by P.K. Abdul Ghafour
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), yesterday ruled out normalization of relations with Israel before the Jewish state meets the peace requirements. JEDDAH: Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), yesterday ruled out normalization of relations with Israel before the Jewish state meets the peace requirements. "The OIC has adopted the Arab peace initiative, which is based on the principle of land for peace, return of Palestinian rights and endorsement of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine," the OIC chief said in an interview with Tunisia's Al-Sabah newspaper. Ihsanoglu backed the two-state proposal and hoped Israel would accept it. "The Israeli government should stop building new Jewish settlements in the occupied territories to prove its good intentions," he told the newspaper. Referring to the speech of US President Barack Obama from Cairo addressing the Arab Muslim world, Ihsanoglu said it showed the president's strong desire to open a new chapter in relations with the Islamic world. "We should deal with it positively," he said. He praised Saudi Arabia for its tremendous support to the OIC, which groups 57 Muslim countries. He noted the results of the extraordinary Islamic summit in Makkah called by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah in 2005. Ihsanoglu called upon Muslim states to work for achieving greater economic, social and technological development. "Islamic countries have made considerable progress during the past 50 years. Three of them — Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia — have become members of G-20 countries," he said. Meanwhile, the OIC has launched a major media campaign to mark its 40th anniversary. "This campaign is aimed at highlighting OIC's political and professional strength and effectiveness," said Atta Al-Mannan, assistant secretary-general for cultural affairs. The media campaign titled "40 Years of Solidarity" sheds light on OIC's efforts to protect human rights, especially the rights of Palestinians. The OIC has produced a documentary to highlight its history and achievements. "We'll organize a number of cultural, educational and sports activities in member countries to create a good impression about the organization, especially among the youth," Al-Mannan said. Two major events will be held in Jeddah and New York on Sept. 25 to mark the anniversary. 5> CARTER BOMBSHELL-'WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS WILL STAY' Matthew Kalman
Former president Carter surprised Israelis and shocked Palestinians by declaring that Neve Daniel near Bethlehem part of the Etzion Bloc should remain under Israeli control. Shaul Goldstein, leader of the settlement, described the meeting with Carter as "very important." "He came here and saw things he never knew of before. He said that he wants to see more world leaders visit the settlements and hear what settlers have to say to truly understand what is going on here," Perhaps Carter is anticipating answering to his maker! Jimmy Carter has surprised Israelis and shocked Palestinians by declaring that one of the largest blocs of Israeli West Bank settlements should remain under Israeli control. Carter, who is on a week-long visit to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, made the comments during a visit to the settlement of Neve Daniel near Bethlehem. The settlement is part of the Etzion Bloc, one of the largest Israeli enclaves on road between Bethlehem and Hebron and home to more than 15,000 Israelis. The enclave was under Jewish control prior to the founding of Israel in 1948 and was lost to Arab control during fierce fighting in Israel's war of independence. It was resettled after Israel regained control of the area in the 1967 war and is one of several areas that most Israelis would like to become absorbed into their country in any peace deal with the Palestinians. "This particular settlement area is not one that I envision ever being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory," said Carter as he emerged from a meeting with Shaul Goldstein, head of the Etzion Bloc Regional Council. "This is part of the Gush settlement to the 1967 line that I think will be here forever," Carter told reporters in the garden of Goldstein's home in the tiny hilltop settlement of Neve Daniel. "I have been very fortunate this afternoon in learning a perspective that I didn't have," said Carter. The former president caused uproar among Israel's supporters when he titled his last book "Israel: Peace or Apartheid." On Saturday he was honored by Palestinian leaders in Ramallah who applauded his longstanding commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. 'Saib 'Ariqat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said Carter's comments were unacceptable. "I cannot accept anyone prejudging and preempting the issues that are reserved for permanent status negotiations," 'Ariqat told The Media Line. "The negotiations are between Palestinians and Israelis and it's not for anyone to decide. Our position is that all settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal," he said. "In accordance with international law settlements are illegal and they are obstructing peace," he added. The Obama Administration has demanded a complete freeze in settlement construction by Israel on the West Bank, but Israel says it needs to expand its communities there in line with their "natural growth." "I hope that in the future we'll see accommodation between Israel and the United States and between Israel and the people of Palestine in signing peace with a mutual respect for one another and mutual security on both sides," Carter said. "The most important element in my life in the last 30 years has been to bring peace to the people of Israel — and security. With that obviously will have to come peace and security for Israel's neighbors. That's the purpose of my even coming here," he said. As US president in 1978, Carter helped seal the Camp David peace accords that brought about the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. That treaty ended decades of wars between the two countries and has remained intact despite regional tensions and mutual differences over policy towards the Palestinians. Carter also met with bereaved Israelis who had lost family members in terrorist attacks in the area. "I came to learn," the former president said. "I've done more listening than I have talking this afternoon. The listening has been very valuable to me." Shaul Goldstein described the meeting with Carter as "very important." "He came here and saw things he never knew of before. He said that he wants to see more world leaders visit the settlements and hear what settlers have to say to truly understand wat is going on here," said Goldstein. Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily email called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@israellives.com |
|
A FARCICAL YET PERILOUS ELECTION
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 152009. |
|
No intelligent person could be anything but skeptical at the skewed results of Iran's of Iran's recent farcical election, returning Mahmoud AhMADinejad to his so-called position of presidential authority with an overwhelming majority of counted votes, bereft of independent observation, undermining the sanctity of free and fair elections. Yet the not so invisible strings affixed to his mouth, moving in tune to the commands of the turbaned puppeteer Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his misogynist mullah sidekicks, suggest the visible bearded despot known for his insane Holocaust denial and "Wipe Israel off the Map" rhetoric is surely a useful mouthpiece, displaying the method behind a conniving madness. There was no way another politico, less prone to manipulation, could ever be elected in this exercise of ballot rigging monitored by the riggers. Indeed, having the perceived raving loon AhMADinejad conveniently spew disconcerting abominations, his spindly fingers ever closer to a nuclear trigger, implicitly or overtly threatening to disrupt the flow of 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, abutting Iran, is good for business. No doubt, when the MAD Iranian rants, the price of oil jumps, mullahs albeit weighed down by bulging Persian purses jump for joy, and all is well in this long ago cradle of civilization gone to the fanatical as well as extortionist dark side. Might those movers and shakers who supported and perhaps still support the Bush Administration's invasion of Iran's natural enemy Iraq, a less perilous threat to civil mankind, the one regime that held Iran in check, mull over the consequences of their mullah strengthening position, or is the phrase "I screwed up" not in their vocabulary?
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 |
|
HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN IN IRAN
Posted by Cpocerl, June 15, 2009. |
|
Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
GEERT WILDERS: EU IS NOT ISRAEL'S FRIEND
Posted by LEL, June 15, 2009. |
|
This was written by Benjamin Weinthal and it appeared in the
Jerusalem Post.
|
|
Basking in the glow of his spectacular election showing in last week's European Union (EU) vote, Geert Wilders, the head of the Dutch Freedom Party, told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview on Friday that the EU is "one-sided and always against Israel," adding that "nothing will happen" if Israel "depends on the Europeans" to stop Iran's genocidal threats against the Jewish state. The Freedom Party campaigned on a platform for shifting more decision-making power away from Brussels, the headquarters of the European Parliament, and back to members of the 27 EU countries. The vote was on European representation within the EU Parliament in Brussels and showed that "people are not so interested in Europe." Wilders's Freedom Party garnered 17% of the vote, finishing second after the governing Christian Democratic Alliance of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, which tallied 19.9% of the vote. "The Netherlands is not against Europe," he said, but "we don't want a European super state." Terming the EU vote as a "referendum on the political state" in Holland, Wilders attributed the growing support for the Freedom Party as a call for prioritizing the domestic agenda. "Money should be spent in Holland" and not "subsidizing farmers in France and Poland," said Wilders. Asked about the EU's posture toward Israel and forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, Wilders said the European Parliament has "always been biased against Israel." He said he regrets "that they (EU) have a foreign minister" and argued that the "European Parliament should not be involved in foreign politics." Wilders said Israel was the "only light of democracy in the Middle East" and that Islamic war was "against us all." The Jewish state was "more like the canary in the coal mine," he said, and stressed that an "ideological conflict" was unfolding in the region. "It is not a territorial conflict. Please forget about this crazy concept." The Islamists "see Israel as a big settlement" and if Israel "gives Territory A," said Wilders, then the other side will ask for Territory B, "such as Haifa." Commenting on the Iranian election and Teheran's nuclear enrichment program, Wilders said it "does not matter who wins. The rhetoric at the end of the day is the same." Wilders, who has visited Iran several times, says the country has a "friendly, young public" but the "regime is terrible." The mullah regime "really believes Israel has no right to exist" and Iran's diplomats are "fooling us" in their purported efforts to negotiate a solution to the nuclear crisis, said Wilders. Referring to Europe's approach to clamping down on Iran's effort to attain nuclear capability, Wilders said, "Israel is more or less on its own." He termed US President Barack Obama's speech as a "talk of appeasement" and said that without a "strike back in some way" against the Iranian regime, then the international community "will pay a big price." Citing Iran's rapidly developing missile program — including the Shihab-3 ballistic missile — Wilders warned that the rockets "cannot only reach Jerusalem but the whole world." Israel should be militarily supported if there is a showdown over Teheran's refusal to suspend its nuclear activities, he said. When asked about commentaries in the German media labeling the Freedom Party as "extreme right" — a term typically reserved for neo-Nazi parties in Germany — Wilders said that is "totally ridiculous" and an "insult to the the Dutch people" because the party is now the "biggest party in Holland" according to polls. The Freedom Party should be viewed within a liberal Dutch tradition, he said, noting that "we are not for cutting social welfare and are for more health care" and because of our "friendship for Israel, the extreme right demonstrates against us." He has been attacked as a "crazy blond Zionist," and has long been the target of death threats because of his criticism of political Islam, which prompted constant police protection for him. He rejects the "strengthening of blasphemy laws" that shield Muslim minority groups from "not being insulted." A lively, open democracy should absorb robust free speech exchanges, he said.
Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
NETANYAHU CAVES IN
Posted by AFSI, June 15, 2009. |
|
In the first major policy speech of his administration, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caved to Barack Obama's key demand that the Palestinian Arabs be given a state in the heart of Israel's historic homeland. "The only winner from this speech was Barack Obama. It's Obama: 1 Jews: 0," said Herbert Zweibon. "Obama couldn't care less about a few settlements here or there. He wanted Netanyahu to accept the principle of a two-state solution. Netanyahu collapsed in the face of American pressure. He allowed himself to be outmaneuvered." Netanyahu, who began reasonably enough, systematically laying out the case for why there should not be a Palestinian state — including the point that Arab hatred of Israel preceded Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria — then reversed course at the end and endorsed a two-state solution. "The White House calls Netanyahu's speech an 'important step forward,'" said Herbert Zweibon, Chairman of Americans for A Safe Israel. "In fact, it's a dramatic step backwards as Netanyahu edges the Jewish People toward the cliff." In an attempt to mollify Israelis, who have the seen the painful results of Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, in which thousands of their fellow citizens were dragged from their homes only to be replaced by a Hamas-run terror enclave, Netanyahu insisted in his speech that a Palestinian State be demilitarized. Setting aside the fact that there are thousands of assault rifles already in the hands of Fatah, many Israeli-approved, it is simply not possible to prevent a Palestinian entity, once it has been granted sovereignty, from emerging as a military threat, AFSI notes. "Every time Israel evacuates a piece of territory it turns into a launching pad," Zweibon said. "During the Lebanon War alone, some half a million Israelis were displaced by missiles. On the outskirts of Gaza, Israelis fear for their lives. Those areas were supposed to be demilitarized and subject to international monitoring, too. What makes Netanyahu think this time will be any different?" The Arab reaction to Netanyahu's speech was noteworthy, Zweibon says. It was one of uniform hostility, despite Netanyahu's sudden willingness to accept a two-state solution. A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Netanyahu's speech "torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region" simply because Netanyahu asked Arabs to recognize Israel's Jewish character. "What this proves, as if it needed to be proved yet again, is that what the Arabs find distasteful about the Jewish State is that it exists at all," Zweibon said. 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. Barry Freedman is Executive Director. |
|
RELIGION OF PEACE PROVIDES MORE HOSTAGE BODIES
Posted by Cpocerl, June 15, 2009. |
|
This was from the BBC News and is entitled "Yemen recovers hostages' bodies." |
|
Germany has "strongly condemned" the killing of two German nurses who were recently kidnapped in Yemen. The bodies of the two women, along with that of a South Korean aid worker, have been flown to the capital Sanaa from Saada, a remote area in northern Yemen. Yemeni officials say they are searching for six other foreigners in the group — including three children — who were kidnapped while picnicking on Friday. There have been conflicting reports about what has happened to them. "This is very sad news and we strongly condemn this crime," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in reference to the two German nurses. They have been presumed dead by German officials although Yemeni authorities have not officially identified the bodies. "The foreign ministry's crisis centre is trying to investigate the fate of the other hostages. So far there is no concrete information and it is important not to speculate," Mrs Merkel added. Also on Tuesday, Seoul confirmed that a South Korean national had been murdered after being kidnapped in Yemen. Officials named her as Eom Young-Sun, 34. A Yemeni government spokesman said on Tuesday that the whereabouts of the other six foreigners was unknown. The group comprised seven Germans — including a family of five — a British national and a South Korean woman. The kidnapped adults all worked at a hospital in Saada, the state news agency said. Yemen's interior ministry earlier said they had been kidnapped while on a picnic on Friday in the area. Shepherds found the three bodies on Monday morning in the mountainous northern Saada province near the town of el-Nashour, according to local officials. There is confusion about the fate of the missing hostages. One unconfirmed report on Monday said all nine hostages were dead, while another report — also unconfirmed — quoted officials saying two children had been found alive. Militant groups More than 200 foreign nationals have been kidnapped in Yemen in the last 15 years, often for ransom. But most have been released unharmed. No-one has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. The Yemeni government blamed a local Shia rebel group, led by Abdulmalik al-Houthi, for the kidnapping, but it has denied any involvement. The group has fought a sporadic insurgency in the Zaidi Shia heartland between Sanaa and the border with Saudi Arabia. A local tribal leader in the area, speaking anonymously to the Associated Press news agency, blamed al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is known to have operated in the area, and analysts say it may be regrouping in Yemen after coming under pressure in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. CIA Director Leon Panetta said last week that Somalia and Yemen may have become safe havens for the group. Yemeni authorities said on Sunday they had arrested Hassan Hussein Bin Alwan, described as al-Qaeda's financier in the region and one of its "most dangerous members". Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
WHAT MUSLIMS WANT TO HEAR FROM OBAMA; MUSLIM COMMENTS ON OBAMA SPEECH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 15, 2009. |
|
WHAT MUSLIMS WANT TO HEAR FROM OBAMA The NY Times of 6/3/09 had, opposite the editorial page, "What the Muslim World Wants to Hear From Obama." Seven Muslims contributed views. None wanted help against Radical Islam, though one asked for help in combining democracy with Islam in Pakistan. What is the significance of that absence, and how were those seven picked? Not stated. A journalist from Lebanon asked the U.S. not to interfere in Lebanese elections. He warned that by openly pegging U.S. aid to the composition of the next government, V. P. Biden was interfering and probably counter-productively. The Vice-President was ham-handed. "Many here ask why the U.S. respects Israel's election...and not their own." What makes that journalist think that the U.S. does not interfere in Israeli elections? At least one U.S. President directly declared which Israeli party he favors. They hint the same by declaring which policies they favor. The U.S. blackmails Israel over its policies. (Hence, I oppose U.S. subsidy for Israel, allowing blackmail.) The U.S. slipped money into an Israeli election. The U.S. constantly is interfering in internal Israeli affairs, saying, take down this checkpoint from a road terrorists used for an assault, and stop building houses for Jews in parts of Israel's capital that the U.S. has decided Israel is not entitled to. That decision does not belong to the U.S.. These U.S. efforts would render Israel easily conquered. Its millions of Jews would be slaughtered, just as Arab leaders vowed half a century ago, before the rise of Radical Islam, and as Radicals vow now. If Israel goes down, so does its army, a strong ally or the U.S.. Then the Radicals would be able to consolidate a hold on the Mideast and turn it entirely against the West and be freer to attack U.S. installations and the U.S., itself. The Lebanese journalist's incorrect comparison with Israel is not surprising. People commonly ask why their groups are criticized and the Jews allegedly are held above criticism. But the U.S. government, the Left, and Muslims constantly criticize the Jewish state if not also the Jewish people. Jews often are made the butt of negative remarks. The journalist hints at sharing the antisemitic notion of Jewish control over the world. I believe in tolerance and non-interference. However, I favor efforts to free people from non-democratic rule (provided there is a civil society and democratic institutions, so that well organized Islamists aren't able to clamp on a worse dictatorship). U.S. interference in Israel, however, does not seek democratic reform. To the contrary, U.S. interference demands what the Israeli government was elected to oppose. Thus the U.S. interferes with against Israeli democracy. For other Muslim views on U.S. foreign policy, click or go here:
ISRAELI LEADER SETS CRITERIA FOR DEMOCRACY Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima Party, points out that democracy isn't just elections, but whether candidates accept democratic principles, binding law, and non-violence. Terrorist organizations that enter politics simply add government support for their military intimidation of people. She said that because democracy requires being responsible, Israel banned the radical Kach movement from the electoral process.)" (NY Times, 6/5, Op.-Ed.) When Kach popularity boomed, its rivals banned it but not the racist Arab parties. For a taste of Israel's restrictions on democracy: www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m6d5-PresidentPrime-Minister-press-conferences-rigged NY TIMES EVALUATES BUSH ADMINISTRATION The NY Times cast the Bush Administration as "eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the US..." (6/5.) I think that the Times and Obama are arrogant in attempting to bully Israel to surrender its national security. Europe has the luxury to criticize the U.S. and to boast about having more government services, because the U.S. spends its own money protecting Europe, which spares it most of the expense of armies. Now they criticize us for protecting them, while they are about to go down under Islam. MUSLIM COMMENTS ON OBAMA SPEECH On President Obama's speech, a Hamas official commented, "He points out the right of Israel to exist, but what about the refugees and their right of return?" [Most of the refugees lived out their lives. The "return" would be of descendants, seeking to destroy Israel. Thus Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.] The official said that Obama "...should know that people... cannot recognize the state while they are under occupation, only afterwards. "Why put pressure on Arabs and Muslims to recognize Israel, while it is not recognizing our existence." [He is playing with words. Israel seeks peace, but Hamas and Fatah seek war. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is a pre-requisite for making peace. Israel has given the Territorial Arabs autonomy, a recognition that they abuse.] A Radical Muslim official in Jordan rejected any U.S. reference to the Holocaust, "The Holocaust was not the doing of the Muslims, it was the Europeans, and it should not come at the cost of the Palestinian people or the Arabs and Muslims." (Michael Slackman, NY Times, 6/5, A9). Palestinian Arabs organized two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions specifically to murder Jews. The Arabs pressured Britain to keep the Jews out of Palestine and in Europe. When Hitler found that he couldn't expel them, he murdered them. The Arabs share the blame with him! For other Muslim comments on Obama, click or go here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
FAITH VERSUS SELF-DECEPTION
Posted by Gary Cooperberg, June 15, 2009. |
|
After eloquently expressing the eternal historical and Biblical connection of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel, he suggests, by virtue of the fact that foreigners live among us, that those foreigners have the right to take a large chunk of our homeland and turn it into a private state of their own where Jews are forbidden to go. This is necessary because it is "unethical" for Israel to rule over a foreign people. He neglects to recognize that this foreign people was created for the sole purpose of destroying the Jewish State and replacing it with an Arab one. But even that is irrelevant. No people, not even a peace loving legitimate people, has the right of sovereignty over one inch of Jewish Land. How can the Prime Minister of Israel speak as if he owes special consideration to murderers of Jews? How did this man shake Arafat's hand as he gave away 80% of Hebron to the PLO, including the hill from which a PLO sniper murdered a Jewish baby. . . for peace? He may be talking out of both sides of his mouth when he speaks of a PLO state without an army... but even should he succeed at such a sham, and he won't, that state, by definition, would remove Jewish sovereignty voluntarily from key parts of our homeland, not to mention physically prevent Jews from living and even visiting parts of our own homeland... again, for "peace". If he believes this he deceives himself. Such a person has no business leading a Jewish state. We Jews have lived in Exile for over two thousand years. We have learned to live with impossible hardships. Sometimes we have had to deny reality just to survive. But we are home now. The Land of Israel has returned to the People by the Hand of G-d. While the miracles were clear at the time, we quickly forget them. That which is acquired by luck can easily be lost again. Our Prime Minister seems to have attributed our success to good fortune rather than Biblical destiny. This is the real reason why he, and so many like him, cannot stand up to the pressure. He is very eloquent and very clever, but when pushed hard enough he will cave in, as he is already doing. He is not our hope for the future. Our only hope is the reality of Jewish Destiny which we can clearly see if we dare open our eyes. Project Shofar also operates on the hope of opening up eyes to the reality of Jewish Destiny. That Destiny includes Jewish homecoming. If you fear Obama and Achmi***** more than you fear the Creator of the Universe then you will remain in the Exile and distance yourself from the Jewish State. Indeed that is what most do. The entire meaning of faith is to stand up to impossible odds because you really believe in G-d. That is the bottom line. We are all being tested. We all have the opportunity to elevate ourselves to holiness or fall into the abyss of self deception. Powerful nations are gathering against the tiny Jewish State and those very nations are teetering on the precepace of self destruction. Leaders who lack moral convictions seek to blame the ills of the world on the Jews, as has been done consistently throughout history. But this time things are different. The Creator of the Universe has decided to make his presence known to all of Mankind though his People, Israel. That is what it is all about.
Gary Cooperberg writes the "A Voice from Hebron" essays. He
lives in Kiryat Arba-Hebron. Email him at gary@projectshofar.org
and visit his website at www.projectshofar.org
|
|
JEWS 'VERY CONCERNED' ABOUT OBAMA, LEADER OF JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS SAYS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 15, 2009. |
|
This was written by
Ronald Kessler for NEWSMAX
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. A former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal award-winning reporter, he is the New York Times bestselling author of 18 books. His next book, "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect," will be published Aug. 4 by Crown Publishing and reveals for the first time the secrets of how agents protect the president and what they see behind the scenes, from John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson through George W. Bush and Barack Obama. |
|
President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. Though Hoenlein says he is only offering his personal views, the conference he represents is a political powerhouse that includes 50 major Jewish groups. Among them are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah, and the Anti-Defamation League. Hoenlein has been the professional head of the conference since 1986, overseeing its day-to-day activities as the coordinating body for American Jews on issues of concern in the U.S. and globally. Jewish leaders "are expressing concern about what was said [in Obama's Cairo speech]," Hoenlein says. "I've heard it from some of his strongest supporters. It's expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them." Obama's speech to a Muslim audience in Cairo in early June was his second effort early in his administration to re-define America's posture toward the Arab world. In April, Obama traveled to Ankara, Turkey, to offer a similar outreach to the Muslim world. But many in the Jewish community, including some of Obama's most ardent supporters, are troubled by his comments in the Middle East, especially his remarks to his Cairo audience. Others are concerned that, facing a multitude of problems on the domestic front, Obama has traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel, America's stalwart ally in the region for more than a half-century. "There's a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for," Hoenlein says of Obama's outreach. Reaction to Obama's speech has drawn a range of reaction from many Jewish leaders. On the right, some have condemned it as a revision of the long and close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But many on the left who backed Obama were also surprised and dismayed over Obama's speech. Such reactions from major Jewish leaders have largely remained beneath the surface, exchanged privately among them. Hoenlein's comments to Newsmax are his first detailed appraisal of Obama's speech and represent the first time a major Jewish leader has spoken openly about the erosion of Jewish support for Obama. According to the exit poll conducted by major press organizations during the 2008 election, Obama captured overwhelming support from American Jews, winning 78 percent of their vote. Despite the fact that Republicans are stronger on national security and the war on terror, Obama also won support from Jewish leaders who have been champions of Israel's security, such as the former Democratic mayor of New York, Edward I. Koch. Koch crossed party lines in 2004 to back George W. Bush. Reacting to Obama's Cairo speech, Hoenlein tells Newsmax, "I have no problem with addressing the Muslim world. I'm in fact in favor of outreach, and we here at the conference have done it for about 12 or 15 years, visiting Muslim countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. But the question is, what is the message they get? It's not so much what he says, but how do they perceive what he says?" On the one hand, Hoenlein says, "His reference to Israel and the special relationship being unbreakable is important, and references to persecution and Holocaust denial were important, and some of his references to some human rights issues also were important." But Hoenlein notes the speech included a number of troubling references and comparisons. He cites the fact that Obama claimed America has seven million Muslims. That is a figure "Arab propagandists have put out," he says. "In fact, they say only six million, when in fact there's no study that shows even half of that." In 2007, the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population at 2.35 million. Hoenlein is disturbed that Obama did not mention the Jewish people's ancient connection with the land of Israel. "There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says. "And that is again one of the propaganda lines that the Arabs have used: that the Jews are interlopers, that the two temples never existed, that there was never any Jewish history in the land of Israel. Even Yasser Arafat and others have used that argument because they're trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don't believe that was the president's intent, but not making those references I think is troubling." Jews have claimed a connection to the land of their forefathers since 1400 B.C. Even after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and the dispersal of many Jews throughout the Roman Empire, many Jews continued to reside in Jerusalem through the centuries, surviving various invasions. An Ottoman census of Jersualem conducted in 1845 showed Jews outnumbered Muslim Arabs by almost to 2 to 1 and were the dominant ethnic group in the region. Hoenlein believes that the most troubling aspect of Obama's comments in his Cairo speech was his effort to equate the Nazi killing of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Israel's struggle with the Palestinians over six decades and the suffering caused by the displacement of the Palestinians. "There's no comparison between the Holocaust, even if it was an indirect one, and what happened to Palestinians," Hoenlein declares. In his speech, President Obama addressed the issue of the Holocaust head-on, saying "Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today." But he quickly changed the subject, comparing Hitler's genocide of the Jews to the Palestinian struggle. "On the other hand," Obama said, as he transitioned from the Holocaust to the modern Middle East, "it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." Hoenlein doesn't buy Obama's line of reasoning. "The Palestinian refugee problem, or dislocation as he said, didn't come about because of the creation of the Jewish state," Hoenlein says. "It came about because the Arab states declared war on Israel and warned the Arabs that they would suffer the same fate as the Jews if they didn't get out. And then they kept them as political pawns." Obama made no reference to the fact that "the reason the Palestinians don't have a state is because their leaders rejected every offer for peace," Hoenlein says. "Whether it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1967, or later on, up until Ehud Olmert's offer and Ehud Barak's offer, they rejected everything, even when they were getting virtually everything they had asked for." That is because, "The problem really is not what Israel does, it's that Israel is," Hoenlein says. "And they're not ready to accept the existence of the Jewish state." In discussing the Palestinian refugee problem, Obama failed to mention the other refugee problem involving nearly a million Jews, Hoenlein says. At the time of the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, Jews populated all of the major Arab cities from Baghdad in the East to Casablanca in the West. Hoenlein notes that after modern Israel saw its rebirth, Jews "were driven out of Arab countries penniless, and some of their families had lived there for a thousand years, and yet there was no reference to them." He adds, "This is not a question of tit for tat. It's a question of the realities that are communicated to a vast audience in the Arab Muslim world." As troubling as Obama's references to Israel and the Palestinians were, Hoenlein found the president's failure to mention the radical regime now running Tehran equally disturbing. "What concerned us, concerned many people, was the message to Iran that we didn't hear," Hoenlein says. Iran, controlled by powerful Shia Mullahs, is set to acquire a nuclear device. Many Sunni Muslim states, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Morocco, are concerned about this prospect. Hoenlein says these Arab states also wanted to hear "an absolute assurance about the U.S. commitment not to allow Iran to be nuclear, not to allow it to continue to support terrorism, not to allow it to continue being the major state sponsor of terror around the world." Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared himself the winner in the election in Iran this past weekend, has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. In 2005, he declared that he is a devout follower of Iran's late ruler Ayatollah Khomeini. He has vowed to fulfill the Ayatollah's dream that the "occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map." Asked if he sees Obama's perceived tilt toward the Palestinians as reflecting some of the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Obama's former pastor who accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and "terrorism," Hoenlein says American Jews are concerned about Obama's policies today. "That issue has been discussed and debated, and I don't know that it's a relevant concern for right now," he says. "I do feel strongly about what the [current] policy will be." Hoenlein says flatly, "People [Jews] are genuinely very concerned...about President Obama." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
TWO ARTICLES ABOUT U.S. POLICY AND SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 15, 2009. |
|
1. "What's Unsettling About Obama's Policy Toward Settlements"
Whether construction continues on Jewish settlements in the West Bank or not right now is, in my opinion, a very secondary question. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were to say that he would suspend new building starts for three months this might be a reasonable way to prove his eagerness for peace and to establish cooperation with the new U.S. administration. But that's not quite the situation. There are four factors which really define the problem right now and which are generally ignored in media coverage and public debate. 1. What does it say about the administration's understanding of the region that this issue has become its main foreign policy initiative? There is definitely a ridiculous dimension here. The United States is directly facing radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's top-speed drive for nuclear weapons, an imminent takeover of Lebanon by Washington's enemies, rising radical Islamist revolutionary movements seeking to take over every Arabic-speaking country, a Turkish regime that increasingly seems headed toward Islamism, continually high levels of terrorism aimed at U.S. targets, and an ongoing lack of cooperation from European states in dealing with all these issues. Of course, it has proposed policies, though not necessarily appropriate ones, to deal with some of these questions. But why this passion on the settlements issue, indeed this is arguably the only question on which the administration is playing "hard ball." There are few signs of toughness really toward a wide range of enemies, including ones in Latin America or North Korea. Obviously, Israel is a soft target against which to play hard ball. Israel isn't going to do anything mean to the United States. And that's precisely the point. It shows a tendency toward being intimidated. If you get tough with Iran or various others they'll hit back at you, even if only with words. There is no more dangerous tendency in U.S. policy than to punish friends and reward enemies. In addition, there is a firm belief that pressing Israel on settlements will help deal with all the other problems, or at least many of them. This, however, is an illusion. It just won't be enough for those who want Israel wiped out altogether or, at a minimum, forced to make huge concessions and get little or nothing in return. Even those regimes that do want a stable peace — say, Egypt and Jordan, perhaps even Saudi Arabia now — will do little or nothing to bring it about. Thanks very much, they would say (actually, they wouldn't even say thanks) but you still owe us big time so what will you do for us now? This policy won't have any big material effect and what's worrisome is that President Barack Obama doesn't seem to know this. Finally, he doesn't understand something that any would-be peacemaker must comprehend. The very presence of the settlements constitutes pressure on the PA to make the compromises necessary for peace. They don't like the settlements? Good. Let them do something about it — make peace, get their state, and get rid of them. When people don't like a situation — and that means they don't like you — that can be an incentive to change their ways. It has been an argument that time is on Israel's side. The Palestinians better make peace sooner or — at least the way people like the late King Hussein of Jordan argued it — the territories will be irretrievably lost. Now the argument will be that time is on the Palestinian side: do nothing and the Americans will give you everything without you giving anything. It is not an accurate argument but it will govern their behavior. 2. What does it tell us about the administration's respect for previous promises and, by extension, how much its own promises can be depended on in future situations? Let us remember that in the past, Israel has made huge concessions and taken big risks on promises made by the United States. The basic, semi-public deal with the Clinton and Bush administrations was that Israel would continue building within settlements but not expand them outward or start new ones. The Israeli government that announced this interpretation was not headed by Netanyahu but by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin 16 years ago. One noticeable factor in the administration's behavior is its lack of respect for a previous American commitment which was part of the motive for Israel agreeing to the Oslo agreement, the return of the PLO, the migration of 200,000 Palestinians into the territories, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, the arming of its security forces, and various Israeli withdrawals. Obama has no appreciation of these things partly due to his world view and partly due to his massive ignorance about the history of the conflict and attempts to solve it. And, no, briefings don't make up for that. But the message this sends is this: why should Israel have any confidence in promises that Obama might make? And by the way, that applies to every other country in the world. 3. Why is there no reciprocity being offered in terms of Palestinian commitments. It is quite true that Obama spoke of Palestinian commitments during the visits of Netanyahu and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to Washington. The language is that the Palestinians must also provide better security against terrorism attacks on Israel and stop incitement to murder Israelis. Yet — and this is huge — these commitments were not linked to pressure. Nothing could be easier, for example, then for the United States to announce it is monitoring the media, schools, sermons, and statements by PA officials and that there will be severe consequences if improvements don't take place. Nothing like this is happening. And, of course, what we know will happen is that the PA will do nothing to deal with incitement at least. Providing better security is in its self-interest to defeat its Hamas rival and that does benefit Israel, though dozens of specific examples of PA behavior in conflict with its commitments — not acting against specific planned attacks, not sentencing terrorists to prison or keeping them there — can be provided. 4. What expectation can there be that after three or six months when the administration finds out it has been wrong its policy will change. Finally, suppose construction was frozen but the PA did not fulfill its commitments, peace did not advance, and this action was otherwise shown to be ineffective. Will there be a change in policy. After all, the critical issue in the longer run is going to be: Will the Obama administration ever be able to admit — as its two predecessors basically did — that Israel's assessment was correct? That the PA was incapable and unwilling to negotiate a comprehensive peace agreement? That Israel's security required border changes in the pre-1967 frontiers? That Arab states gave lip service to peace but did not help bring it about? That America's enemies — Iran, Syria, radical Islamist groups — irreversibly sought Israel's extinction and that this U.S. ally required strong backing to preserve its safety and help America in this struggle? My view is that if and when there is a peace agreement ending the conflict, creating a stable two-state solution, and providing for the resettling of Palestinians in Palestine, Jewish settlements should be removed. But, as the United States agreed in 1993 and for 15 years thereafter, this last issue is one that should only be resolved at that time. Some have speculated that this policy is part of a strategy to get rid of Netanyahu. If he agrees to the freeze, his coalition will shatter; if he doesn't, he will somehow fall because he couldn't get along with the Americans. I don't think this is at all true. If he wanted to do so, Netanyahu could figure out how to have a freeze and survive with an altered coalition. I don't think he wants to do so but it is not a political impossibility. If he refuses, the vast majority of the country will stand behind him and it will enhance his popularity. Why will the country rally around him? Not necessarily because people support the settlements or continued building there but because they understand what's at stake (see above). And that's another reason why the Obama policy is foolish. If Israelis were offered something for the freeze, a lot of people would support it, even if just as a gesture for a fixed period of time to show good will. Imagine, if Obama could actually deliver something from the Arab side in exchange for this freeze it would have a huge effect on Israeli public opinion and promote a conciliatory position. If Netanyahu stood in the way of what people thought was a real opportunity for peace, the government would fall. But that isn't the path he's chosen, or the PA either for that matter. I think a far more likely explanation for what's happening is that the Obama administration doing this precisely because it is a relatively small issue on which they think they can win a quick victory. Then they can say to the Iranians, Arabs, and Muslims: You see, we aren't just pro-Israel, we're balanced and we are working hard to give you what you want. So cooperate with us. And they will say: Well, if you can do that then you can do a lot more. Come back when you're ready to bring us Israel's head on a plate, so to speak. In addition, for the Obama administration there is a U.S. domestic political aspect: We have a foreign policy victory! See how tough we are! Things are really moving and changing! Actually, despite media cooperation their foreign policy has not achieved any success, except for his popularity-seeking exercises and even they work mainly not because he's a great statesman but because foreigners know he's not George Bush. If this interpretation is so it is a sign of profound irresponsibility on the administration's part. To make matters worse, they're wrong. And it won't work. 2. "When Middle East Policy Doesn't Make Sense"
Leaving aside the merits of the issue which I discussed here and here, the fact that U.S. Middle East policy seems to hinge on whether or not Israel builds around 4000 apartments this year in West Bank settlements is bizarre in a number of respects. First, let's assume that after six months or so of back and forth, the Israeli government refuses to freeze construction. What is the United States going to do about it? The problem is that the administration has already foreclosed the most obvious "punishments" since it isn't going to do these things any way. After all, the biggest leverage the U.S. government has would be, for example, not to take a tough anti-Iran policy on nuclear weapons, not to intensify the isolation of Syria, not to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority unless it fulfilled its commitments more, and — well you get the picture. So since it is already clear that Washington isn't going to give Israel more help regardless of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does, this gives Israel less incentive to freeze construction. Indeed, since the administration has made it amply clear that there will be no reward or what Netanyahu has called reciprocity for an Israeli unilateral concession this further reduces any motivation for complying. This brings us, then, to the possibility that there will be punishments for not giving the administration what it wants. But what is the U.S. government going to do? The most talked about possibility is that the United States won't veto UN anti-Israel resolutions. Yet the problem with this approach is that the more the United States does against Israel the more it undermines its leverage in advancing any peace process. After all, the construction issue is only one of many things — borders, east Jerusalem, dismantlement of settlements, etc. — on which the U.S. government seems likely to want Israel to give ground (literally) during negotiations or as part of a final agreement. If the United States sacrifices Israel's trust, how could it possibly achieve this goal? Already, by showing a brutal disregard for previous commitments, the administration has made it far less likely that Israel will take risks on the basis of new promises. And, really, how far is the administration willing to go to harm Israel? Not all that far. If the administration really wanted to bash Israel, why pick such a minor issue? It could have applied equal effort to demand a return to 1967 borders, or instant agreement to a Palestinian state, or dismantling all settlements, and so on. Finally, suppose the administration wins a total victory? It's gained nothing. Will the Saudis or Palestinians or anyone else like America more or be more accommodating to its interests and requests? Of course not. President Obama has already begun to discover this reality during his meetings with the Palestinian Authority and Saudi leaderships. The Arabs will say the concession is too small; only the beginning; just proves America can deliver Israel to do anything it wants; and so on. Since the strategy is so obviously silly, there have been numerous attempts to find some subtle or secret logic in it: the first step in throwing Israel under the bus, a clever way of getting Arab help over Iran's nuclear drive or Iraqi withdrawal, a campaign to bring down the Netanyahu government, and various other explanations. None of these are persuasive. The simple answer is probably this: the administration — or at least those in the driver's seat — is inexperienced, inept, and ignorant. That's hardly comforting but it is accurate. 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 |
|
A STATEMENT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES
Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 14, 2009. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared
in the Spectator
|
|
The essence of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech a few hours ago, which you can read in full here, was simply this: Israel wants peace with the Palestinians. The cause of the conflict remains, as it ever was, the Arabs' refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland of Israel, which (contrary to Obama's claim) predated the Nazi Holocaust by several thousand years. Those (like Obama) who think the cause is the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza are confusing cause and effect. The fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is therefore a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Far from Israel occupying Palestinian land in Judea and Samaria, it is the Palestinians who are living within the ancient Jewish homeland. Israel does not wish to rule them and they can have a state of their own, provided they accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and provided a Palestinian state is demilitarised so that it does not possess the means to destroy Israel. To this statement of historical truth and the most elementary requirements of morality and justice, the Palestinians' reply was unequivocal. The BBC reports: Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Israeli leader's speech 'torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region'. Another Abbas aide, Yasser Abed Rabbo, told the AFP news agency that recognition of Israel's Jewish character was a demand for Palestinians 'to become part of the global Zionist movement'. The militant Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, said the speech reflected Mr Netanyahu's 'racist and extremist ideology'. Well, all that rather seems to make Netanyahu's point for him. How can there be a 'two state solution' when the Palestinians refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? Quite obviously, such a solution is off the table as far as the Palestinians are concerned. So now the situation is clear for even the most blinkered to see. It's not the wretched settlements but the very existence of a Jewish state that is total anathema to the Palestinians. Yet as far as Obama is concerned, it is not the Palestinians who are the problem but Israel, which must now be forced to surrender its security to them— even while the so-called moderates of Fatah threaten to resume open warfare because of Netanyahu's temerity in stating the truth of the Jews' right to their own land and with Jerusalem its historic and undivided capital. Thus the veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeeb Erekat, who said that Netanyahu will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him with this feeble state... instantly threatened a resumption of violence: 'President Obama, the ball is in your court tonight,' Erekat said. 'You have the choice tonight. You can treat Netanyahu as a prime minister above the law and ... close off the path of peace tonight and set the whole region on the path of violence, chaos, extremism and bloodletting. As the Jerusalem Post noted, however, Netanyahu espoused the vision of a Palestinian state living at peace alongside Israel, and reaffirmed that Israel would build no new settlements and take control of no more West Bank land. Just as Obama wanted. So now will Obama pick up that ball and ask the Palestinians very nicely if they could possibly accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? After all, what could be more reasonable than that? Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
J STREET DISTORTED POLL RESULTS. IN ACTUALITY, ISRAELIS ARE AGAINST SETTLEMENT FREEZE
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 14, 2009. |
|
This comes from yesterday's IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis. This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA. IMRA analysis of the poll is at www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43912 Below is the IMRA Response to J Street. IMRA blasts 'distorted' poll that says Israelis against settlement freeze |
|
J Street's hysterical and inaccurate response (see [A] below) to the poll is indicative of its shallowness. The poll was commissioned by IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis and not Ariel University Center. The poll was carried out by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute headed by Professor Yitzchak Katz, a top pollster in Israel. J Street selectively cites the only poll out of 5 published polls that indicated support for Obama's freeze. And anyone reading the Dahaf (Dr. Mina Tzemach) poll for Yediot Ahronot would realize that there is a problem with citing the headline-making result. When Dr. Tzemach asked Israelis "Should Netanyahu accept Obama's demands or reject them even at the cost of sanctions" without citing what the demands were she yielded the result of Yes 56% No 40%. But in the very same poll, when she asked "Should construction for natural growth be permitted in the settlements?" the results were Yes 54% No 42%. So the poll J Street cites also finds that the Israeli public opposes Obama's demands to freeze settlement construction for "natural growth" As for the use of polls to promote a radical position, a week before President Obama's inauguration, J Street used the device of a public opinion poll of American Jews to promote sanctions against Israel if it fails to heed their marching orders. Here is what they promoted with their poll questions: #1 Threaten sanctions against Israel to force it to accept their program. Poll question: Below is a list of actions the United States could take to try convincing the Palestinians and Israelis to accept this peace agreement today. For each action, please mark whether you approve or disapprove that action. — Publicly state which party is responsible for blocking the agreement from being reached. #2 Suggest that American support for Israel promotes anti-Semitism Poll question: I am concerned that other Americans will end up resenting American Jews because of America's perceived favoritism toward Israel under all circumstances. ##3 Promote arguments geared to erode support for Israel Poll question: With Hamas launching rockets into southern Israel that killed many Israeli civilians and Israel launching air and ground strikes that killed many Palestinian civilians, neither side has a monopoly on who is right and who is wrong. Poll question: With hundreds of Palestinian civilian deaths and a humanitarian crisis resulting from a month of no electricity and clean water throughout Gaza, Israel's response to Hamas' attacks was disproportionate Poll question: Israeli military actions that target terrorists, but kill Palestinian civilians create more terrorism instead of preventing terrorism Poll question: Israel has the right to defend itself, but it must also take into account humanitarian considerations and avoid collective punishment of the entire Palestinian population by closing the borders and causing major civilian hardship J Street certainly has every right to express its support for and argue the merits of what they consider to be an Arab Israeli "peace plan". But its one thing to participate in the debate of ideas. It is far another to promote sanctions against Israel to force it to adopt J Street's ideas. And it goes far beyond the issue of respecting the Israeli democratic process. Shame on J Street.
[A] "J Street blasts 'distorted' poll that says Israelis against settlement
freeze"
The pro-Israel group[sic] J Street on Friday blasted a poll released earlier this week that said a majority of Israelis are against a settlement freeze, calling the poll 'politically motivated and distorted'. The poll, which was later picked up by the Associated Press and other news outlets, said that 56% of Israelis support continued settlement construction. J Street's statement read: "Today's quasi-poll, sponsored by Ariel University Center, the only settlement university, and published only in the clear rightist Makor Rishon-Hatzofe newspaper and not in any mainstream Hebrew press, is a good example of the half-truths and lies that will be injected into the debate. The politically motivated and distorting wording of the poll questions is clear to anyone who reads them." According to J Street, the poll is an example of the 'trickery and deceit' that settlers and their supporters will use "in an effort to mislead the Obama Administration and the American public about Israeli sentiment regarding settlements." The J Street statement also mentions a recent poll by Dahaf and one by Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot that found a majority of Israelis support a settlement freeze and 'acquiescence by Prime Minister Netanyahu to U.S. demands'. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: HE DID GOOD IN TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 14, 2009. |
|
I am greatly appreciative of the Zionist tone of the just-completed words of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He said things that have very badly needed to be said for a long time: It's time we faced the truth of why peace has been so elusive. The root of the problem is not our presence in Judea and Samaria. It is the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the right of the Jewish people in its historic homeland. There was violence against Jews here before there was a single soldier in Judea and Samaria. Even those referred to as the moderate members of the Palestinian Authority won't say, "Israel is the nation of the Jewish people." __________ Every time we have gotten close to an agreement with the Palestinians, they have retreated and raised their demands. We have tried many things. Claims that withdrawal from land will lead to peace have not proven to be so. "Every retreat by us was met with thousands of suicide terror bombings and rockets. We vacated the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter and received a rain of missiles on our communities and our children." __________ For 3,500 years there has been a connection between our people and this land. This is the land of our forefathers. Abraham walked here, and Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Here our identity was forged. Our legitimacy does not derive from the catastrophes that have befallen us historically, leading to the Holocaust. (This was a direct response to Obama!) This is the homeland of the Jewish people. It is our right to build here. __________ But we must face realities. There is also a Palestinian community living in our homeland. We don't want to rule over them. We should be two free peoples living side by side. He is willing to start negotiations immediately to improve conditions, to develop entrepreneurship and more. This enhances peace. __________ Before we can approach the idea of a Palestinian state, however, certain issues must be addressed: [] The Palestinians must acknowledge that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu said that we will continue to build for natural growth in our settlements. The settlers are not enemies of the state, he declared, but pioneers, Zionists, and principled people. (Good to have this said!) Further, said Netanyahu, the Palestinians must stop incitement, create law and order in their communities and decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. We will never sit at the table with the terrorists of Hamas. (Which precludes a unity government as Abbas and Obama envision it.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Other issues Netanyahu touched upon were the overriding danger of Iran, and the need to expand the circle of reconciliation for regional peace. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, he said "Palestinian state." He might have/should have referred to an entity less than a state, as he did previously. This was his caving to Obama and the international community in the face of extraordinary pressure. And on this I expect to hear from some of my readers because there is an issue of principles that should not be enunciated, even if they will not be fulfilled. Better Benny Begin's statement that if the "two state solution" is the only solution then there is no solution. The fact, however, is that he attached so many provisos to this, that it is clear that he does not believe this will ever come to be. What is more, early statements from the right wing of his coalition make it clear that they will make sure none of this comes to fruition. (They are something less than happy with what he has said in this regard.) And if truth be told, what he has described is less than a sovereign state, even though he used the word "state." ~~~~~~~~~~ PA negotiator Saeb Erekat has said that we can wait a thousand years for them to sit at the table with us, given these conditions. Khaled Abu Toameh is reporting that in Ramallah they are saying the speech is worse than they had expected and may trigger a new intifada. Netanyahu is being called "a swindler and a liar" and the person who buried the peace process. From the office of Abbas: "The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations. It has also placed restrictions on all efforts to achieve peace and constitutes a clear challenge to the Palestinian, Arab and American positions." Surely, as we take the measure of the speech, these reactions are important. ~~~~~~~~~~ Already I'm reading in various sources that Netanyahu "endorsed" a Palestinian state. Words are important. Olmert endorsed such a state. Olmert couldn't wait to give up half our country and half our capital so that this state might come into being. Netanyahu's message, as I read it, was that, if this and this and this precondition were to be met, he would be willing to consider such a state. But until such conditions are met (they won't be) we cannot even approach the idea of this state and certainly cannot start negotiations to bring it into being. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement. He said: "It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized. And he said: "The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: 'Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.'"Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people." And he said: "...the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction". This says "You want a Palestinian state? OK. But these are my terms up front before I agree to it." Metaphorically, this is "Put up, or shut up." And it puts our rights and our security before the "need" to create such a state. ~~~~~~~~~~ More will follow as there is careful analysis of his words and various reactions are recorded. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
NETANYAHU CALLS FOR DEMILITARIZED(WHICH WILL BE ARMED) PALESTINIAN STATE
Posted by Jake Levi, June 14, 2009. |
|
Netanyahu blew an otherwise working program when he said no new settlements'. The new settlements are the lifeline to holding Yesha and securing the population centers . He could have had a solid support from his coalition. But he doesnt commit to what we need, security, in land that prevents Arabs from setting up rockets and mortars to bombard our towns. The settlements provide an interlocking system of mututal support that we must have, or be perennially bombarded by our enemies. Two articles about Netanyahu's speech below. |
|
PM lays down conditions for peace in foreign policy address
by Gil Hoffman and the Jerusalem Post Staff.
In a much-anticipated foreign policy address Sunday night Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called for the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel, but only if the Palestinians recognize Israel's nature as a Jewish state. Netanyahu said that he embraced President Barack Obama's vision, adding, however, that the Holocaust was not the reason for the establishment of the Jewish state. The prime minister said that the descendants of the Palestinian refugees must not be resettled within Israel borders and that Jerusalem must remain united. Israel, he said, would not build any new settlements or expropriate new land for existing settlements. "Peace has always been our objective," Netanyahu began. "Our prophets always envisioned peace; we bless each other with Shalom; our prayers end in peace." "I support the idea of regional peace that is being led by Obama," Netanyahu said, adding that he was willing to meet any Arab leader anywhere. "I turn to Arab leaders: Let's make peace, I am ready," Netahyahu said. "I am willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut — to meet anytime and anywhere." Netanyahu warned of the threat emanating from Iran, saying, "The biggest threat to Israel, and the middle east and all of humanity is the meeting between radical Islamism and nuclear weaponry." Netanyahu called on the Palestinians to "begin peace talks immediately, and without preconditions." Citing the "heavy toll" the ongoing conflict has taken and mentioning the death of his brother, Yonatan, Netanyahu said, "I don't want war. Nobody in Israel wants war." "If the advantages of peace are so clear, we must ask — why is peace still far? What is perpetuating the conflict for over 60 years? We must reach the root of the struggle," he continued. "Let me use the most simple words — the root of the struggle is the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The initial Arab refusal was to a Jewish state in any location, before Israeli presence in the West Bank," the prime minister said. "The closer we get to an agreement with the Palestinians, the further it is rejected," he continued. "We tried a withdrawal with an agreement, without one, a partial withdraw and we offered a near-complete withdraw. We uprooted Jewish settlers from their homes, and received a barrage of missiles in return." "Sadly, even the Palestinian moderates won't say the most simple statement — Israel is the Jewish national state, and will remain as such. "To achieve peace, courage and honesty are necessary from both sides. The Palestinians must say — 'enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel's right to exist, and want to live by their side.' "A public Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is a prerequisite for regional peace," Netanyahu said. "In the heart of Israel there lives a large group of Palestinians," the prime minister continued, noting his will to see a demilitarized Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel. "For peace," he said, "we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces. "We ask that the US commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another 'Hamastan.' And Israel can't agree to that." "I told Obama that if we agree on the essence, the semantics won't matter," Netanyahu added. "If we receive a commitment to Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and a demilitarized Palestinian state, we can reach a final agreement." Netanyahu continued to stress that Jerusalem would remain a united Jewish state. "In the interim there is no intention to create new settlements or expand existing towns, while not preventing the natural needs of settlers, who are not enemies," he added. "Palestinians must decide between the way of peace and the way of Hamas. Israel won't negotiate with a group that calls for Israel's destruction. Hamas won't even let the Red Cross visit our captive soldier Gilad Schalit," Netanyahu said. "Kadima Pleased with Speech; Coalition MKs have Mixed Feelings"
by Maayana Miskin
Gil Ronen contributed to this report.
(IsraelNN.com) Members of Knesset from across the political spectrum reacted Sunday night to a speech by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu outlining his diplomatic goals. Netanyahu called for the creation of a "Palestinian state" beside Israel, but also insisted that the PA first recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which it has so far refused to do, and that it agree to disarm. In addition, Netanyahu said Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel. MKs from Likud were largely enthusiastic about the speech, but some criticized Netanyahu's use of the term "Palestinian state." The Kadima party, on the other hand, praised the Prime Minister for stating for the first time that his goal is indeed a "Palestinian state," but criticized his other positions. 
MK Danny Danon of Likud said he and fellow Likud MKs would pressure Netanyahu to rescind his statements regarding an Arab state west of the Jordan River. "The Prime Minister said 'Palestinian state'— we'll try to get that part erased," he said. "The speech was brilliant, but Netanyahu gave in to American pressure," he added. "The residents of Israel are not laboratory mice of the new American president," he said. "Enough Israeli citizens have been killed because of unilateral concessions on our part... I will use all of my influence, among members of the faction and the coalition, to make sure the Prime Minister fails in his aim to create a Palestinian state." 'The Arabs won't accept it' Another Likud MK, Yariv Levin, said he supports efforts to reach peace— and therefore, will oppose Netanyahu's call for a PA state. The creation of a PA state would bring conflict, not peace, he said. "There's no chance that the Arabs will accept the Prime Minister's terms, and therefore continued building is what will determine the future," Levin explained, calling on the government to allow Jews to build in Judea and Samaria. Responses from within the Kadima party were more positive. Kadima head Tzipi Livni called the speech "a step in the right direction," but added that Kadima would wait to see Netanyahu's actions, and would not be impressed by words alone. MK Otniel Schneller took a stronger stance, calling on his party to support Netanyahu. "The Prime Minister has recognized that Israel has an immediate interest in establishing a Palestinian state. Kadima has a responsibility to provide support," he said. Kadima "cannot act like an opposition party when it comes to this issue," he warned. Schneller is a member of the Shaul Mofaz camp in Kadima, which favors joining Netanyahu's coalition. Kadima MKs Magali Whbee and Zeev Boim were less enthusiastic than Schneller. Whbee called the speech "an improvement, but a very small one," noting with satisfaction that Netanyahu used the phrase "Palestinian state," but adding, that "he made sure to wrap them inside innumerable conditions that could make them unpracticable." Whbee called Netanyahu's oration "the speech of two states and one thousand conditions." Boim accused Netanyahu of torpedoing negotiations with the PA by setting too many conditions, saying, "This is not how you move forward." 
Nationalist Camp: PM Betrayed his Voters Responses from the nationalist camp were largely negative. Netanyahu "betrayed the voters' will," said MK Michael Ben-Ari of National Union. The Prime Minister's willingness to change his stance on a PA state "demonstrates that the Israeli elections are unnecessary— the decisions are made in Washington," he said. He called the speech "a speech of surrender to the dictates of Obama." MK Zevulun Orlev of the Jewish Home party expressed disappointment as well. "Unfortunately, Netanyahu paid lip service to a Palestinian state, and in doing so, disappointed most coalition parties, particularly the Jewish Home," he said. "The Netanyahu speech requires a serious discussion in the coalition in order to ensure that the democratic decision in the polls will find its expression in the government's national policy," Orlev added. Initial reactions to the speech among residents of Judea and Samaria were mixed. Pinchas Wallerstein, former Mayor of the Binyamin region, said he was diappointed with the fact that Netanyahu used the phrase "Palestinian state" but noted that he also spoke of "normal life" in the communities of Judea and Samaria. "This means we will continue normal growth in the communities," he told Voice of Israel radio, "without going overboard." PA: Bibi Sabotaging Talks A spokesman for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas accused Netanyahu of harming Israel-PA talks by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel and that millions of foreign Arabs claiming the right to live in Israel be settled elsewhere. "Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions," said spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah The Palestinian Authority secretary, Yassir Abed Rabo, called Netanyahu's speech "worthless," and insulted the Prime Minister personally, calling him "a fraud, a cheat and a liar." Senior PA negotiator Saeb Erikat said that "Netanyahu will have to wait a thousand years befire he finds a Palestinian who agrees to his suggestions. He has unilaterally eliminated all of the final status subjects like Jerusalem, refugees and security." "I turn to President Obama," he said— "Netanyahu's speech is a slap in the face to your speech."
Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com
|
|
STRAIGHT TALK: NETANYAHU'S RESPONSE TO OBAMA
Posted by Gerald Steinberg, June 14, 2009. |
|
In his Bar Ilan University speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu accepted President Obama's challenge of frank talk between allies. Before Mr. Netanyahu said yes to the possibility of a Palestinian state at the end of a realistic peace process, he spoke about the roots of the conflict and the narrative, and on these issues, more than anything other, he differed from Obama's Cairo University speech. The conflict, he reminded Washington (and Europe), did not result from the 1967 war, but rather from the intense, consistent and often violent Arab refusal to acknowledge Israel as the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, and to the Jewish right to self-determination in this homeland. On this fundamental requirement for mutual acceptance, Palestinian leaders continue to maintain the old rejectionist stance. Netanyahu reminded Obama as well as his Israeli critics that even the most moderate Palestinians have been unwilling to acknowledge the Jewish historical roots in this land. Unless this obstacle is overcome, Netanyahu emphasized repeatedly, there was no realistic possibility for a stable and lasting peace agreement. Similarly, in contrast to Obama's emphasis on Jewish suffering and the Holocaust, both in Cairo and then in Buchenwald with Elie Wiesel, Netanyahu replied that Israel was founded on the basis of historic and political rights, and not in response to antisemitism and suffering. The history of 2000 years of political powerlessness and persecution served to highlight the need for restoration of Jewish self-determination. In the strongest line of the speech, Netanyahu declared that had Israel come into existence earlier, the tragedy of the Holocaust would have been averted. What went unsaid was the degree to which Obama's misplaced emphasis reinforced the Arab narrative in which the creation of Israel resulted from European guilt. As part of this frank talk, Netanyahu told his audience— Israelis, Americans, and Arabs — that in order to make progress towards a two state solution, the legitimacy of the Jewish state will have to explicitly recognized. In addition, everyone would need to recognize that the problem of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 war would have to be solved outside of Israel's borders, in contrast to the continued effort to use them to change Israeli demography. Just as Israel had absorbed mass of Jewish refugees from Arab lands — their numbers were roughly equal to the Palestinian refugees— and despite the economic difficulties of this process, the Arab states and the world would need to do the same. Without finding a solution to the refugee issue outside Israeli borders, there is no founding for a stable peace agreement. Netanyahu also spoke frankly to his Israeli constituents— the voters for Likud and the other coalition partners that recently returned him to the position of Prime Minister. The taboo on a Palestinian state in any form was broken— the international (meaning primarily American) situation required recognition of this reality. The Palestinians ware entitled to their own flag, anthem, and country. Thus, the issue which ostensibly led to the failure of post-election negotiations with Tzippi Livni and Kadima for a broad coalition government suddenly disappeared. And while Netanyahu called for American and international guarantees that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized, in practice, this will be difficult to ensure, as events in Gaza have demonstrated. Overall, in this speech, the Prime Minister went somewhat further than both his critics and his supporters should have expected, including acceptance of a settlement freeze, at least with respect to additional territory. On Jerusalem, no new ground was broken, as Netanyahu declared that the city would not be divided, and that the members of all religions would continue to be able to pray at their holy sites. Obama's speech also treated Jerusalem carefully and without details, suggesting agreement (either tacit or explicit) that negotiations on this very complex issue should be left for later. But this is only an opening position in what all sides recognize will be a difficult negotiation process, primarily between Obama and Netanyahu, and also between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. With the big speeches behind them, both leaders will now have to work on the much more difficult task of translating noble words into successful policies. Gerald Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. |
|
OBAMA'S CANDIDATE LOST. HAD HE WON, OBAMA WOULD HAVE CREDITED HIS
CAIRO SPEECH
Posted by Amil Imani, June 14, 2009. |
|
This is some data through a reliable source from inside of the Ministry of Interior Tehran. Total 37.4 Million 81% "President Obama favored the losing candidate in Iran's election"
Friday night, June 12, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was already on his way to victory in Iran's turbulent presidential election although only the first votes had been counted. By Saturday morning, it was clear he had won a landslide for a second term, widening the gap with his closest rival opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. According to final results, the incumbent won 62.6 percent of the vote, Mousavi 33.75 percent. This contradicted Western predictions that the record-breaking turnout of 85 percent of Iran's 46 million eligible voters favored the challenger. Yet strangely enough, even then, Washington and the US media were still doggedly insisting that that the reformist Mousavi could still make it in a run-off, although that door had been finally slammed shut by the president's broad majority. Indeed a high-ranking White House official, quoted by a British TV correspondent, even stated that a second round was inevitable and Mir Hossein Mousavi was bound to win. Even before that, President Barack Obama said optimistically: "Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways." Their insistence on hoping against hope for a change of presidents in Tehran remains a big puzzle, now that it is obvious that the Islamic Republic's exercise in democracy was carefully stage-managed for a predetermined outcome. This became apparent in the next developments. By Saturday afternoon, riot police and Revolutionary Guards thugs were clashing with thousands of protesters who surged onto the streets of Tehran after their defeated hero, Mousavi, said he strongly protests "the many obvious violations that could lead to tyranny in Iran." Police blocked him when he tried to hold a press conference and blacked his efforts to send text messages to his supporters. Iran's ultimate authority, supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered "all Iranians to support the elected president." So how come the Obama administration, with so much at stake, continued to back the loser well after his defeat could no longer be denied?
DEBKAFILE'S WASHINGTON SOURCES HAVE TWO EXPLANATIONS: 1. The White House was given erroneous intelligence evaluations about the way Iran's presidential election was managed. The administration's Iranian experts missed the point that in Middle East politics (except for Israel) it is not the people who determine an election, the shape of government and its policies but the unelected head of the tribe — in this case supreme ruler Khamenei. This was the second time in a week that an American intelligence prediction missed out on a Middle East election result. Having widely anticipated a massive Hizballah win in Lebanon's parliamentary elections of Sunday, June 7, Washington was stunned by the victory of the pro-Western camp. 2. Mousavi's portrayal as a "reformist" by the Western media was false. As prime minister in the 1980s under the Islamic revolution's founding father, Ayatollah Khomeini, he laid the foundations for Iran's nuclear program and international terror network ("exporting revolution"). He was therefore hardly the figure to step out of the Islamic regime's value system and make good on his campaign platform of change. But the White House decided to seize on Mousavi's build-up as a candidate capable of beating the hard-line Ahmadinjed and leading Iran to change in order to vindicate Obama's hopes of a successful dialogue with Tehran. By falling through, this scheme placed a big question mark over the US president's essential strategy of diplomatically engaging rogue states to de-emphasize conflict. The way the North Korean crisis was handled illustrates this point. Closely in step with Iran on their nuclear and missile development, Pyongyang has brought its relations with the United States to the brink of a military confrontation whose conclusion no one can predict. Finally removing the gloves, Washington persuade UN Security Council members to unite Friday, June 12, behind a resolution imposing harsh sanctions for the North Korean nuclear test last month. US warships were authorized to search North Korean vessels for suspected nuclear materials, financial measures were tightened. The Obama administration will now have to follow through on the Security Council's directives — even in the face of North Korea's threat to treat a US embargo as "an act of war" and respond with military, including nuclear, action. Failure to do so would make America a paper tiger which no US president can afford especially under the eye of the re-elected Ahmadinejad. Newly empowered for a second four-year term in office, Ahmadinejad need not be expected to let Obama off the hook for supporting his leading challenger. The tough Iranian president will drive a harder bargain than ever when they sit down to talk. And in other parts of the Middle East, despite the US envoy George Mitchell's unquestioned diplomatic skills, the tour he began in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, moving on to Cairo, Amman, Beirut and finally Damascus on Saturday, has produced no breakthroughs. Iran's election results, hailed enthusiastically by the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami, are a shot in the arm for the most radical forces in the region, such as Syria and the Lebanese Hizballah. DEBKAfile's political sources advise Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to take Ahmadinejad's victory into account when he finalizes the text of the major policy speech he is scheduled to deliver at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv Sunday, June 14. Israel is stuck for another four years with the same aggressive champion of a nuclear-armed Iran and radical Islamic terror, hater of Israel and Holocaust denier, as before. He will now maintain that his positions are endorsed by the Iranian people. Originally billed as the Israeli response to Obama's Cairo speech of June 4 and his policies on the issues in dispute between them, Netanyahu has the choice of echoing Washington's wishful thinking on the Middle East or looking at the real problems of the region squarely through the prism of Israel's interests. If he wavers between the two courses, he will end up with a wishy-washy product that satisfies no one.
Amil Imani is an Iranian activist living in the U.S.A. Contact
him at amil_imani@yahoo.com
|
|
SO, WHAT IF WHITE BOYS CAN'T JUMP?
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 14, 2009. |
|
Excuse me but, how come the National Basketball Association (NBA) got such an excellent grade in "Diversity" while colleges and universities and employers at every level, who don't fully embrace the same dynamic, are penalized severely? Please note, in the news release below, an organization that employs in its main work force over 90% black athletes is given high approval ratings. How come? Where is the "Diversity"? What happened to the white boys and Latinos that constitute 80% of the US population? Why aren't there 8 out of 10 whites and Latinos playing professional basketball? The answer is quite simple, as we all know— "White boys can't jump!" Of course, all of the above discussion is tongue in cheek. Understandably, the NBA hires people that can do the best job, can perform their work load most efficiently and, as a result, create winning teams. How is it that colleges, universities, employment places at all levels, can't do the same thing and admit and hire people most qualified to do the job without consideration of minority status, gender or anything else other than past performance history and anticipated success? Was not that the American ideal? Was not that the critical reason most of our ancestors came to this country? Do we not want the best candidates admitted and hired? Do we not want the US to benefit nationwide and internationally from the same sort of "Diversity" system as that embraced by the National Basketball Association and, every other sports organization, for that matter? Or, are our athletic teams more important to this country's ultimate success and status in this very competitive world? What happened to the merit system that has made us the dominant, most envied nation in recent history? "Diversity"
A report from the Orlando-based Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport gives the NBA an "A" on its 2009 Racial and Gender Report card, but showed a few areas to improve. The report lauded the NBA for remaining the industry leader on issues related to race and gender hiring practices," while highlighting room for improvement in the positions of general manager, club vice presidents and senior administrative staff. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
MADNESS! OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SILENT AS IRANIAN STUDENTS ARE SLAUGHTERED IN STREETS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 14, 2009. |
|
Obama Administration Announces They Will Negotiate With Fraudulent Regime This was posted on the Gateway Pundit website. |
|
US officials today said they would not accept Ahmadinejad's victory. Then later today they already announced they would negotiate with the corrupt killer regime anyway. Meanwhile the Obama Administration stands by as students and democracy protesters are slaughtered in the streets of Tehran. Hillary Clinton said this earlier today: "We, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide." It looks like the people decided they had enough of this violent regime, Hillary. No surprise, the Obama Administration is still deciding what to do: The Obama administration would not describe the outcome as legitimate or illegitimate or deem a victory by Mousavi as necessarily better. 
Iranian blogger Azarmehr is following the developments. 
The Tehran Journal claims 50-100 protesters are dead. Iran Press News has video of the massive protest. 
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
IRANIANS ASKING FOR MORAL SUPPORT
Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, June 14, 2009. |
|
These are cries for help. Some were found on the BBC and others were left on Jerusalem Post. Will the world listen and respond? Will our president? Arya Diba, Tehran, Iran: Today Iranians taste the bitterness of tyranny and dictatorship more than ever. This election is definitely infected by fraud. There was unprecedented turn out just because many people hoped to get rid of Ahmadinejad. The world must know the result is not what Iranians wanted. Meanwhile this morning the BBC is suddenly blocked!:S I'm accessing this page via a proxy. Ali, Tehran: There is a consensus that elections here were rigged and this is would be the first phase of a coup by IRGC. Bloody purges are b underway. please support the iranian people in ayway you can. We need your help now more than ever. Morteza, shiraz: Please post my comment. The election has been massively rigged by the ruling government. all the people voted for reformists. They wrote Mousavi on the ballots but the authorities read the ballots Ahmadinejad. A velvet coup is going on. Text message service is not working, internet is disconected in some cities, anti-riot police is battering people with batons, and most probably Karoubi and Mousavi are under home arrest. Please reflect what is going on in the streets of Tehran. Sirwan, Tehran: Hey world! this is NOT our president. we want you all to know, don't call him President, don't let him come to your country, don't invite him to meetings, here a Kudeta has happened by regime, here mas of fakes has happened in the election, the condition is extremely fragile and people are so angry. Current situation in Iran on Saturday night: Cell phone network is down. Facebook, Youtube, and news websites are censored (filtered) and police agents are beating people in streets. Reza — Iran: I see demonstrators carrying Death to Khamenei signs in the streets of Tabriz Some are setting government buildings on fire. Police are staying back some have even joined the demonstrators. This is happening all across the country. Son of an Iranian diplomat — Iran: 54. The world must stand swiftly aside the Iranian people! This opportunity must not be lost! Immediately boycott the regime and they are gone for good! Support the Iranian people by calling for your governments to boycott this regime! It could be the first time in history in a globalised world, where people from all over the world can get rid of evil collectively! Mousavi and the others need international support in order to courageously confront Khamenei! This is a great opportunity! Minoo — Iran: WE TOLD YOU SO. This is the truth about Iran. To think the mullahs would allow the public to brush them aside through "democratic means" is insane. The Islamic Republic is incapable of reform and the ONLY solution for Iran is REGIME CHANGE. We do not need war or sanctions only REGIME CHANGE. The Iranian people showed the world they are ready for change through civilized means. We appeal to the people through out the world, the deceitful government of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad should not be recognized by the international community.WE WANT TO BE FREE. Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com |
|
WINGSPREAD
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 13, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go
to |
|
OBAMA IS RIGHT, IT'S TIME FOR HONESTY
Posted by Saul Goldman, June 13, 2009. |
|
This was written by Daniel Gordis and appeared in the
Jerusalem Post and is archived at
Daniel, Well done. Honesty, however, is almost unobtainable. Menahem Mendl of Kotz once said: man is a liar, but most of all he lies to himself. Probably, we will discover that Tom Friedman was right when he called Israel a shtetl with an air force. But, in the end even the air force can't save us because our real enemy is not in Gaza or in Ramallah; he is in Tel Aviv and the Knesset. But, then this was the real failure of Zionism. It failed to transform the wandering, urbane Jew into a civilized man and as Renan or Will Durant will tell you all civilized people belong to the earth or their little part of it that once we called Eretz Israel. Saul Goldman |
|
In the days leading up to his landmark speech in Cairo, US President Barack Obama said it was time for "honesty" between the United States and Israel. Now he has spoken, and we should respond in kind. For Obama is right — it is time, at long last, for honesty. Too many analyses of the speech have ignored the fact that it was addressed primarily to the Muslim world, and was delivered in Egypt. And in that setting, Obama insisted that the US-Israel relationship could not be upended. He mentioned the Holocaust, (implicitly) berated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his Holocaust denial, quoted the Talmud and called on Hamas to recognize Israel and abandon violence. Not bad. To be sure, it was not the speech that many Israelis would have written. Obama's articulated position on Iranian nuclear power is unacceptable, just as an absolute freeze on natural growth in "settlements," even in places where settlements are essentially cities, is both unfair and thoroughly unrealistic. And linking Israel's right to exist to the Holocaust is a significant intellectual and moral mistake. We could go on, but to spend our time pointing to all our disagreements with Obama while avoiding his call for honesty would be a mistake. With stunning clarity, he has told the world where he stands. Now it is time for us to do the same. What are we committed to? What are our red lines? Do we even know? Ironically, what Obama's first shots across the bows of both Israel and the Palestinians have inadvertently highlighted for us is that we're a country that does not know how to be honest, even with itself. For too long we have avoided the national conversation that would have been required for us to have a vision as clear as Obama's. Now is the time to have that conversation, and then, as Obama has requested, to be honest about what we decide.
WHERE SHOULD we begin? As but one example, let's begin with some of the questions that the West Bank raises: Are we ever willing to give up the West Bank? For a moment, let's set aside the obvious security issue and the devastating consequences if Kassam rockets start flying from the West Bank as well. Let's assume for a minute (a wild assumption, I admit) that the Palestinians decide that it really is time to move on, to abandon terror and accept a division of the land. Are we willing? I believe that we don't know anymore. Our unwillingness to state our position is not a reflection of dishonesty or of hiding. It's simply a result of the fact that we have for so long seen no possibility of progress on the Palestinian front that we've stopped asking ourselves what we would do if we could. So let's be honest: What would we do? Are we willing to leave the West Bank, land that is no less ancestrally Jewish and religiously significant than any other part of Israel? If we are committed to staying there permanently, for historical, theological or even security reasons, isn't it time just to say that? Or to annex it and stop pretending we haven't made that decision? When some of us speak about not making any change until the Palestinians have built a genuinely democratic infrastructure (bottom-up, we call it), are we serious? Or do we simply assume that they'll never accomplish that under present circumstances, so what we're effectively doing is announcing, though not with the "honesty" that Obama is rightly calling for, that we plan to stay, no matter what?
IF WE PLAN to stay, which could well be defensible, let's be honest about the endgame. What do we plan for the Palestinian population there? The status quo forever? Are we going to make them citizens, and thus further erode Israel's fragile Jewish majority? Are we going to give them some sort of citizenship that involves full civic rights but not the right to vote on matters that determine the nature of the state? Is that the democracy we seek? Do we have any alternative? Or are we planning to move the Palestinians to some other location (a plan which didn't work very well with India and Pakistan, but which worked flawlessly in Cyprus)? But if, alternatively, we do plan to leave the West Bank, what would we do if it turned into Hamastan, as happened in Gaza? We had no contingency plan for Gaza, and the results have been devastating. Will we make the same mistake again? And if we could solve the security issue, will we force all the Jews on the West Bank to leave? Or will we insist on their right to continue living there, even if under Palestinian rule? And if Jews do have to be moved, are we accepting the international community's tacit premise that only Jews can be moved (out of Gaza, and later, out of the West Bank)? Why can't Arabs be moved? As even Benny Morris has noted, the Peel Commission "recommended that the bulk of the 300,000 Arabs who lived in the territory earmarked for Jewish sovereignty should be transferred, voluntarily or under compulsion, to the Arab part of Palestine or out of the country altogether," and suggested that 1,250 Jews living in those areas slated for Arab sovereignty be moved as well, in "an exchange of population." How has it come to be that what the British once advocated we are too timid to raise? If Jews had to leave Gaza and might eventually have to leave the West Bank, is the movement of (some?) Arabs from Israel so it can remain a Jewish state so obviously out of the question? Why?
THESE ARE the questions we never discuss, because each of our leaders inherits a coalition so fragile that even raising such questions threatens to topple the government. So what if we were to use this new "crisis" as an opportunity? What if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were to begin speaking with the Americans, and with any Palestinians who publicly recognize our right to exist, but at the same time forged a coalition of Labor, Kadima, Israel Beiteinu and Likud, all of which called for dramatic electoral reform? He'd have the votes needed to pass the reform (several plans are ready) and make Israel governable. He'd make it possible for Israelis to finally talk about the issues we never discuss in the public square. He'd end the cynical and self-destructive culture of "Yisrabluff," and ultimately he'd make it possible for us to form a national consensus about which we could finally be honest — with the world, but more importantly, with ourselves. Imagine that. If Netanyahu seized this opportunity, Barack Obama, despite everything we didn't love about his Cairo address, might actually enable us to discuss our vision for the future of Israel. And with that, Obama may have saved the Jewish state. Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net |
|
CHRISTIAN MAN RAPED, MURDERED FOR REFUSING TO CONVERT TO ISLAM, FAMILY SAYS
Posted by Cpocerl, June 13, 2009. |
|
This was written by Nora Zimmett for Fox News.
It is archived at
|
|
A young Christian man was raped and brutally murdered in Pakistan for refusing to convert to Islam, and police are doing nothing about it, the victim's brother and minister told FOXNews.com. Pakistani police reportedly found the body of Tariq "Litto" Mashi Ghauri — a 28-year-old university student in Sargodha, Pakistan — lying dead in a canal outside a rural village in Punjab Province on May 15. He had been raped and stabbed at least five times. "They have sexually abuse him, torture him with a knife on his testicle and genitals," Ghauri's brother, 24-year-old Salman Nabil Ghauri, said. "They have tortured him very badly, and after that they have stabbed five times with a knife and killed him." The family believes Litto Ghauri was murdered by the brothers of his Muslim girlfriend, Shazi Cheema, after they found him in a compromising sexual position with their sister. The Rev. Haroon Bhatti, a Christian clergyman in the village and a friend of the Ghauri family, said Cheema's three brothers came to Litto Ghauri's house on May 11 and gave him an ultimatum: Marry their sister and convert to Islam. Ghauri agreed to the marriage but refused to accept Islam, and the brothers kidnapped him at gunpoint and drove him to a remote farmhouse, where they tortured and murdered him, the minister said. "On that farmhouse — four days there — we all, Christians and family, were searching for him," the Rev. Bhatti said. "I was with him. I was searching for him." After police discovered the body, Ghauri's death was declared a homicide and the family filed paperwork with the Atta Shaheed police station in their small village, Adda 44SB. But Ghauri's brother said police still have not arrested the alleged killers and have refused to meet with his family. "They don't want to meet us, and the three of them who are murderers are outside," Salman Nabil Ghauri told FOXNews.com. "They are free. Nothing is happening to them. No investigation is running." The Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C., told FOXNews.com that they knew nothing of the incident but were looking into it. But one embassy official questioned the truth of the report. "On the face of it, this appears to be exaggerated," said the Pakistani official who asked not to be named. "This does not happen over there." The official said that minorities are very well represented in the Pakistani Parliament, and if someone in fact were murdered for not converting to Islam, "it would have been reported hugely." The embassy official added, "if an incident of that nature happened over there, there would have to be an investigation." Yet human rights watchdog groups say that what happened to Litto Ghauri is not uncommon because Christians in Pakistan are looked upon as the dregs of society. Pakistan's population is 97 percent Muslim, and Christians are only a very small part of the remaining 3 percent. "What the Muslim society has done in Pakistan is just associate low caste with being Christian," said Jeremy Sewall, Advocacy Director of the International Christian Concern, which first reported the killing. "Many of these people, they clean human waste and that's their job, and that's what Christians are known for in Pakistan." The Rev. Bhatti says that radical Muslims frequently try to trap Christian men into converting to Islam by using a woman as bait — and Ghauri suspects the involvement of his dead brother's girlfriend in trying to entrap him. "It's common to offer things — money, women — to Christians to convert," Bhatti said. Pakistan is one of the most hostile countries in the world for minority religions. The country still has blasphemy laws on the books that forbid saying or writing anything against Islam or the Koran. Punishment can include death. "You basically have a situation where people can kind of act with impunity in the public," said Paula Schriefer, advocacy director at Freedom House, a human rights group. "They use these laws to sort of settle scores ... or, in situations like this, actually engage in kind of forced conversions." The U.S. State Department's 2008 International Religious Freedom Report on Pakistan says, "Government policies do not afford equal protection to members of majority and minority religious groups." The Ministry of Religious Affairs, which is supposed to protect religious freedom, has a verse from the Koran on its masthead, the report said: "Islam is the only religion acceptable to God." While the U.S. government has provided millions of dollars in public outreach programs to help teach religious tolerance in Pakistan, human rights watchers say it's not sufficient. "There's probably not enough that the U.S. government is doing to really talk about this issue because it's such an important issue in Pakistan because faith is so important to them," said Sewall. The small Christian community is hoping that Ghauri's death will bring attention to the plight of minority religious groups in Pakistan. "Several incidents of Christian persecution go unnoticed in Pakistan because they occur in the furthest parts of Pakistan," the Rev. Bhatti said. "This is Pakistan — predominantly Muslim. So they're the rulers. They rule us." For Christian families like the Ghauris, living in a remote village in Pakistan, options are few. Because of their poverty they can neither leave nor help secure their own safety. "We have very little family," said Salman Nabil Ghauri, whose mother died years ago and whose father worked as a day laborer until the killing. "My father was a daily worker. Now he is earning nothing. He is fully mad now. He cannot understand anything — he is still in the shock of death. "My elder son is dead, and I am only one person. Where can I run? I cannot start my studies or run after my case. What should I do?" Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
A WREATH FOR OFFICER STEPHEN T. JOHNS
Posted by Carrie Devorah, June 12, 2009. |
|
I have been in touch with Wacknehut, Officer Johns employer. I have promoted the idea Officer Johns be given a special wreath laying at the National Law Enforcement Memorial, something officers I know support. I offered to pass this forward to media contacts to disseminate. This below is by David W. Foley and Susan P. Pitcher, both of the Wacknehut Security company. |
|
Many of you have asked how you might support and extend condolences to Mrs Johns and her family on the tragic death of her husband, Special Police Officer Stephen T. Johns. With concurrence of the family, WSI has established the Stephen T. Johns Memorial Fund. Those wishing to make a contribution to the fund can do so by sending a check or money order made payable to Zakiah Christina Johns c/o WSI to: Wachovia
If you would like to send a wire transfer, please contact Susan Pitcher at spitcher@wsihq.com for wiring instructions. As you know, SPO Johns was killed by an armed assailant on 10 June 2008 at the entrance to the Holocaust Museum. He was performing his duty protecting the guests, visitors and employees of the museum. It is clear that because of his heroic action and those of the other officers at the Museum, scores of innocent lives were saved. SPO Johns and his team selflessly and decisively acted to protect and defend the thousands of people present at the Museum that day. All of us at WSI join with you in expressing both our great sorrow for the loss of SPO Johns and our gratitude for the remarkable acts of courage displayed by the Holocaust Museum team during this incident. We are very proud of all our security guards, security protection officers and emergency personnel who work and train so hard to protect the personnel and property at our nation's most valuable sites. Please join me in expressing your appreciation for SPO Johns' service and know our thoughts and prayers are with Officer Johns' wife and children and the officers who stood tall with him. David W. Foley
Susan P. Pitcher
Carrie Devorah is an investigative photojournalist based in DC. Former religion editor of "Lifestyles" Magazine, her areas of focus are faith, homeland security and terrorism. Devorah is the sister of Jewish Press columnist Yechezkel Chezi Scotty Goldberg, victim of Egged Bus 19 bombing in 2004. Contact her at carriedev@gmail.com |
|
HOVERING ON HIGH: OBAMA SURVEYS THE WORLD
Posted by LEL, June 12, 2009. |
|
This was written by Charles Krauthammer
Contact him by email at letters@charleskrauthammer.com
It is archived at
|
|
WASHINGTON — When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above — above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama's lofty perception of himself as the great transcender. Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you. Thus: (A) He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand "Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." (Played a role?!) We have both sinned; let us bury the past and begin anew. Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds — while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well — but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who's to judge? That's the problem with Obama's transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn't mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight. A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Teheran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." True, France prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public places, in part to allow the force of law to protect Muslim women who might be coerced into wearing it by neighborhood fundamentalist gangs. But it borders on the obscene to compare this mild preference for secularization (seen in Muslim Turkey as well) to the violence that has been visited upon Copts, Maronites, Baha'i, Druze and other minorities in Muslim lands, and to the unspeakable cruelties perpetrated by Shiites and Sunnis upon each other. Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation" — disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He's showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect. Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
STOP THE SETTLEMENTS! END THE OCCUPATION! GIVE THE LAND BACK!
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 12, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Dave Weinbaum and it appeared in Jewish World Review. America: the land of the weak and the home of the meek |
|
One can certainly agree that when a nation takes away land from its rightful owners, without provocation, then it should stop building and adding settlements on aforesaid ground. Negotiations should take place to return said terrain to the aggrieved, immediately thereafter. Then?! Peace in our time. We can all sit around the campfire, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Such is the case now in a UN recognized country. The argument has always been that a conquering nation should be held responsible for misdeeds. It took phony wars, battles and atrocities to encroach on the victims' land, justifying the unjustifiable: displacement, theft of homes and territories, now populated mostly by the invaders. Years back, this new country constantly expanded its borders. Its armed forces conquered land that was governed and/or occupied by others who had been there for centuries before. Recent precedent abounds. This land grab will soon be on the substantial plate of the UN and a concern for freedom-loving, sensitive citizens of the world. A movement to rectify this horrible situation has been going on for 40 years. There's a growing faction that has legally and otherwise reoccupied what once was their territory. The organizations formed are clear about their goal to retake what was once theirs. "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."~ Thomas Jefferson The position of the Obama Administration in demanding Israel stop the West Bank settlements, implying that land will be the solution to Mid East peace, sets the precedent for a similar situation much closer to home. Aztlan, Mecha and La Raza (the race) represent thousands of Latinos who are demanding that the USSA (United Socialistic States of America) stop the settlements in all seven Southwest states. No more building in LA, San Fran, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Houston. Then we can see to the return of these lands to the rightful owner, Mexico. Think I'm inhaling peace-pipe smoke? Think again. As opposed to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Unlike Israel, there was no UN vote justifying America as a country before it was established. America subjugated the Southwest. Israel was the victim of Arab/Muslim invasion in 1947 and many wars and battles all after the UN confirmed Israel as a legal state. If truth be told, the USSA has substantial risk of legitimate claim against it, more so than Palestinians do against Israel. With the appointment of Her Honor Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Obama may have put the repatriation of the American Southwest to Mexico in play. Few know that the self-proclaimed superior Latina Judge was an active member of the National Council of La Raza (The Race) from 1998 'til 2004, while a sitting federal appellate judge. Remember, a Supreme Court Justice is, according to President Obama, a person who should " redistribute wealth. " That person should also be " sensitive " to people of tough circumstance and of minority status. Also, a Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointee and one could say is more powerful than a president constricted with term limits and political considerations. She would be one of only nine as opposed to one of 100 in the senate and one of 435 in the house. As the president appeases the Arab/Muslim world and throws its best ally, Israel, under the bus, gives Miranda rights to terrorists, confiscates the private sector, chucks the economy into an unprecedented multi-generational mess, can anyone discount his motive to " change " the borders of the USA? All you West Coasters who love Obama, get ready to say adios to your casas. Either that or learn to speak Espanola, if you haven't already. There should be an abundance of work if you stay. According to Carlos Mencia, there'll be plenty of " yobs." for crop pickers, restaurant workers and domestic help. Oh.and let us not forget the Native Americans. They're next. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
A CHALLENGE TO AMERICAN ZIONISTS
Posted by Jake Levi, June 12, 2009. |
|
This was written by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
Since 1995, I have repeatedly urged Zionist organizations to unite to save Israel from the Oslo death process. In April 1996 (the month before Binyamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister), I published a policy paper which proposed a New Zionist Congress whose goal would be to establish Israel on solid Jewish foundations. For this purpose I drafted a constitution of governance designed to transform Israel into an authentic and dynamic Jewish state. I had been teaching in Israel for almost twenty years, and, from time to time, I had spoken to various Israeli politicians. It was obvious to me that no major party had a well-conceived Zionist or nationalist program — and the same could be said of Israel's non-parliamentary Zionist organizations. The Likud had lost its original Zionist spirit (which lacked Jewish depth), and Zionist groups in Israel, however high-minded, were not geared to constitutional reform. I concluded that my grandiose proposal required the proactive cooperation of Zionist organizations in America. Here is what I said in the aforementioned policy paper: Insofar as any American Zionist organization is dominated by the Likud's self-effacing Jewish mentality, its accomplishments, historically speaking, will be marginal. With all due respect to their brilliant and dedicated leaders, Zionist organizations will have to undergo fundamental self-criticism if they are to ... prevent Israel's demise. I went on to propose¸ among other things, that Zionist organizations promote the aliya of influential Jewish leaders NOW. It was imperative to put an end to the Government's policy of territorial retreat. But now I must go further. I am duty-bound to say that you, the leaders and supporters of American Zionist organizations, can no longer enjoy the luxury of criticizing Israel's death march from afar. I know your agonizing frustration. I know of your ceaseless efforts to arouse Israel from its paralysis. But all this can no longer justify your remaining on the sidelines as pain-filled spectators of Israel's dismemberment. You must make every effort to come to Israel and plant your feet where your heart is. You must come fight the battle on the battlefield here in Israel, else you will never be true to your own convictions about Israel's mortal danger. Instead, you will live a smug lie, while exposing from afar the lies of those leading Israel toward the abyss. So once again I propose that you organize an international conference whose prime purpose is to urge Jews in the Diaspora to make aliya. Israel desperately needs you — more so in view of the Obama administration's pro-Muslim policy. You would make the most talented and dedicated citizens of Israel. I ask you to ponder the example of the men and women who sailed across the Atlantic in the seventeenth-century to settle in the New World. Like the children of Israel in the Exodus, they did not have a Jewish Agency to help them, but hostile Indians and a barren wilderness. Yet, it was these early settlers, whose intelligence and practical wisdom exceeded that of any comparable group in Europe, that made America the greatest — and deservedly the greatest — nation on earth. They came with their Bibles and Shakespeare, from which they learned about laws and institutions as well as about lofty ideals and statesmanship. These settlers produced, as was later said by British Prime Minister William Gladstone, the greatest assembly of statesmen in history — the men who drafted the American Constitution (which only an Obama, steeped in the arrogance of ignorance, disdains). Israel needs comparable statesmen as well as a constitution that would enable its Government to formulate and implement a coherent and comprehensive as well as long-range and resolute national strategy. You know that Israel's Government, fragmented and short-lived, is inept. You know it is constantly reacting to hostile forces. You know it is enthralled by a clique in Washington that genuflects to Saudi Arabia. You know, therefore, the present State of Israel has no inspiring and constructive purpose. My friends, a moral vacuum exists in Israel. You can fill this vacuum and accomplish great things for the Jewish People — infinitely more than by sitting on the sidelines, writing political criticisms and wringing your hands in despair at their futility. My friends, there is no future for you and your children in post-modernist America, where so many university professors are moral relativists or anti-patriotic internationalists — yes, and where you now have, for all intents and purposes, a Muslim president. So come to Israel! Join us in the good fight for our sacred land, for our glorious heritage, and for the God of Israel. Here, in Zion, is the best hope of mankind! Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
JEWS WORKING TO HALT DIVISION OF JERUSALEM
Posted by Saul Goldman, June 12, 2009. |
|
Well done, see the article below. During the most difficult days of WW2 the Germans launched a massive counter attack through the Ardennes forest and the area around Bastogne in Belgium. American troops reeled and retreated in the face of the German onslaught. The 101st Airborne division was sent to the front. In one scene from the Spielberg docu-drama about this Division, the commanding general visits one battalion. They are understrength, out of ammunition and have neither enough food or even winter clothing (December, 1944). The officers of the battalion complain to the general about their condition. His response was: "there is a lot of s**t coming this way; hold the line" The Jewish nation is confronting our own Battle of the Bulge. There is a lot of s**t coming our way: Obama, Iranian nukes, the UN along with Hamas and Hizbollah and the Palestinian Authority. Can we hold the line? This below comes from World Net Daily's Jerusalem Bureau and was written by Aaron Klein, their Jerusalem Bureau Chief. |
|
JERUSALEM— In an unusual move, Arabs who built illegally on Jewish-owned property in key sections of Jerusalem have been hand delivered eviction notices, WND has learned. The issue of real estate in the particular Jerusalem neighborhood, Kfar Akeb, is crucial. The district largely consists of Jewish-owned land, but over the years Arabs illegally constructed housing developments there resulting in an Arab majority. Unless demographics change, the neighborhood seems slated to become part of an eventual Palestinian state. Israel's previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert, cited the Arab majority as reason to give up the land, as have other Israeli leaders. But last Thursday, Jerusalem activist Aryeh King distributed the eviction notices to eight private homes constructed illegally on Jewish-owned property. King holds the power of attorney to about 5.5 acres of Kfar Akeb land owned by five Israeli Jews. The notices gave the squatting Arabs seven days to vacate. Now that the deadline has passed, King plans to bring a private security team to physically boot the Arabs within the next 23 days. The eight homes are just a sampling of over 100,000 housing units built illegally on Jewish-owned land in eastern sections of Jerusalem— areas the Palestinians claim as a capital. King's move of handing out eviction notices is almost unheard of. If enforced, the action could serve as a template for further evictions. U.S. Jewish group to blame for 'division' of Jerusalem? Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned by the Jewish National Fund, which over the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land, resulting in the current Arab majority. The organization bought the land in the early 1920s using Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement. But the JNF lands have been utilized for the illegal construction of dozens of Arab apartment buildings, a refugee camp and a U.N. school. A previous WND tour of Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb found dozens of Arab apartment complexes, a Palestinian refugee camp and a U.N. school for Palestinians constructed on the land. According to officials in Israel's Housing Ministry, Arabs first constructed facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of Jerusalem. Qalandiya, still owned by JNF, came under the management of the Israeli government's Land Authority in the late 1960s. Israeli Housing Ministry officials say the bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment complexes taking place in just the past two years. Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the illegal building, which continues today with at least one apartment complex in Qalandiya under construction. Land in another Jerusalem' neighborhood, Shoafat, which has an estimated value of $3 million, was also purchased by JNF in the early 1900s and fell under the management of the Israel Land Authority about 40 years ago. Much of the illegal Arab construction in Shoafat took place in the past 15 years, with some apartment complexes built as late as 2004. In Qalandiya and Shoafat, Israel's security fence cordons off the Arab sections of the JNF lands from the rest of Jewish Jerusalem. Internal JNF documents obtained by WND outline illegal Arab construction on the Jewish-owned land. A December 2000 survey of Qalandiya summarized on JNF stationery and signed by a JNF worker states, "In a lot of the plots I find Arabs are living and building illegally and also working the JNF land without permission." The JNF survey goes on to document illegal construction of Arab apartment complexes and the U.N. school under the property management of Israel's Land Authority. U.S. helping Palestinians build in Jerusalem A WND investigation in March determined the U.S. has been aiding the Palestinians in developing infrastructure in eastern Jerusalem, including on property owned by Jews. The situation has been unfolding in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, which are close to the Jewish neighborhoods of Neve Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev in Israel's capital. Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis are located entirely within the Jerusalem municipality. A tour then of the three Jerusalem neighborhoods found some surprising developments. Official PA logos and placards abound, including one glaring red street sign at the entrance to the neighborhoods warning Israelis to keep out. Another official sign, in Kfar Akeb in Jerusalem, reads in English, "Ramallah-Jerusalem Road. This project is a gift form (sic) the American people to the Palestinian people in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and PECDAR. 2007." The sign bears the emblems of the American and PA governments and of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The displays were not present during a previous WND tour of the neighborhoods in 2006. Some local schools in the Jerusalem neighborhoods are officially run by the PA— some in conjunction with the U.N.— with many teachers drawing PA salaries. Civil disputes are usually settled not in Israeli courts but by the PA judicial system, although at times Israeli courts are used depending on the matter. Councils governed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization oversee some municipal matters. USAID provides the PA funds for road and infrastructure projects. Israeli security officials said the local Jerusalem police rarely operate in Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis; instead security has been turned over to the Israel Defense Forces and Border Police, who work almost daily with PA security forces. The PA police operate in the Jerusalem neighborhoods in coordination with Israel. Shmulik Ben Ruby, spokesman for the Jerusalem police, confirmed the arrangement. "If there are fights between some local families, sometimes we involve the PA police to make peace between the families," he told WND. "Yes, the PA police can operate in these neighborhoods in coordination with the IDF and Border Police." Jews barred from sections of Jerusalem In another recent development, Israeli Jews, including local property owners, have been almost entirely barred from entering Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, while Israeli Arabs can freely enter. King, a nationalist activist, told WND he was barred several times during the past few months from entering the neighborhood to administer to the land, upon which local Arabs illegally constructed apartments. Police spokesman Ben Ruby explained this new arrangement is due to security concerns. "It's quite dangerous to be there alone, so if they don't have to be there it's not allowed, because they might find themselves in danger if they go in," said Ruby. In 2002, in response to the outbreak one year earlier of the Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war against the Jewish state, the Israeli government constructed its security barrier blocking off the West Bank from Jewish population zones. The route of the fence also cut into northern and eastern Jerusalem, incorporating Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis on the so-called Palestinian side. Israel recaptured northern and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount, during the 1967 Six-Day War. The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish. Jews lived in Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis years before the establishment of Israel in 1948, but they were violently expelled during deadly Arab riots in 1929. Jordan, together with other Arab countries, attacked Israel after its founding in 1948 and administered the three Jerusalem neighborhoods as well as all of eastern Jerusalem following an armistice agreement. In 1967, Jordan attacked again and Israel liberated the entire city of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. During the period of Jordanian control, some new construction took place, including in areas previously purchased by Jews. The recent barring of Jews from northern Jerusalem sections seems to coincide with an Israeli government decision the past year to allow the PA some presence in Jerusalem. Last June, WND exclusively reported Prime Minister Ehud Olmert allowed the PA to hold an official meeting in Jerusalem to discuss dealing with expected Palestinian sovereignty over key sections of the city. Dmitri Ziliani, a spokesman for the Jerusalem section of PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, confirmed to WND the meeting was related to the activities and structure of Fatah's local command in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem. "We were covering the best ways to improve our performance on the street and how we can be of service to the community," Ziliani said. Ziliani said the regular PA meetings in Jerusalem are, in part, held in anticipation of a future Palestinian state encompassing all of eastern Jerusalem. "Our political program as Fatah dictates there will be no Palestinian state if these areas— all of east Jerusalem— are not included," Ziliani told WND. According to Israeli law, the PA cannot officially meet in Jerusalem. The PA previously maintained a de facto headquarters in Jerusalem, called Orient House, but the building was closed down by Israel in 2001 following a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem. Israel said it had information indicating the House was used to plan and fund terrorism. Thousands of documents and copies of bank certificates and checks captured by Israel from Orient House— including many documents obtained by WND— showed the offices were used to finance terrorism, including direct payments to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group [Editor's Note: Unless you've been there and seen what is going on, it is hard to believe that the Jews who live in the eastern part of Jerusalem are treated like "settlers," and are harassed by their own government for any minor violation of the Housing Code, while the Government turns a blind eye to the Arabs who build houses illegally (Arafat's cousin has a lovely mansion in the area, built illegally, of course) and reconstruct property they don't own. (This is not a typo. It is the Jews who are harassed by the Jewish Government, which fears the wrath of the media, which defend Arabs, who have no right to the property they occupy). Historically, when Jordan invaded and conquered eastern Jerusalem
in 1947, they killed and/or kicked out the Jews. Then they invited
Arabs from neighboring lands to take over the Jewish homes. When the
Jews recovered the area in 1968, the government was too timid to kick
out the Arab squatters, who continue to live in the Jewish homes, rent
free and tax free. To recover Jewish property is heavy work, each one
requiring a court case. Aryeh King is an amazing fellow, who persists
in trying to recover Jewish legal property in spite of the opposition
of always pro-Arab "Jewish" groups like Peace Now. You can support his
group, the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, by sending donations to
American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, 3 West 16th St, NY NY 10011. And
contact him at kingshir@bezeqint.net.]
Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net
|
|
OBAMA'S SLANTED SPEECH IN CAIRO — HE HAD HELP!
Posted by Mr La, June 12, 2009. |
|
If you were one of the 78% this has to make you wonder what the heck you were thinking. This comes from today's Daled Amos website
|
|
Elder of Ziyon notes that one of those who helped Obama with the speech was Dalia Mogahed — a Muslim advisor to Obama. EOZ notes: Mogahed works for the Gallup organization, and last year co-wrote a book called "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think." As I noted in my Amazon review, the book is an opinion piece masquerading as science. She knowingly and deceptively cooked the numbers to make it appear as though a much smaller percentage of Muslims support terror and justified 9/11. She wrote articles claiming that her research showed that "only" 7% of Muslims were "radical" when her own numbers showed that over one third of Muslims found 9/11 to be either completely, mostly or partially justified. Mogahed, however, is not the only one who helped. According to the Forward: Activists for the Palestinian cause, who are now describing President Obama's outreach speech to the Muslim world as "brilliant" and "brave," are feeling emboldened by a new sense of openness within the administration. Some even have the satisfaction of having had input in the process of preparing the speech itself. A pro-Palestinian organization was among those invited to take part in a group meeting with White House staff to prepare the June 4 speech. Now Obama can of course have anyone help him with his speech that he wants. However, based on the historical inaccuracies of his speech (see: At Least Obama Didn't Claim That Muslims Created The Internet! (Updated)) it is a valid point to note the process by which the speech was created. Those inaccuracies were not only in regards to exaggerations of Muslim achievement — the speech that Obama gave made no mention of the long historical roots of Jews to Israel and gave the impression that the creation of the State of Israel is an accomodation to Jews based on their suffering in the Holocaust. In actuality, the re-establishment of the State of Israel is part of the long history of the Jewish people, who never abandoned the land. Of course, that fact would hardly fit with the biased narrative that Obama wanted to deliver in his speech in Cairo. At least Obama was more honest when he spoke to AIPAC. In his opening remarks, Obama said: Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is — let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening. Even then, Obama did not get it: Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds. Dream of a homeland? The only dream was the dream to return to the homeland, to Israel. He spent more time talking about the Holocaust than about the connection of Jews to Israel. That should have been a clue to where Obama really stood. Especially with lines like this: From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world — from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. It's a fine talking point, and sounds good to a Jewish audience, but it obscures the facts. Taking a closer look, in the light of what Obama is doing now, the AIPAC speech sounds absurd: 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. In light of current events, these remarks come across now as nothing more than shallow rhetoric. Interestingly, his speech to AIPAC emphasized the suffering of the Jewish people, in his Cairo speech Obama emphasize — and exaggerated — Muslim accomplishment. Granted that there was pandering in both speeches, I think how he pandered to each group is instructive. Obama may very well have discussed his AIPAC speech in advance with Rahm and Axelrod, but you'd be hard-pressed to find exaggerations in that speech — other than the promises Obama made. The same is not true of Obama's Cairo speech. And considering the influence of those Palestinian advisors, we now have one more reason to be wary of what Obama is up to. Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
PA TEEN MURDERED OVER 'COLLABORATION' CHARGES
Posted by Arutz Sheva, June 12, 2009. |
|
This was written by Maayana Miskin and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva. |
|
A Palestinian Authority 15-year-old was tortured and murdered this week for allegedly cooperating with Israel. According to PA police, the primary suspects in the case are several members of the teenager's own family. The suspects, both men and women, have reportedly admitted to their roles in the crime. They justified the act by explaining their suspicious regarding the boy's behavior. The victim has been identified as Raed Sawalha, of the village of Hija, near Kalkilya. PA police are investigating the case, and have detained several suspects for questioning. PA forces said that at this time, they have not found evidence to indicate that Sawalha was in fact spying for Israel. Senior PA commander Adnan a-Damiri publicly condemned the murder, and promised to bring the killers to justice. 'Honor' Killings in Gaza, Israel In similar news, an "honor" murder was reported in Gaza on Thursday, while in Israel a man was indicted for murdering his daughter in an alleged "honor" killing. In Gaza, police found the body of 21-year-old Sadia abu-Saad. The young woman's father admitted to killing her in order to "preserve family honor." Abu-Saad is the seventh person to be murdered in Gaza for reasons of "family honor" since the beginning of 2009. In Israel, Issam Nijam of Beit Jan was charged Thursday with
murdering his daughter due to her desire to marry a man she had
chosen. The father disapproved of the match, and in late May, shot his
daughter seven times as the two argued. He then drove to a local
police station and confessed to the crime.
Additional Information: By Khaled Abu Toameh, June 15, 2009, in the Jerusalem Post:
|
|
ISRAEL'S RESPONSIBILITIES
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 12, 2009. |
|
To the Editor (The National Post) Goerge Jonas is bothered by the inconsistency that allows the U.S. to reject ethnic cleansing everywhere in the world, except in Israel where ethnic cleansing of Jews is U.S. national policy. Judy Haiven is not embarrassed to use her name and unrelated academic credentials to condemn Israel for establishing checkpoints to (successfully) apprehend terrorists before they manage to kill Israelis, on the basis of the argument that it is inconvenient for the terrorists and their neighbours. Unfortunately Israelis are used to such gross inconsistencies wherein the world tells them that they and their lives are of less value than others. Last year, during the same trip when former Secretary of State Condelezza Rice insisted that Israel dismantle a significant number of checkpoints she insisted on extra checkpoints to protect herself along the route she took to visit Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. For the record, Israel complied on both counts and within days Israeli motorists had been shot by snipers within sight of the locations of the removed checkpoints. Israel is also under significant U.S. and international pressure to relinquish sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem. As a sovereign state it is Israel's right, no obligation, to afford protection to its citizens and territory and Israel has used that sovereignty to grant rights and freedoms unheard of in the region, to all its citizens, Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. Israel can take pride in the fact that it has established and maintained a free and open democracy in a hostile environment, and has been the only sovereign to maintain Jerusalem and the holy sites of all religions with free access, in generations. It is unfair for Israel's friends or foes to use half the facts to pressure Israel to do anything, but Israel can proudly respond to inconsistent and foreign pressures in the context of history and its record. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
A TALL ORDER FOR SAUDI ARABIA?
Posted by Daily Alert, June 12, 2009. |
|
This was written by Michael J. Totten and was
a Contentions comment in Commentary Magazine and is archived at
|
|
The New York Times inadvertently highlights how much more intransigent than Israel most Arab states are. President Barack Obama is soon heading to Saudi Arabia, where he will present wish-lists from the U.S. government, from the Israeli government, and from the Palestinian Authority. Israel isn't asking for much— just a few symbolic tourist visas, meetings between Saudi officials and their Israeli counterparts, and the opening of a Saudi interests office in Tel Aviv. "These would be a tall order for the Arab kingdom," the Times says. Good grief. The Obama Administration expects Israelis to stop building houses in Jewish neighborhoods in suburban Jerusalem that they never intend to abandon, yet the Saudis won't even talk to Israelis or let a few Jews visit the beach. Once in a while, it's wise to refuse meetings with enemies. President Franklin Roosevelt didn't negotiate with Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito during World War II. President Obama won't hold a summit with the Taliban's Mullah Omar or with Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden. Israel, though, isn't a threat to Saudi Arabia. Israel has never attacked Saudi Arabia. Israel almost certainly never will attack Saudi Arabia. The overwhelming majority of Israelis want peace and normal relations with Saudi Arabia now. Saudi Arabia's refusal to even speak to Israelis under these circumstances makes its government more reactionary than Israel's would have been had then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin refused to meet with then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1979. The idea that Saudi Arabia "can't" have diplomatic relations with Israel until the Palestinian question is resolved has become mainstream, even axiomatic, but it's nonsense. Azerbaijan has an overwhelming Muslim majority, but Israel has an embassy there. Relations between the two countries are not only good, they're improving. Most Turks, including those in the government, sympathize more with Palestinians than with Israelis, but Turkey remains an ally of Israel. Seventy percent of Albanians are at least nominal Muslims, but Albania gets along just fine with Israel. None of those Muslim-majority countries are Arab, to be sure, but that shouldn't make any difference. Egypt and Jordan are Arabic countries. Unlike Saudi Arabia, they fought deadly hot wars with Israel. Yet they both signed peace treaties years ago. There is no iron law of geopolitics that requires Saudi Arabia to remain in a state of cold war with Israel. The only reason the Saudis don't have normal relations with Israel is because they prefer hostile relations. Israelis will not have peace until Palestinians pitch their pig-headed rejectionism over the side. Arabs, including the Saudis, can opt out of that ridiculous conflict whenever they feel like it. President Obama, at least theoretically, is willing to hold talks with Syria and even Iran. He is a negotiator by nature. Perhaps he'll have an epiphany, then, when Saudi Arabia pointlessly refuses Israel's invitation to dialogue.
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 |
|
OBAMA'S PASTOR YELPS: "THEM JEWS AREN'T GOING TO LET HIM TALK TO ME!"
Posted by Dr. Paul L. Williams, June 12, 2009. |
|
Obama's Pastor Yelps: "Them Jews Aren't Going to Let Him Talk to Me!" |
|
In a letter to John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ (UCC), Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, founder of Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWF), called for the mainline Protestant denomination, which includes President Barack Obama as one of its members, to publicly repudiate the anti-Semitic statements which were made this week by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Runnion-Bareford's organization represents a reactionary conservative wing of the UCC, a mainline Protestant denomination with 1.2 million members. Rev. Wright, who served for many years as Mr. Obama's pastor at the Trinity UCC in Chicago, said in an interview this week that President Obama had not spoken with him recently because "them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me." He added: "Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionists is a sin and a crime against humanity." Wright also said Mr. Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not for fear of offending Jews and Israel. He specifically cited the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group. "They [the Jews] will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is," Rev. Wright added. "He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do." Rev. Runnion-Bareford, in his letter, maintained that such language only promotes violence and hatred against a people close to the heart of God, adding, "The impact of anti-Semitism is graphically illustrated by the tragic murders which took place in the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C." But no criticism of Rev. Wright's latest remarks has been forthcoming from Mr. Thomas or other leaders of the denomination. The UCC in several official statements has denounced the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and has called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Rev. Wright is no stranger to controversy. In a sermon delivered in 2003, he said: "The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye." He went on to say: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." But the UCC has refused to take the minister to task for any of his inflammatory statements. In his defense of the fiery African American minister, UCC President Thomas said in 2008: "I have first-hand experience of Trinity, its leaders and its ministers, and I know it to be a faithful, generous, and justice-minded congregation that takes seriously its ministry within and among the African-American community on Chicago's south side." Contact Dr. Williams at thelastcrusade09@gmail.com This article is archived at
|
|
UN INVESTIGATING WAR CRIMES IN GAZA; OBAMA FOR HONESTY IN FOREIGN POLICY?;
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 12, 2009. |
|
UN INVESTIGATING WAR CRIMES IN GAZA A UN team investigating war crimes alleged against both sides in recent Gaza combat entered Gaza from Egypt. They had hoped to enter from Israel, but Israel won't cooperate with the UN on this. Israeli officials explained that the UN Human Rights Commission, which dispatched the team, is biased against Israel (NY Times, 6/2, A9). Yes, it is biased. In addition, UNRWA complained about Israeli actions, but UNRWA is run largely by terrorists and would be embarrassed if its complaints were dismissed. Why should Israel cooperate with what usually is a stacked UN jury? For a little more on alleged Israeli war crimes:
For what to expect from the UN investigation:
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAYS HE'S BEING HONEST WITH ISRAEL President Obama said, "Part of being a good friend is being honest." "...the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israel's interests but also U.S. Interests." "We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace" "I've said that a freeze on settlements is part of that." (Helen Cooper, NY Times, 6/2, A8). WCBS TV quoted Administration demands for the freeze. The broadcaster stated that this demand dismays American Jews (6/2, 6 p.m. news). Why just Jews and not other Americans concerned about Israel? What about the demand upsets them? What is their side? Not presented. How will audiences understand the issues? Obama's advisers, some of whom are known for hostility to Zionism, want to pressure Israel, only Israel, and in behalf of jihadists. That isn't being a friend of Israel. Since Obama is not a friend, he's not honest when he claims to be. Even if he were honest, he's not frank. He and his advisers talk in generalities and assertions, without evidence. He does not define U.S. and Israeli interests. He has made assertions about settlements without making a case that freezing them would promote peace. Opponents of the freeze have made a case the freezing them promotes war. Their case, however, does not get publicity. Why must we believe that negotiations lead to peace, when they often don't or lead to war, especially if approached in an appeasement-minded way as Obama is. Why not get peace via reform of the jihadist and intolerant aspect of Islam? ALLEGE THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL JEWISH HOUSES The NY Times alleges that Jews have built thousands of permanent houses illegally in Judea-Samaria. It is vague about its source for this. Earlier in its report, it claims to have a copy of published official sources about housing, but does not cite the sources. [Such claims usually come from statistics by Peace Now, later discredited.] The government of Israel contends that new houses are needed for "natural population increase," which the Times says accounts for two-third of Jewish population growth in the Territories. This is denied by "Yesh Din, an Israeli group that fights for the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. The group's representative, Dror Elkes argues that 'A newborn does not need a house.' 'It is a game the Israeli government is playing' to justify construction, he said." [Extortionate foreign pressure put on Israeli officials sometimes induces them to waffle about statistics. However, the Yesh Din argument is a straw man. Nobody claims that a new house should be constructed for a newborn, unless the old house is outgrown. The Israeli government means that new houses are for grown children marrying and needing their own residences. Yesh Din is misleading. In an earlier article, I citied that organization as one of those that claims to be fighting for Arab rights, but actually is taking up not rights but the Arabs' political agenda. Some such organizations also take up Arab defamation of Israel. The NY Times accepts such organizations' false self-description. The term, "occupied territories" is erroneous for several reasons. The diplomats who devised the Geneva Convention didn't want one country to invade another and displace the native population with their own. Jews in the Territories do not displace Arabs. The language of the Convention defines "occupation" as taking place in part or all of a sovereign state. The Territories were not and are not all or part of a sovereign state. Neither were they foreign to Israel. The Territories were the unallocated part of the Palestine Mandate, set up with political rights for Jews and civil rights for Arabs, in anticipation of the area becoming a Jewish state and wanting to protect the civil rights of Arabs. The Mandate calls for "close settlement of the land by the Jews." The Mandate, issued by the League of Nations, was endorsed by its successor organization, the UN. The NY Times studiously avoids mentioning those facts, as it misuses the term, "occupied," and as it states that most of the world considers Jewish settlements illegal. It suits most of the world to falsely call what Jews do illegal, and not what Arabs do. For more facts on Jerusalem housing click here or go to: www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner ~y2009m5d31-Special-report-on-Jerusalem-housing PRES. OBAMA ENDING DISCRIMINATION? President Obama tells Israel even more harshly than Sec. of State Rice did that Jews must leave Judea and Samaria to make way for Arabs, but not that Arabs must leave Israel to make way for Jews. That's discrimination. He is not ending that anti-Jewish discrimination, he is pressing harder for it. Oh, he says, it is for Israel's own good. The traditionally anti-Zionist New York Times advises Israel likewise, "for its own good." Will Obama say that the antisemitic Arabs advise Israel similarly, for its own good? Is it for Israel's own good to follow Obama's dictate and have a sovereign state alongside its cities, sovereignty enabling the Arabs to bring in arms and armies to fulfill the Fatah, PLO, or Hamas charter that whatever sovereignty they get from Israel they would use to conquer the rest of Israel? Is it for Israel's own good that the State Dept., whether nominally under Bush or Obama, demands that Israel dismantle checkpoints through which terrorists then enter for sneak attacks on Israeli civilians? Is it for Israel's own good that the U.S. demands that Israel turn its holiest sites over to the Muslims, who bar Jews from such sites when under Muslim control? Is it for Israel's own good to be pared down to a tiny entity with indefensible borders, tempting to the Arabs who have invaded it before and most of whose governments consider a Jewish state an affront to imperialistic Islam? Claiming it is for Israel's own good is pretense. The State Department and the Presidents they guide are deceitful and discriminatory. As for U.S. interests, the incumbent President is letting Iran develop nuclear weapons, terrorists build up first against Israel and then against guess who. For decades, we let our public, corporate, and personal debt build up and our assets melt down. Our leaders do not know what is for our own good. What temerity to give orders to Israel! For more on Obama's character, go to: www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Obama-compromises-again OBAMA FOR HONESTY IN FOREIGN POLICY? President Obama said our diplomats should "Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly. "There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the 'threat' from Israel, but won't admit it." (Thomas Friedman, NY Times, 6/3.) President Obama told Israel that in order to get Arab support for a raid on Iran — which support he didn't explain the need for, and he has made clear that he opposes a raid — — Israel must make sacrifices to the Palestinian Arabs. But now he admits that the Arabs already want Israel to raid Iran. Apparently President Obama still says one thing at one time and another thing at another. He did been doing that all through his campaign and ever since. That may be his notion of honesty. It is not mine.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
LOOTING OUR KINGDOM
Posted by Rich Carroll, June 12, 2009. |
|
America is being ransacked by a Muslim regime put into power by liberal morons, who, in a vacuum created by war, believe nothing is worth a fight; not even their freedom. Liberal socialists would rather pay our enemies and mentally drift away from our history and heritage on a limp tether of weakness and cowardice; full of self-pity, but eager to reinforce the power of an unknown candidate who's words tumble from his mouth like cheerful imprecations while he chops-up our country like a swordsman gone berserk. Within this national vacuum, a Marxist machine has metastasized to the point of performing no function but its own growth, while spending your money freely to pay-back campaign contributors and special interest groups. Jobs? Do you count an army of ACORN workers as "newly created jobs" for the purpose of what? To strong-arm anyone unwilling to convert? This Muslim administration has given over $900 million U.S. taxpayer dollars in support of the terrorist organization Hamas; will import more Middle East Muslims into the United States, and has awarded Muslim terrorists Miranda rights. Each passing day, our sovereignty and our Christian foundation is being usurped; stomped-on, by a corrupt government that applauds atheists, places communists in top-level positions, and hires more Muslims to be inclusive in our Christian founded government while at the same time degrades the accomplishments of our founders. Bald-face lies to morons who believe them will only serve as an additional catalyst to America's destruction. The slithering, dragonish gyrations of Barack Hussein Obama have put your grandchildren into life-long debt with no appreciative results other than to collapse America's economy and send us into 3rd world poverty status. The current White House is the most corrupt, evil intended, left-wing radical administration in our nations 233 year history. Not only is this gang of thugs pro Islamic and anti-Jewish, but think Christianity is an encompassing cathedral built on swords and crowns of mindless superstition. Impressed by a show of cruelty, this administration has ridiculed and degraded The United States before a foreign global audience. Disgusting. In an age when truth is intellectually repulsive, we cannot think or feel with the brain of another creature but we can see its eyes, those sensitive organs which the brain protrudes. Those eyes of the predatory narrow socialists who put their craziness into a profitable harness of robbing us of our divinely inspired Constitution and national achievements mirror the sacrilegious thieves who looted Egypt's tombs with rapacity and atavistic hunger. Angry thieves, vandalizing everything they could not steal; their fury combating God, yet their crimes they are told perform a useful service of "spreading the wealth," robbing us not merely of our past, but of our eternity. The famous middle name, Hussein, once taboo is now featured prominently in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Hitler duped Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia. Barack Hussein Obama is well aware Islam remains determined to achieve a one-state solution driving Jews into the sea, and he aligns himself with the Sharia policies of the Muslim Brotherhood. He stated "I consider it my responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Did he mean the massive slaughtering of human beings Islam wades in daily blood to perform? The orchestrated plan to destroy America by looting our economy and allowing increased Muslim immigration to fill the vacuum is working. Anti-Americans in cabinet posts, communist La Raza appointments to the Supreme Court, Sharia law and International Law proponents to our Department of Justice. Treason is running amok. How much longer can we sustain under a bombardment which further threatens our Constitutional rights to free speech and to bear arms?
Contact Rick Carroll by email at justearl@dcemail.com
The cartoon accompanying the text was not part of the original article.
|
|
EGYPT TO GET MILITARY EQUIPMENT THAT HAS BEEN DENIED TO ISRAEL
Posted by Mr La, June 12, 2009. |
|
OBAMA SPEECH LINKED TO F-16 DEAL Egypt's hosting of President Barack Obama's "mutual respect" speech to the Muslim world came at the same time the Obama administration quietly was agreeing to Egypt's longstanding request to purchase some 24 F-16 fighters. According to informed sources, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates relayed the commitment in his May 5 meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian request for Lockheed Martin's F-16s and other munitions had been repeatedly denied by the former Bush administration over Egypt's record on human rights and democracy. Those munitions included the Longbow Apache helicopter, mobile air defense systems and the Joint Direct Attack Munition which is a guidance kit that converts existing unguided or "dumb" bombs into "smart" munitions. http://g2.wnd.com Israel's request for the same equipment has been refused. Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
OLD STRUCTURES BY THE SEASHORE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 12, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go
to |
|
PALESTINIANS DON'T WANT A STATE — ALONGSIDE OF ISRAEL
Posted by David Meir-Levi, June 11, 2009. |
|
Rachelle Marshall's "Jew's Challenge" (Palo Alto Daily Post, 6/10/09) does a severe disservice to reality. She asserts that a majority of the Palestinian people want a 2-state solution. Tragically, this is not true. The 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project reports that by a margin of 77% to 16% Palestinians indicate that "the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists." Polling in neighboring Arab countries returned similar results. Various Palestinian polls conducted by the Shikaki organization in Ramallah, over the past 10 years, have shown similar results. Ms. Marshall might also recall that in the last Palestinian elections, the Third Way party ran on a platform of stopping the Intifada and negotiating a peaceful settlement. The Third Way got 3% of the Palestinian vote, while Hamas received a majority of seats in the PA parliament. Ms. Marshall may not have noticed, but Hamas has defined itself unabashedly, for more than 20 years, as an Islamic resistance organization whose over-arching goal is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews. It is tragic, but undeniable, that the most popular Palestinian leadership, with a significant following, hold fast to the vision of a one-state solution: Palestine not alongside of Israel, but instead of it. Israel does not share that vision. 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 |
|
PRESIDENT OBAMA STOP FUNDING TERRORIST PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
Posted by UCI, June 11, 2009. | |
|
With President Obama`s speech in Cairo, the velocity of his "change" in U.S.-Israel policy is momentous. Pundits seem to agree that the US has done a 180-degree turn in regard to our democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. This email reminds the President of the billions of U.S. dollars going to train the militant Fatah and Hamas led governments. U.S. citizens are asking President Obama to redirect the vast funding spent on military training for Palestinians to immediate needs in the U.S. We hope you are in full agreement with this. If not, you may change the wording as you wish. Simply add your own comments. Unchanged, your letter will be sent as follows and will go to President Barack Obama with copies to the President`s Cabinet. We will also be forwarding your letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to show that there are MANY Americans who do not support the current shift in US Middle East strategy. They strongly support Israel`s sovereignty and security. Click here if you wish to send your letter to President Obama immediately. | |
|
CLICK HERE to send the above message. Facts drawn from Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld`s Frontpagemag.com article,
a'U.S. Bails Out Palestinian Terrorism".
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy
(http://www.acdemocracy.org) and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism
is Financed and How to Stop It
UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel
(http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide
coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200
groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we
have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and
Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of
Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for
the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a
united voice, our message is being heard!"
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: DISQUIETUDE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 11, 2009. |
|
Unease, a restive sense — within the nation and within the hearts of many of us. For we are on the edge and very few, if any, are certain which way we are about to go. It is possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu feels the greatest disquietude most of all, as he balances many factors in preparing his major speech, scheduled for Sunday. Today it was reported that he hasn't completed it yet. We see the vast pressure on him of the Likud right wing, not to go with a "two state solution." There is Benny Begin, who, delivering a speech at Likud headquarters, said: "There won't be a Palestinian state. The realities of the past 15 years gravely harmed the concept of two states for two peoples. The state they want is only intended to destroy Israel. The Palestinians are not interested in the two-state solution. They want the two-stage solution, after which there would be only one state: Palestine. Other MKs echoed these sentiments in their own words. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, Heaven help us, we have President Shimon Peres, who met earlier today with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and told him it's time to move to Phase 2 of the Road Map and establish temporary borders for a Palestinian state. Is this man out of his gourd? This sort of politicking is beyond his ceremonial mandate as president. Tonight several MKs informed him of this and the need to cool it. ~~~~~~~~~~ Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin (Likud), today said that Netanyahu doesn't believe in a "two state solution": "...the prime minister needs to say only what he believes in and tell the Americans — as they asked — the truth. I think that when the prime minister speaks of an arrangement, he really wants to reach an arrangement. But I am not sure that the prime minister believes in two states for two peoples." Rivlin, bless him, also said: "We have a right to build here. I think the term 'natural growth' is apologetic and does not embody a principled stance. We live in these places out of a faith in the justice of our cause and also because we see these areas as Israel's belt of security. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the meeting at Likud headquarters, Netanyahu himself refuted a recent prediction by Mubarak that he had decided to embrace a "two state solution." But then he added: "I will be considering a lot of challenges that come from different directions, that will impact generations. There are strategic threats facing Israel that require us to balance them out." This echoes statements he has made several times recently. It suggests in vague terms that because of the threat of Iran and positions we have to take with regard to our self-defense, he may have to make concessions that he wouldn't otherwise make. Because I've covered this ground before, to the very best of my ability, I will be brief now. Can I be certain that this is not simply a cover for concessions to Obama he has decided to make? I cannot. But neither can I be certain that he's not on to something, and that there's not a trade-off or a genuine need he sees to secure a certain modicum of international good will because of our broader situation. Not a one of us is in his shoes, or privy to all the factors that will weigh into his decision. ~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps most comforting at this point is a Reuters report that American diplomats are quietly saying that Obama is not going to be satisfied with Netanyahu's speech. One top diplomat quoted said: "The Americans are not satisfied with what they have been told." The prediction of another diplomat is that Netanyahu will stop short of coming out for a state, and will talk in more general terms about Palestinian governance. This is what we've been hearing from him. If he goes no further than this, we're OK. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is also encouraging, and of no little significance, that the people of this country are behind Bibi and do not want him to comply with Obama's demands. For the full Maagar Machot poll, see:
~~~~~~~~~~ There's one other approach that Bibi may utilize and which I want to mention here: That the issue is not resolution of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather the readiness of the broader Arab world to accept Israel in its midst. There are statements he has made of late that suggest he might touch upon this, even if obliquely. He is looking for broader Arab involvement. There is no question — whether or not this would be verbalized — that the so-called Palestinian issue would dissipate were the Arab states to accept us. For the entire Palestinian issue, with regard to refugee "return" and all the rest, was promoted by the Arabs as a weapon against us. And there is a great deal the Arab world might do, from accepting refugees to pressuring Abbas to moderate more genuinely. Might do...but won't. The Arab idea of assisting with the problem goes as far as the Saudi "peace plan," and no further. That plan is just one more weapon: Withdraw to the pre-'67 lines, take in the refugees and allow the formation of a Palestinian state, and then we'll talk about normalizing relationships with you. Very recently the Arab League determined that this plan was fine as it was and that no modifications were called for. ~~~~~~~~~~ US envoy Mitchell, in meetings just completed with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Cairo, raised this same issue of Arab involvement: "Proposing the initiative was just the beginning; it brings with it responsibilities to join in taking meaningful steps and important actions that will help us move towards our objective." Aboul Gheit's response: "There must be a substantial Israeli act which consists of a complete end to settlement activity and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from all [West Bank] towns and the end of the [Gaza] blockade. The situation before 2000? That will put us way ahead. Let's face it: Obama's speech, his blatant kissing-up to the Muslim/Arab world, will not have had the effect of making the Arabs more conciliatory in seeking peace. Then too, Mitchell's vision of a more regional peace includes our withdrawal from the Golan. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
WHAT IF ISRAEL STRIKES IRAN?
Posted by LEL, June 11, 2009. |
|
This was written by John R. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007). This article is archived at
The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb. |
|
Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon — if ever — put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only per sist but grow. So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors — such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response. Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor). Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:
Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear weapons. This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally. Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they certainly won't say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran will get. On the other hand, the Obama administration's increased pressure on Israel concerning the "two-state solution" and West Bank settlements demonstrates Israel's growing distance from Washington. Although there is no profit now in complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA'S WHITE HOUSE IS FALLING DOWN
Posted by Sultan Knish, June 11, 2009. |
|
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars. Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that. While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do. While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, "Let's put on a show." Thus far Obama has put on "shows" across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment. Neither alienating America's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim. At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak — the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against. The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people. That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism. Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition. His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge. Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister. Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats. With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system. In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from. Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR — but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Daniel Greenfield as "Sultan Knish". This article is archived at
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: BRIEFS AND LINKS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 10, 2009. |
|
It does appear that we are going to stand strong on the issue of settlements. That is reportedly the word that Mitchell got from Bibi when he was here yesterday. Even Kadima is not on board for a settlement freeze. This isn't just one issue of many: it's a key issue, speaking to our legitimacy and our right to maintain a presence in Judea and Samaria. ~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel Greenfield, who blogs as "Sultan Knish" has an excellent piece on the settlements, complete with photos, which I highly recommend.
Of the several important issues he addresses, let me here mention two. First, the strong element of defense with regard to establishment and maintenance of the settlements: "The Settlements occupy the high ground, creating defensible communities surrounding Israel's capital and moving outward... ~~~~~~~~~~ The second issue of significance is that some of the communities in Judea and Samaria were in existance before 1948, destroyed by the Jordanians or the Egyptians, and then rebuilt after 1967. The Sultan refers to the community of Kfar Darom, but this is true also of most of the communities in Gush Etzion and others. ~~~~~~~~~~ What Mitchell is holding forth on, in the face of the Israeli stance on settlements, is the need for that "two state solution," which he repeatedly declares to be a major tenent of Obama policy. After leaving Jerusalem, he went to Ramallah and met with heads of the PA. And there he declared that Obama will not turn his back on the "legitimate aspiration" of the Palestinians for a state. ~~~~~~~~~~ In his statement in Ramallah, Mitchell referred to the obligations of the parties under the Road Map. So it's time to raise the issue again with regard to Palestinian incitement. It must continue to be raised until it penetrates public consciousness and becomes a real issue. It is written in Phase One of the Road Map: "All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel." That's pretty straightforward. Last time I looked, the PA Ministry of Education was an official Palestinian institution. But the textbooks published by the PA and utilized under Ministry auspices are rife with incitement. Maps in the textbooks have no Israel. Jihad — martyrdom for Allah — is praised. All Jewish history in Jerusalem is denied. There are no plans in the PA to publish new textbooks. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, my American readers, please, contact the president and ask him how he imagines there can be peace under these circumstances. Demand that this be made a top priority in his search for peace. Decry his emphasis on a settlement freeze while this is going on and an entire generation of Palestinians is being taught that Israel is not legitimate.
Contact each of your elected representatives in Congress with a similar message. For your representatives in Congress:
For your senators:
And, perhaps most importantly, write letters to the editor on this subject. Brief, clear, factual, and to the point. Most people have no clue. The more newspapers across the country run such letters, the better. I cannot emphasize enough how important widescale participation in the US is with regard to something like this. Make noise, make noise, make noise. Reach out within your own networks and seek the help of others. It's time to be on the offensive. Below is a link to my article about the texts. You might want to refer to a few specific details when contacting senators and congresspersons, and when writing letters to the editor.
~~~~~~~~~~ Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas politburo in Syria, has now called on the international community to recognize Hamas as a "positive instrument" in the search for peace. You could fall down on the floor laughing, this is so ridiculous — except for the fact that it's a deeply serious situation we face. Said Mashaal, "President Obama is speaking a new language, but we expect real pressure on the Israelis." ~~~~~~~~~~ Closer to home, the biggest obstacle we must contend with, in regard to standing strong against this pressure, is Ehud Barak, our defense minister, who today said he hopes Netanyahu will come out for a "two-state solution" in his talk. No surprise here. But frustrating, none the less. ~~~~~~~~~~ Returning to the issue of US-Israeli agreements on what a "freeze" on settlements means... I alluded yesterday to the fact that after the Bush letter went out to Sharon, there was a Concurrent "Sense of Congress" Resolution that endorsed the letter. What I have learned is that, as a senator, Hillary Clinton — who now, as secretary of state, is insisting a freeze means no growth at all — voted FOR the endorsement of this letter, which acknowledged population centers that change the picture with regard to negotiations. Hillary, a purely political animal, has never been known for consistency. (Thanks to Jeff Daube, head of the Jerusalem office of ZOA for this information.) ~~~~~~~~~~ As the subject of Obama's Cairo speech doesn't go away, I have provided here links to some of the key analyses on the subject, with brief citations from the text of each. I hope those of you who have not already read these pieces will find them helpful: Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. American's First Muslim President?
"The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich... ~~~~~~~~~~ Anne Bayefsky Obama's stunning offense to Israel and the Jewish people
"President Obama's Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is not surprising that Arabs and Muslims in a position to speak were enthusiastic. It is more surprising that American commentators are praising the speech for its political craftiness, rather than decrying its treachery of historic proportions." ~~~~~~~~~~ Caroline Glick The End of America's Strategic Alliance with Israel?
"From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama's speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama's speech was a renunciation of America's strategic alliance with Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ Gary Bauer The Cairo Deception
"OBAMA: 'Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.' ~~~~~~~~~~ Mark Steyn 'The Muslim World' One-way multiculturalism
"Would Obama be comfortable mandating 'no natural growth' to Israel's million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced [the commitment of] the "Muslim world" to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the west but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East. ~~~~~~~~~~ And for a different style, this, from Shaul Behr's blog (with thanks to Debbie B.): Free Thought: Barack Obama as John Lennon
"But to call him naïve would disrespectful to naïveté. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA'S IRAN POLICY; WHY SYMPATHY FOR GAZA?; MANY GAZANS WANT TO
EMIGRATE; NO MORE BUIDING PROMISED?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 10, 2009. |
|
OBAMA'S IRAN POLICY Pres. Obama asked Congress to defer a bill that would bar U.S. refineries from shipping to Iran. He set a non-binding, 7-month deadline for diplomacy to get Iran not to manufacture nuclear weapons. After that, he only will assess whether to impose more sanctions and not a raid. He is offering Jewish territories to the Muslims in the hope that the Arabs would support a raid on Iran, a raid that they indicate they already await impatiently, regardless of the Arab-Israel conflict. Obama thinks that sacrificing Israel would earn Chinese and Russian support against Iran's nuclear development. However, China and Russia help Iran to weaken the US, regardless of those territories. Obama's rationale is specious. Israel has advised Obama that Iran probably will have gone too far in half a year to be stopped. Conclusion: Obama does not intend to stop Iran, but doesn't admit it outright. "And acting as Obama's surrogate, for the past two weeks CIA Director Leon Panetta has made clear that Obama expects Israel to also sit on its thumbs as Iran develops the means to destroy it." [Is that decent or sane?] The U.S. acts in haste to confer sovereignty on some Arabs who selected as their rulers two rival, antisemitic terrorist organizations that reject peace and somewhat are allies of Iran. [Is that decent or sane?] Why does Obama want to expel half a million Jews from their homes in order to set up this [apartheid] Arab state? Caroline Glick thinks it is to divert attention from his acquiescence to Iranian nuclear weapons development. Obama is going to argue that if Israel withdrew to the indefensible 1967 armistice lines, the Muslim states would make peace with the Israel they then could destroy. (Is that decent or sane?] If Israel doesn't withdraw, he would blame it for non-peace. By making Israelis seem villains, the U.S. also is "...setting Israel up as the fall guy whom it will blame after Iran emerges as a nuclear power." Obama is not even consulting with Israel as part of a peace process. [His envoys meet with Israeli officials, but more to demand than to consult.] PM Netanyahu evaded Obama's traps at their meeting. However, the
U.S. continued pressing Israel to dismantle outposts and urges
"working groups" in which foreigners would press Israelis to make the
concessions contrary to Israeli policy
For a discussion about Iran, go to:
Will no Senator expose Obama as the kind of appeaser who brings war? Are Jewish organizations afraid to denounce the folly of this popular president? Why is Obama so willing to let Iran gain nuclear weapons and to slander Israel? Why are conspiracy theorists silent now that Obama acts like an Islamist mole? SYMPATHY FOR GAZANS "Four months after Israel waged a war here to stop Hamas rocket fire and two years after Hamas took full control of this coastal strip, Gaza is like an island adrift. Squeezed from without by an Israeli and Egyptian boycott and from within by their Islamist rulers, the 1.5 million people here are cut off from any productivity or hope." "Everything but food and medicine has to be smuggled through desert tunnels from Egypt." "Dozens of families still live in tents..." Young people are traumatized. Many residents are taking an anti-depressant. [My comments are in elipses.] [It would have been fairer to put it as "Israel sent a retaliatory expedition" rather than "Israel waged a war." Otherwise, readers remember Israel opening an assault rather than Arabs committing aggression.] Gaza "...is better off than nearly all of Africa as well as parts of Asia. There is no acute malnutrition, and infant mortality rates compare with those in Egypt and Jordan, according to Mahmoud Daher of the World Health Organization here." One reason is that Israel allows in 100 trucks a day, bearing necessities. [This puts the lie to accusations by the UN and other critics of Israel that Israel's blockade caused a humanitarian crisis including starvation and death. It also exposes as exaggerated the international sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs at the expense of the far needier Africans.] Smugglers bring the rest of what the people want, including arms. "Israel periodically bombs those in hopes of weakening Hamas, which says it will never recognize Israel and will reserve the right to use violence against it until it leaves all the land it won in the 1967 war. After that, there would be a 10-year truce while the next steps were contemplated, although the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel in any borders." [Islamic ideology uses truces as periods for rearming, after which they try again to conquer the enemy. Therefore, Hamas will never make peace with Israel. Why should Israel allow a truce in which the enemy prepares another war?] Israel believes that its expedition into Gaza caused the current lull in rocket fire "For many Israelis, Gaza is a symbol of all that is wrong with Palestinian sovereignty, which they view increasingly as an opportunity for anti-Israeli forces, notably Iran, to get within rocket range." They believe that if they let Gaza import construction materials, as the U.S. and UN are pressing them to, Hamas would use them to rebuild bunkers (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 5/29, A1). Of course the IDF incursion caused a lull in rocket fire. Hamas has to lay low while it brings in more war materiel. The incursion, however, does not deter Hamas from making new assaults when it is ready and Iran finds it opportune. Sure Israel anticipates that Hamas would use steel and cement to build bunkers. That is what it did the last time. The question is, why do the U.S. and UN demand that Israel let through that war materiel? I think they don't care about Israelis casualties or want them. Of course Arab sovereignty would be an opportunity for war! That is expressed in the PLO Covenant and by Arafat in his phased plan for the conquest of Israel. Mr. Bronner reports that dozens of Arab families live in temporary quarters, and many take anti-depressants. Why didn't he mention that hundreds of Jewish families live in temporary quarters, as the result of their uncaring and incompetent government which ousted them from Gaza? Thousands of others are traumatized from the bombardment of their towns in Israel by Arabs using vacated Jewish towns in Gaza for launching rockets. NY Times sympathy is one-sided and misplaced. The people of Gaza boast of their "democratic election." They chose Hamas. They favor terrorism. Then why the sympathy for them as if they are innocent people caught in the middle? Why aren't they held responsible for the recurrent wars they generate? For an earlier piece showing NY Times sympathy for Hamas:
go to
For more on why sympathy for Gazans is misplaced, click or go here:
HATRED OR FREE SPEECH AT YORK UNIVERSITY? York University in Canada is celebrating its 50th anniversary. University President Mamdouh Shoukri said that part of that celebration would be a June conference, "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace." B'nai B'rith Canda expects the conference to draw mostly noted anti-Zionist propagandists. The conference, like Durban, would strive to make Israel seem illegitimate. This conference is not proper academic discourse, but the University characterizes criticism of its planned bigotry as assaults on freedom of speech. The Jewish human rights organization added, "We question why an event that promotes hatred and encourages the destruction of the Jewish State would connect in any way to York University's 50th anniversary celebrations." "We call on York University professors, students, benefactors, alumni and
members of the public at large to demand that York cease becoming a breeding
ground for encouraging anti-Jewish hatred. Instead, it ought to use the
opportunity of its 50th anniversary to return to its roots and celebrate the
diversity and multiculturalism of its student body, and ensure the tolerance
and respect for all that should accompany it."
Universities and media often give a misleading excuse that what they do is protected by free speech. Their right to free speech was not challenged. What was rebuked is their censorship, defamation, and support of a totalitarian jihadist movement, in the worst anti-academic tradition. Universities and governments use poor excuses for irrelevant anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish activities. Speech is free, but so should criticism of it be. Were I a publisher, I wouldn't waste space on Holocaust denial, but I don't approve of criminalizing it, either. For piece on hatred Vs. free speech in Israel, go to:
MANY GAZANS WANT TO EMIGRATE Pollsters found that 39.4% of the Arabs in Gaza, and 28% in
Judea-Samaria would prefer to emigrate if they could find jobs abroad
Most people would take those figures as a misery index. I see more to it. It confirms the Jewish notion that the Arabs are not as devoted to the Land as are the religious Zionists. Since the Arabs are willing to leave, Israel could adopt Zionist policies that would implement as well as assert Jewish claims to the area, encouraging the Arabs to leave. This is an alternative that nobody considers. For more on population trends, go to: DID ISRAEL PROMISE NO MORE BUILDING? The media and Arabs accuse Israel of acting in bad faith or of violating its agreements when Jews erect any buildings in Judea-Samaria. Are the accusations accurate? What are they based on? PM Sharon got a letter of assurance from Pres. Bush, to secure domestic acquiescence to his plan to expel all the Jews from Judea and northern Samaria. Pres. Bush's letter pledged that the U.S. would oppose attempts to put over any other plan on Israel. Refugees should be settled in the new state. New realities [i.e., the hundreds of thousands of Jews having settled in the Territories] make it unrealistic to expect Israel's borders to be the 1949 armistice line. The U.S. would cut off all forms of assistance to groups engaged in terrorism. PM Sharon accepted the Road Map with significant reservations, such as: (1) No commitment to Palestinian Arab sovereignty in the Territories, just a provisional, non-militarized entity; The P.A. has met none of those conditions, which conditions are pre-requisites for peace-making and for any settlement freeze. Pres. Obama ignores Pres. Bush's official pledge and Israel's Road Map reservations. He is demanding a settlement freeze now. He seeks to impose the Saudi plan on Israel, with minor changes. The U.S. subsidizes the pro-terrorist P.A.. The Road Map is a farce, because the parties did not accept it but the U.S. demands unilateral Israeli compliance. Obama is reneging on Bush's assurance. There remains the Oslo Accords, which do not restrict settlement construction. Therefore, the U.S. and the Arabs are acting in bad faith. Israel is not. IMRA advises Israel not to take any risks based on assurances from U.S. presidents. For implications of settlement freeze, go to:
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7 |
|
EUROPE'S LURCH TO THE RIGHT AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 10, 2009. |
|
This was posted by Freedom Fighter on the Joshua Pundit website
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/ europes-lurch-to-right-and-whats-behind.html. The original article has live links to additional material. |
|
Europe's electorate has moved solidly to the Right, both in the EU elections to the European parliament and in a number of local elections. In France, Germany, Italy, and Poland ruling center-right governments got unexpected endorsements from th electorate, while in two socialist ruled countries, Britain and Spain, leftist parties got creamed. So did socialists in Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, and elsewhere. British PM Gordon Brown is so unpopular that his ministers are jumping off Labour's sinking ship so rapidly it's hard to keep track. Almost everyone concedes that if an election were held today, the Conservatives would win easily and Labour might actually fall to being Britain's third party. The British National Party, well to the right of center did extremely well in Britain's local elections...much better than anyone dreamed. The parties of Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Sarkozy cleaned up at the polls, and in the Netherlands Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party ended up as the second strongest party in the country behind the ruling Christian Democrats. After decades of socialist rule, what's behind Europe's right turn? Aside from simple frustration with the existing order and its encouragement of multiculturalism and unlimited immigration from the Muslim world, the reason can be summed up in one word: ....... Obama. For years, Europeans had the privilege of living in a bubble. Those primitive, childish Americans spent billions of dollars to protect Europe from the Soviets, allowing Europe the luxury of not having to spend money to provide for its own defense. And the booming American free enterprise economy and favorable trade agreements allowed Europe to build its own economy by selling exports to America, and to fund an outrageous socialist welfare state built on the ponzi scheme of high taxation and the expectation that this pleasant status quo would continue. Then along came Barack Hussein Obama. Europeans might have originally loved the idea of someone like Obama to replace that despised cowboy George W. Bush, because just like American voters, they simply didn't know much about Obama. But after six months, they've seen him working hard on wrecking the American economy, tripling our deficit and doubling down with massive spending . Even worse, he wanted the Europeans to embrace the same madness, calling for the EU to initiate 'stimulus packages' with borrowed money, just like the US. They turned him down flat, and a collective shudder ran through Europe when they realized how badly Obama was managing the US economy and what that meant for Europe's prosperity. Obama's economic policies have shown the Europeans the ugly side of the end result of the socialist nirvana their politicians on the left have been bamboozling them with for decades, and the realization has set in that without the US economy as the driving engine, it's a recipe for ruin. Obama then increased that angst by sharply cutting America's defense budget, reneging on planned missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic provided for in treaties signed by the Bush Administration, promising a 'reset' with an increasingly aggressive Russia, and talking openly about cutbacks in American forces stationed in Europe. He then sent things into overdrive with his non-policy on Iran's nuclear weapons (at precisely the time when Europe was gearing itself up to get a little tougher with the mullahs), by publicly calling for Turkey's admission into the EU and by his Islamist and pro-sharia rhetoric in places like Cairo. What Obama's antics have done, along with the financial crisis, is to bring Europeans back to reality as they understand that Obama's America is not going to be there to bail them out of trouble. And that the US is likely to have a huge task just repairing the damage occurring on Obama's watch after he's gone. It's a strange paradox that the man so many Europeans hailed as a fresh beginning when he got elected has turned into exactly that...in a way many of them never anticipated. And it's equally odd that the man who campaigned on improving relations with our European allies has ended up doing exactly the opposite.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
OBAMA'S ARABIAN DREAMS
Posted by Jake Levi, June 10, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline B. Glick; visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Caroline B. Glick is the senior fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Center for Security Policy and the senior contributing editor of The Jerusalem Post. This article appeared in the Jewish World Review. |
|
US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths. Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world. Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected political convenience. Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions. He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible. He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world. So too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny. In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world. In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends. On the surface Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America's ties to Israel are "unbreakable." Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign — and therefore unjustifiable — intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it. The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel. This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the "reconstitution" — not the creation — of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River. But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history." He then explicitly tied Israel's establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry. Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal, and moral justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, "resistance." But as disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama's rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program. Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be. The administration's policy towards Jewish building in Israel's heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility towards Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments not to embarrass each other. Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah's projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region. As Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his interview last week with the Washington Post, in light of the administration's hostility towards Israel, the Palestinian Authority no longer feels it is necessary to make any concessions whatsoever to Israel. It needn't accept Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It needn't minimize in any way its demand that Israel commit demographic suicide by accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as full citizens. And it needn't curtail its territorial demand that Israel contract to within indefensible borders. In short, by attacking Israel and claiming that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace, the administration is encouraging the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole to continue to reject Israel and to refuse to make peace with the Jewish state. The Netanyahu government reportedly fears that Obama and his advisors have made such an issue of settlements because they seek to overthrow Israel's government and replace it with the more pliable Kadima party. Government sources note that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel played a central role in destabilizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's first government in 1999, when he served as an advisor to then president Bill Clinton. They also note that Emmanuel is currently working with leftist Israelis and American Jews associated with Kadima and the Democratic Party to discredit the government. While there is little reason to doubt that the Obama administration would prefer a leftist government in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the White House is attacking Israel primarily to advance this aim. This is first of all the case because today there is little danger that Netanyahu's coalition partners will abandon him. Moreover, the Americans have no reason to believe that prospects for a peace deal would improve with a leftist government at the helm in Jerusalem. After all, despite its best efforts, the Kadima government was unable to make peace with the Palestinians as was the Labor government before it. What the Palestinians have shown consistently since the failed 2000 Camp David summit is that there is no deal that Israel can offer them that they are willing to accept. So if the aim of the administration in attacking Israel is neither to foster peace nor to bring down the Netanyahu government, what can explain its behavior? The only reasonable explanation is that the administration is baiting Israel because it wishes to abandon the Jewish state as an ally in favor of warmer ties with the Arabs. It has chosen to attack Israel on the issue of Jewish construction because it believes that by concentrating on this issue, it will minimize the political price it will be forced to pay at home for jettisoning America's alliance with Israel. By claiming that he is only pressuring Israel in order to enable a peaceful "two-state solution," Obama assumes that he will be able to maintain his support base among American Jews who will overlook the underlying hostility his "pro-peace" stance papers over. Obama's policy towards Iran is a logical complement of his policy towards Israel. Just as there is no chance that he will bring Middle East peace closer by attacking Israel, so he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by offering the mullahs nuclear energy. The deal Obama is now proposing has been on the table since 2003 when Iran's nuclear program was first exposed. Over the past six years, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected it. Indeed, just last week they again announced that they reject it. Here too, to understand the President's actual goal it is necessary to search for the answers closer to home. Since Obama's policy has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is apparent that he has come to terms with the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. In light of this, the most rational explanation for his policy of engaging Iran is that he wishes to avoid being blamed when Iran emerges as a nuclear power in the coming months. In reckoning with the Obama administration, it is imperative that the Netanyahu government and the public alike understand what the true goals of its current policies are. Happily, consistent polling data show that the overwhelming majority of Israelis realize that the White House is deeply hostile towards Israel. The data also show that the public approves of Netanyahu's handling of our relations with Washington. Moving forward, the government must sustain this public awareness and support. By his words as well as by his deeds, not only has Obama shown that he is not a friend of Israel. He has shown that there is nothing that Israel can do to make him change his mind. Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
ISRAEL AND THE US: WHAT SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP?
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 10, 2009. |
|
This was written by Ami Isseroff and comes from the
ZioNation —
Progressive Zionism and Israel Website
|
|
The "special relationship," under various names such as "strategic alliance" and "unbreakable bond", between Israel and the United States, is very much in the news these days. Yoram Ettinger and Shlomo Ben-Ami think it is very hard to break this relationship. Caroline Glick thinks it is already broken. In his Cairo speech, Barack Obama himself said: America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Those who read such rhetoric imagine many things about United States policy. The facts tell a different story. U.S. President Wilson was moved by his adviser, Henry Morgenthau, and by sentiments of Louis Brandeis, to favor a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine after World War I. Anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic pressure, however, moved him to appoint the King Crane commission, led by unsympathetic politicians who returned an unfavorable report. In the critical period of World War II, the United States did almost nothing to facilitate rescue of European Jews, or to reverse the British White Paper policy that prevented Jewish immigration to Palestine. On the contrary, there is evidence that the OSS gave the British information about the Jewish underground. President Franklyn Delano Roosevelt assured King Saud that the United States would never favor an independent Jewish state. President Harry S Truman reversed this policy against the opposition of the US State Department, which was, and remained, anti-Zionist and not particularly favorable to persons of the Jewish persuasion. Despite granting recognition to the new Jewish state, the Truman administration imposed an arms embargo that primarily affected Israel during the Israel War of Independence. The United States later prosecuted Americans who had circumvented the embargo and smuggled aircraft to Israel. America did exert diplomatic pressure to prevent the United Nations from lopping off the Negev and giving it to the Arabs as favored by the Bernadotte Plan, but the US pressured Israel to accept Arab "peace" offers which included return of 500,000 Palestinian Arab refugees and territorial concessions. After the war, the United States gave Israel a loan of $100,000,000, intended to be sufficient for resettlement of 250,000 European refugees (about $400 apiece) and rebuilding after the war. During the Eisenhower administration, American policy toward Israel can only be described as antagonistic. The United States and Britain pressured Israel to concede a chunk of territory in the Negev to Egypt. The CIA installed an adviser in Cairo who encouraged Gamal Abdul Nasser to camouflage his Soviet arms deal as a Czech arms deal, so it would appear less threatening. The Eisenhower administration, like all those following it, participated in UN condemnations of Israel for "violations" of the mythical international status of Jerusalem, and like all other US administrations until 1967, the Eisenhower administration did nothing about flagrant Jordanian violations of the cease fire agreement as well as the international status in Jerusalem. American financiers paid for a hotel built over part of the Jewish cemetery on Mt Olives. Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai and Gaza after the 1956 Suez campaign, in return for a memorandum about freedom of navigation that proved to be worthless, and Eisenhower entertained the slave owning King Saud of Saudi Arabia, his wives, sheep and chickens, in conspicuous luxury and with pomp and ceremony appropriate to a close, trusted and admired ally. No Israeli leader was accorded such honors. The only thing special about the US-Israel relationship until 1960 was the special part of the doghouse reserved for Israel. Under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Israel-US relations became less frosty. Israel got some minor military aid. Still, prior to the Six Day War, US aid to Israel was mostly symbolic and often in the form of loans that had to be repaid (See a complete history of US Aid to Israel) It never reached $100, million in loans or grants in any year after 1949. Israel did have a special relationship with France. The IDF was equipped with French arms, purchased with Israeli tax money and contributions from Jews abroad. President Johnson's professed love of Israel did not extend to helping equip the Israel army or to fulfilling US obligations to maintain Israel's freedom of navigation. Election campaign declarations and fond reminiscences must never be confused with policy. The Six Day War brought a change in US — Israel relationships. This change was not based on any emotional tie of the American people to Jews or to Israeli democracy, but rather on some hard strategic facts. Yitzhak Rabin, who was Ambassador to the United States in that period, warned that US relations to Israel would always be based on strategic considerations rather than sentiment, and he has been proven consistently correct. The considerations were: 1. Cold War — Israel was "fortunate" enough to have the USSR as an enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The United States could not let the USSR and its allies score a victory over Israel, so Israel got Phantom interceptors and massive aid during the Yom Kippur war. 2. Aid means control — US policymakers were appalled by the fact that Israel was able to win the war without US arms, and was not dependent on the United States, because that meant that Israel was not subordinate to US interests. The Fulbright committee considered taxing US charitable donations to Israel in order to choke Israel's financing of arms. The senators were convinced that Israel used the money to buy Mirage jets rather than to build Hadassah hospital and the Hebrew University and plant trees. However, it was decided that this measure was impractical, since the senators believed that the Jews control congress. Such is the nature of the "special" relationship of the US with Israel. Supplying the arms to Israel was a more effective approach. If you want a say, you have to pay. 3. Leverage — With the US controlling Israel, and Israel holding Arab territories, Israeli concessions could be used as leverage to bring the United States into the Arab Middle East. That is precisely what Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter did regarding Egypt. All three of the above considerations are clear from the public statements and memoirs of officials. They are only ignored at election time and occasions that call for speechifying. The largest increase in US aid to Israel was approved under the Carter administration. Nobody would argue that Jimmy Carter has a special love for Israel and the Jewish people, but that was the price that Carter was willing to pay in order to buy a peace settlement with Egypt and win Egypt as a US client. There is no need to expand on the state of US-Israel relations during the administration of George Bush Sr. and James ("F--- the Jews, they didn't vote for us") Baker. The Clinton administration was effusive with sentiments, but it took over the Israeli-initiated Oslo process and forced continued concessions from Israel even when it was obvious that the Palestinians had no intention of keeping to agreements. The US-Israel strategic partnership was just that. It was based on common needs in intelligence and other coordination, not on any love of the US intelligence or military community for Israel. The administration of George Bush Jr. was cold to Israel prior to the 9-11 attacks, and had reportedly held up spare parts for the Israeli military because it disapproved of Israeli actions during the Second Intifada. The entire history of Israel-US relations has been based on considerations of state. The "special relationship" exists only as a part of an election campaign ritual, which is performed religiously at the AIPAC convention and other such venues. The candidate or incumbent courting Jewish support says they will move the US embassy to Jerusalem, announces support for United Jerusalem and invokes the "special relationship." These festive declarations have as little relation to reality as the eternal pledge of Diaspora Jews, "Next Year in Jerusalem." The basis of US-Israel relations must be seen and evaluated realistically. The consequences do not necessarily support one or another policy choice. If the US feels that its diplomatic goals are frustrated by Israel's unwillingness to make concessions to Arabs, the "special" relationship and the "deep historic ties" will undergo "reevaluation." We all know what that means. Do not have any illusions that the US congress can prevent US pressure on Israel. Arms shipments can and will dry up, as has happened in the past. Congress has no control over these administrative decisions. Diplomatic support will vanish. Congress cannot make foreign policy. Those who advocate taking unrealistic stands in defiance of the US should have no illusions about the price. On the other hand, the cold war is over. Once the US has forced Israel to return all the territories conquered in the Six Day War, it really hasn't got much to offer the Arab and Muslim states that would give it any leverage, so Israel could become completely dispensable. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
OBAMA APPOINTS 2 DEVOUT MUSLIMS TO HOMELAND SECURITY POSTS
Posted by Roberta Dzubow, June 9, 2009. |
|
From the Homeland Security Press Room: "Today, I am proud to make two key personnel announcements for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — President Obama's intent to nominate David Heyman as Assistant Secretary for Policy and my appointment of Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. Arif comes from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa's office, where he served as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety. As a key adviser to the Mayor, he has led the City's efforts to develop homeland security, emergency management and law enforcement initiatives, including operational oversight of Los Angeles Police, Fire and Emergency Management departments." said Secretary Janet Napolitano. The Islam-loving Obama has appointed Arif Alikhan a devout Sunni Muslim to assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Alikhan was instrumental in taking down the LA Police Department's plan to monitor it's Muslim community. Alikhan is affiliated with MPAC, the "Muslim Public Affairs Council". "Founded in 1988, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) describes itself as "a public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims, for the integration of Islam into American pluralism, and for a positive, constructive relationship between American Muslims and their representatives." The organization consists of eight chapters in California, and one each in Texas, Kansas, Nevada, and Iowa." However, looking deeper into this group: MPAC's Senior Advisor, Maher Hathout, who has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and espouses the radical brand of Islam known as Wahhabism, was invited to address t he Democratic Convention in Los Angeles in 2000. MPAC claims that Islam is a religion of peace and moderation, and contends that Muslim extremists are no more numerous or dangerous than fundamentalists in any other faith. Holding Israel entirely responsible for the "pattern of violence" in the Middle East, MPAC asserts that Hezbollah "could be called a liberation movement." The Council likens Hezbollah members to American "freedom fighters hundreds of years ago whom the British regarded as terrorists." 
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to
announce that earlier today at a ceremony held in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in ADC National Executive
Director Kareem Shora as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory
Council (HSAC).
Aaron Klein, wrote about this on June 7, 2009 at WND
Napolitano adds adviser with ties to terror backers Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com |
|
NAZI SALUTES BY LEFTISTS AND ARABS AT THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 10, 2009. |
|
This was written by Abe Selig and it appeared June 10, 2009
in The Jerusalem Post |
|
Nazi salutes cause row at Hebrew U. A student organization that promotes Zionism on campus is fuming after its members were given the Nazi salute by left-wing students during student elections at the Hebrew University's Mount Scopus campus last week. Members of the Im Tirtzu (If You Will It) group said that as they made their rounds on last Tuesday, singing songs and waving the national flag, a member of another student organization — Campus L'kulanu (Campus For All) — approached them and made the stiff-arm Nazi salute as they passed. "We were walking by, singing songs like "Am Yisrael Hai" and "Yerushalaim Shel Zahav," and she st etter concerning the incident to the university's President Menachem Magidor and a number of Knesset members. "Later in the day, another member of their group did the same thing," Barak said. "He approached us and made the salute — it was shocking, and a lot of other students, who aren't members of either organization, where looking on in horror." "Later on, other members of their group also tried to block our path as we were walking," he continued. "It was all very provocative, and I could tell they were trying to provoke a violent reaction." Campus L'kulanu, which is made up of students who support the Meretz and Hadash political parties, among others, did not offer an explanation on Tuesday. One member declined comment, saying he had not been on campus during the incident, while phone calls from The Jerusalem Post to members who were on campus that day were not returned. In a written response, however, a Hebrew University spokeswoman said that one of the students involved had come to the Dean's Office to apologize for the incident. "After receiving the complaint from the Im Tirtzu organization, the student approached the Dean's Office on his own initiative, and asked to apologize. The student claimed that his actions were done as an individual, and he realized it had been a mistake." Barak said neither he nor his organization had been informed of the apology, and rejected the idea that the saluting student was "acting alone." "I remember both of them," he said. "It was a girl first and then the guy who's apparently apologized. She was wearing a Campus L'kulanu shirt while she gave the Nazi salute, I can't remember if he was or not. But it doesn't matter, they obviously weren't acting alone." In his letter to Magidor, Barak also said that regardless of any political point the students may have been trying to make, "the use of Nazi symbols in a place like Israel, where the Holocaust is still a very sensitive issue, offends the feelings of many people and is extremely intolerable." Barak also cited a bill that was proposed in the Knesset in 2007, which would have prohibited the use of Nazi symbols except for educational, historical or other informational purposes, or to protest against the racist nature of Nazism itself. That bill, which was sponsored by then-Labor MK Colette Avital, wasn't approved, but Barak wrote in his letter that to the Campus L'kulanu students, it would make little difference if it had. "I am sure, regardless of the bill or any other bill like it, these students would continue to act in an offensive way that expresses such a lack of values," he wrote. The Hebrew University itself has come under fire in recent days, as its annual Board of Governors meeting has drawn increased criticism from right-wing groups saying professors at the institution are increasingly anti-Israel. An ad sponsored by the group Isracampus that appeared in Monday's Post called on the board of Governors to become aware of "what is really taking place inside the Hebrew University." The ad goes on to say that professors and lecturers at the university "endorse terrorist attacks against Jews, call for international boycotts against Israel, collaborate with anti-Semites and openly call for Israel's destruction," among other allegations. Isracampus did not return e-mails from the Post on Tuesday, but the university addressed the issue in an e-mail. "The university will not respond to baseless claims made by organizations or individuals via paid advertisements that are published in the press," it read. "If the university happens to receive any legitimate complaints, it will handle these accordingly. "The university is very proud to allow freedom of speech on campus — which includes the voicing of opinions from across the political spectrum — as long as it is in accordance with Israeli law." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
LETTER TO NETANYAHU: DO NOT CAVE IN ON JEWISH LEGITIMACY IN THIS LAND
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, June 10, 2009. |
|
This below was written byYaakov Golbert. |
|
Hon. Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister
Mr. Prime Minister: Thank you for standing strong against the two state "solution." By all means do not falter. President Obama's Cairo speech has made quite clear that his goal is to weaken Israel to the point that it crumbles and is overrun, God forbid. He has adopted the Arab historical revision in its entirety delegitimating the presence of Jews in this land and justifying Arab belligerence. The end of the road is not shown on the Roadmap but we know it ends at Auschwitz II. You surely know that American policy toward the Zionist enterprise has been unchanged since the Balfour Declaration: strong public declarations of support and even demonstrations of unstinting support, coupled with behind-the-scenes duplicity and even treachery. (This is set forth in detail with copious citations by Prof. Francisco Gil-White at http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm in Is the US an ally of Israel? A chronological look at the evidence.) Obama has made it clear that the American national interest does not include a strong Israel. He is very skilled at pandering, however. He mouthed the magic words "unbreakable bond" even as he was rending them asunder by positioning Israel as the enemy, comparable to the American slave holders and the Jim Crow racists. Israel should accept the estrangement. The alternative is loss of honor and ultimately loss of our land, God forbid. Israel also has interests, vital interests. And they cannot be made to conform to the American interests as the State Department has always viewed them. There are at least two alternative courses of action. One is to freeze all construction in Judea and Samaria, both Jewish and Arab. The last binding legal document concerning our rights and status here is the League of Nations Mandate, which recognizes us as the long exiled indigenous inhabitants, mandates turning this into the national home for the Jewish people and launching our independent state. That, after all, was the underlying purpose of all League mandates. Only the lunatic Osloid fringe agrees that we should surrender that for less than real peace. To freeze Jewish building and not Arab building is to surrender our rights a priori. The second is to go our separate way, evict the US military from its base in Israel and end US training of "Palestinian" terrorists, who General Dayton himself states will use their training to kill us. The media will vilify you hysterically but if the people understand what Obama has done, they will follow you. Israel does not have to accede. Israel is not without alternatives or without recourse. Israel is able to go it alone, against the will of the USA, against the will of the "Quartet", the UN and the Arab League. There are several powerful tools in Israel's hands starting with Israeli military technology. Not many people realize that Israel is the country of innovation in hi-tech munitions and in asymmetrical warfare. Israel is practically in a position to embargo hi-tech weaponry from any country in the world, including the US. Israel's military technology is very advanced and many of Israel's technologies and products are unique and superior. The world will not likely boycott them. In fact, the US recently agreed to sell Egypt twelve Apache helicopter gunships but refused to sell Israel six because of injury to civilians in Gaza. I am not sure President Obama realizes that all the avionics in the Apache are Israeli. If Israel were to respond in kind, what would the US deliver to Egypt? Embargoes cut two ways. Withstanding international pressures. Israel need not fear international pressure, even boycotts and sanctions. There are too many other countries in positions similar to Israel's with regard to Moslem minorities and external defense to isolate Israel for long. India, for one, has growing and developing ties with Israel owing in part to the fact that its history of appeasement of its Moslem minority has not bought it peace and security. It has need of technology sharing and joint projects with Israel and that would likely continue despite international sanctions. China and Japan have found collaboration with Israel very productive for other reasons having to do with the capacity of Israelis for divergent thinking. An Israel-India Axis. President Obama, in his arrogance, has hectored not only Israel to surrender to Islamic demands, but also India, whom he told that the reason they do not have peace with Pakistan is because India has not surrendered Kashmir. This he could actually say when Pakistan is in grave danger of being taken over by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In fact, Israel and India are natural allies in many ways and complementary to each other in many ways. The combined resources, brain power, technology and manufacturing capacity would be formidable from the outset. We propose that ties with India be pursued with utmost urgency and that Israeli foreign policy be reoriented immediately to make India the central point, immediately replacing the US and Europe. Additional states. There are other states that President Obama has already alienated which could be brought into such a grouping. Colombia, with the assistance of Israeli military advisors, is near to victory against Marxist rebels. They have found that President Obama's emissaries have been in contact with the rebels with a view to actually taking their side. Colombia has reason to reduce its dependence on the US. Almost the same story is taking place in Sri Lanka. Strategic cooperation with India. Within the immediate horizons, Israel and India might do something of utmost importance together. I refer to the twin threats of Iranian nuclear weapons and Pakistani nuclear weapons. If Israel and India help each other, it might be possible to eliminate both. To fly from India might not bring Israel closer to the Iranian nuclear plants but it would have the advantage of not having to cross airspace under American control. Nor is it necessary to destroy the nuclear facilities themselves. The nuclear facilities cannot function if the infrastructure is knocked out. They are useless without electricity and water and raw materials. I do not know enough to say whether Israel has a good possibility of destroying or disrupting the nuclear facilities but Israel can certainly cripple Iran's infrastructure. Of course, the world would be outraged and might even apply serious sanctions against Israel and India. We could withstand those, both Israel and India. It would require considerable economic reorientation and restructuring but it is high time that took place anyway. Both countries would emerge stronger, more independent and more democratic for having done so. Would Iran retaliate with tens of thousands of missiles from Lebanon, Gaza and Syria? Maybe, but that can be stopped the same way as Iran, followed by a ground assault that should not stop until the enemy is destroyed. In sum, Israel can expect to meet concerted opposition from the world to these measures. Israel can be expected to be condemned, vilified and loathed. Israel can even expect that there might be sanctions imposed. On the other hand, submission and obsequiousness and "goodwill gestures," "confidence building measures," territorial concessions and unconditional unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and Gaza and restraint have gotten us nothing but condemnation, vilification and loathing, deligitimation and calls for our destruction when we defended ourselves. As long as we are still alive, more concessions will be demanded of us. In contrast, Israeli and Jewish prestige and acceptance were never higher than following the Six-Day War when the nations feared and respected Israel. Israel does not have to grovel before the Powers That Be. If we only make our best efforts and have faith in Hashem, we will be shown what we need to know and we will be given the right tools to win. Rumor has it that the Lubavitcher Rebbe (zt"l) told you that you can be the last Prime Minister before Moshiach comes, the Prime Minister who will have the great merit to turn over the keys to him. You have an extraordinary guide, nothing less than a prophet of God. Follow his advice. We have the ability, inherited from our father, Avraham. Stand firm. Very truly yours,
Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il |
|
PHILIPPE KARSENTY AND THE AL-DURA HOAX
Posted by Isaac Judah, June 9, 2009. |
|
Philippe Karsenty, a Jewish businessman residing in France and owner of a Media-Ratings agency, is the person who shattered the Muhammad al-Dura hoax. On September 30, 2000, there was a battle at the Netzarim junction between Arab terrorists and IDF soldiers. It was claimed in the report by the journalist Charles Enderlin on the France 2 channel that IDF soldiers killed the al-Dura child in that battle. Karsenty showed that the report was not true. He accused France 2 of having broadcast a fabricated film. In the legal battle between Karsenty and France 2, with the Israeli government standing on the side and offering no help, Karsenty waged a courageous and resolute struggle in defense of Israel's good name and accuracy in the media. This below was written by Sarah Morrison and is called "New twist
in alleged al-Dura cover-up." It appeared March 27, 2009 in the New
Jersey newpaper The Jewish State.
|
|
Karsenty tells The Jewish State that the al-dura case is 'bigger than the Dreyfus affair' A documentary released March 4 on German-owned TV station ARD attempts to prove that the notorious video of the killing of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura was a hoax, and could set two European allies on a collision course. The 55-second video, shown on France 2 television on September 30, 2000, shows Muhammad huddling with his father, Jamal, unsuccessfully hiding from gunfire at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip. After Muhammad's death, he was considered a martyr in the Arab world, appearing in everything from TV programs to postage stamps as a symbol of Palestinian suffering in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The video was used to fuel the Intifada. In a letter to supporters released March 10, Philippe Karsenty, head of the French media watchdog group Media Ratings, describes five crucial pieces of evidence uncovered by the documentary that support the claim that the video was deliberately filmed as propaganda and knowingly aired as such by France 2 television: A biometric analysis of faces proves that Muhammad is not the boy presented at the Gaza morgue; a lip-reading technique revealed al-Dura instructing people standing behind the cameraman; the boy filmed by France 2 moves a red piece of cloth down his body for no apparent reason; there is no blood on Muhammad or his father when they were both supposed to have received a total of 15 bullets; and the body at Muhammad's funeral arrived at the hospital before 10 a.m., whereas France 2's footage was filmed after 2:30 p.m. Two weeks after the German documentary aired, France 2 sent ARD a letter threatening a lawsuit for defamation, the same case brought against Karsenty in 2004 for publishing an article discrediting the video. Karsenty believes that because France 2 and ARD are owned by the French government and German government respectively, the lawsuit threat may become a diplomatic row. "The relations between France and Germany could be damaged just because of this blood libel," Karsenty told The Jewish State in a phone interview March 19. "Are we getting close to a diplomatic crisis between France and Germany? If there were really a lawsuit, it would basically be the French state suing the German state." The new documentary is getting support from Israel as well. Yigal Palmor, spokesman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told The Jewish State, "The documentary by Esther Schapira is remarkably researched and was reviewed by a number of German papers in a rather favorable tone, without the strident controversy that used to characterize debates on this sensitive issue." According to Karsenty, very little is being published in France about the video. No media outlet or individual blogger will publish information on the German documentary, for fear of being sued by France 2. Anyone who does speak out receives a letter demanding an apology, and without an apology, a lawsuit follows. That's exactly what happened to Karsenty in November 2004. After years of advocating for the retraction of the video, he published an article accusing France 2 of broadcasting a fake news report. Two weeks later, France 2 sued Karsenty for defamation, and two years later, a court battle ensued. "When German TV broadcasted a documentary in 2002, it said that the bullets were not from the Israeli side," Karsenty said. "They figure out he was killed by the Palestinian side. I thought it was shocking. I went all over Paris saying that Jews have been assaulted all over the world for this and to please correct it. And nobody wanted to correct it. All places said they were not interested. I kept going because I thought it was important for the basic truth, the French democracy, the state of Israel, and the Jewish people." Israeli scientist Nahum Shahaf, who originally investigated the video, confirmed Karsenty's suspicions several months into his work. This motivated Karsenty to investigate the video himself, and what he found was "shocking." "I realized it was completely fiction," Karsenty said. "Everything was absurd in the film." During the defamation trial, then-French President Jacques Chirac wrote a character testimony for French journalist Charles Enderlin, who originally edited, commented, and aired the piece. The testimony, Karsenty said, may have had very strong influence in a country with no real separation of powers. "In French society, where powers aren't separated, you don't want to make your retirement too early," Karsenty quipped. The French court ruled in favor of France 2 and Enderlin and fined Karsenty 1,000 Euros, 3,000 Euros in court costs, and a symbolic damage payment of one Euro to each of the plaintiffs. Karsenty immediately appealed, and another trial was held in September 2007. It was during this trial that the judges realized that there were problems with the al-Dura video. "Instead of one hearing, which is typical, during the hearing, the judges realized there were problems," Karsenty said. "They asked the lawyers [for France 2] if they agree that this part is staged. The lawyers said that it was not staged." Still wary of the video, the judges demanded to see all 27 minutes of video, but France 2's lawyers only produced 18 of the 27 minutes. "They deleted nine minutes of the most ridiculous part," Karsenty said. "Eighteen minutes were ridiculous enough." The 18 minutes of footage showed "rehearsals" for other videos, including Palestinian children falling down and then getting up again, and people being escorted into ambulances, only to walk back out of them. Though that would leave nine minutes of video unaccounted for, Enderlin claimed there was no more video. However, the courts determined that Muhammad was still alive at the end of the film, and in May 2008 reversed the defamation verdict against Karsenty. "The trial was devastating for France 2," Karsenty said. "Everything was on the table so I could argue with them." The most crucial part for Karsenty was his victory in a court that had, through the government, an interest in seeing France 2 vindicated. "France 2 is owned by the state," Karsenty said. Another facet to the controversy was the reaction of the American Jewish Committee's representative in Paris, Valerie Hoffenberg. Karsenty, in a letter to supporters in May 2008, said Hoffenberg discouraged French officials from looking into the al-Dura affair, and even blocked access to Karsenty and others presenting evidence to discredit Enderlin's video. AJCommittee responded with its own statement disputing Karsenty's accusations. Karsenty raised the point that AJC's statement was only in English for the domestic audience, in order to make AJC donors believe that their organization was on the right side of the picture. But, when asked to make a comment in French, their representative in Paris refused. She didn't want to jeopardize her relationship with the French establishment, Karsenty said. "They just wanted to protect their access to the French government," Karsenty told The Jewish State about AJCommittee. "Access is everything for them." Almost a year after the ruling, France 2 still vehemently defends the al-Dura video's authenticity. What helps their cause, Karsenty said, is Enderlin himself. "Enderlin went all over the world and got influential people to cover the blood libel," Karsenty said. "He is the most respected French journalist in the Middle East. Even before his story, he was the voice of the western world in the Middle East — amazingly connected. Muhammad was an icon protected by another icon, Enderlin, and he attracted many people to cover up his lie." Karsenty said the fear of a financially and physically draining lawsuit from Enderlin and France 2 paralyzes other media throughout France. The release of the German documentary was not reported for this> reason. "No... media published anything that the documentary was published, not even the Jewish weekly," Karsenty said. "The government succeeds well with controlling the media outlets in France." What the French media ignores attracts international attention, and Karsenty takes up the offer. Karsenty has spoken in Italy, America, Belgium, England, and Israel about the al-Dura affair and is slotted to travel to India and Australia to present his evidence. "We win by making France look ridiculous around the world," Karsenty said. "This case is bigger than the [Alfred] Dreyfus affair. He was just a little Jewish guy who was sent away. This is about the Israeli state, which represents in people's minds every Jew in every region. When Israel is accused of killing a little boy for pleasure, it says that all the Jews are killing for no reason. It's exactly the blood libel that we've had for centuries. When [President Nicolas] Sarkozy understands that he will be on the wrong side in the history books, maybe he will change. But until then, we need to make him listen. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by people who lie to him about the whole story." Eight years after the original air date, Karsenty is still one of the sole voices in France who speaks outright about the al-Dura affair. He still wants an admission of fault from France 2 and Charles Enderlin, an apology he may never hear, but is determined to pursue. "What's important is that we were asked to prove that al-Dura is a hoax," Karsenty said. "Now we know it's a hoax. When will the French government cease to support this lie? We have to fight them. I can lose a trial on a technical ground, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong." |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 9, 2009. |
|
There's plenty to report on/analyze with regard to Obama and his administration (including material on the settlements, below), but it's time to take a vacation from analyses of his speech. As to his much hyped visit to Buchenwald, I will not comment here. Precisely because I think it's hype. He came down harder on Israel than on Iran in Cairo, and then went to the camp to demonstrate to the world how sensitive he was to Jewish suffering. I didn't buy it. Or, rather, I'm more interested in seeing his sensitivity to Jewish rights and heritage. So, let's turn to other matters. ~~~~~~~~~~ The focus now is on the issue of settlements and our right to continue to build for natural growth (a denial of such a right being equivalent to the denial of our right to thrive and endure on the land). The Obama government, with the full complicity of Hillary Clinton, is insisting that our commitment via the Road Map is to an absolute freeze on all settlements, with "freeze" meaning no building whatsoever. The story, as I've indicated here, is more complicated than this by a long shot. There is the exchange of letters between Sharon and Bush, which are like a memorandum of understanding, with court precedent — I've been advised — for recognizing such a memorandum as having implications in terms of commitment. In June 2004, a Concurrent "Spirit of Congress" Resolution (which was not binding) passed in both houses of Congress. It "strongly endorse[d] the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon..." ~~~~~~~~~~ Beyond this, we have a statement from Elliot Abrams, a former national security advisor involved in negotiating the issue of settlements. He was cited in the Washington Post, on May 24, as confirming that there were discussions during the Bush administration regarding the nature of the constraints on settlements, with an understanding reached. On June 2, Dov Weisglass, former chief of staff to PM Sharon, wrote a piece in Yediot Ahronot, with regard to this understanding. Says Weisglass: "...on May 1, 2003 in Jerusalem. Senior administration officials Steven Hadley and Elliott Abrams met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and me, and, over the next two days succeeded in working out an exact definition of the term 'settlement freeze' in the Road Map. According to this definition, (1) no new settlements would be built, (2) no Palestinian land would be expropriated or otherwise seized for the purpose of settlement, (3) construction within the settlements would be confined to 'the existing construction line', and (4) public funds would not be earmarked for encouraging settlements. ~~~~~~~~~~ Since the height of the confrontation between our government and the US on this issue, however, there has started to be a subtle softening of tone. When Defense Minister Barak was in Washington last week, he was assured that Obama had no intention of trying to topple the Netanyahu government — which intention has been suggested in certain quarters. While US envoy George Mitchell, who is here now, has begun a process of de-emphasizing our differences and emphasizing our relationship as close allies. There are even hints that our disagreement on settlements can be "worked out." ~~~~~~~~~~ While there might be reason to be pleased by this, in point of fact it makes me uneasy. For, when I read that the matter can be "worked out," I immediately ask myself what it is expected that we will surrender in principle. (I've read unconfirmed reports, for example, about our possibly agreeing to limit where we would do construction for natural growth — with some communities that should not be excluded indeed being left out of the agreement. Unconfirmed.) ~~~~~~~~~~ What we are coming to in a matter of days is a major policy speech by Bibi, to be delivered at Bar Ilan University, at the BESA Center. He's been mum on what the parameters of this speech will be. But within this lies the core of what our policy is likely to be (or, better, will be, with possible adjustments). Speculation is that he will hold out for something less than the full sovereignty of a state for the Palestinians, insisting that for our security we require that there be an autonomy for them instead — whatever that autonomy would be called — that requires demilitarization and keeps them out of strategic areas and high points where their presence would threaten our security. Beyond a certain point, however, speculation is not productive. ~~~~~~~~~~ But we may have a hint in a speech just delivered by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, at the Institute for Near East Policy, in Washington. The result of an American plan to resolve issues within two years, he said, might lead to a Hamastan in Judea and Samaria. "These assumptions [that the two-state vision is the only viable solution, and that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a major obstacle to peace] stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that 'the two state solution' refers to two states for two peoples. Said Ya'alon, "It is our duty to explain the facts to our American friends." I salute him for this straight talk, which he likely would not have offered without the tacit approval of the prime minister. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am mindful of the tightrope that Bibi walks right now. And I have discussed before the fact that he opts generally to not be confrontational, though he has, to date been tough indeed. His tendency is to work within the system to achieve what he sees as the best result. Thus, for example, he was not receptive to the letter sent by Minister without Portfolio Yossi Peled (Likud), who suggested that we become less dependent on the US — for example by buying planes from Airbus in France instead of Boeing in the US. We're going to see a stance from Bibi that is, indeed, a compromise, which will not please ideologues. No, he is not going to say, "This is our land and so I reject all proposals." He will say, "Because our rights and our security are my first concerns, and because I demand reciprocity, this is as far as I will go." That much is close to certain. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Gil Hoffman in the Post, the hawks of Likud are saying that they know they have to be flexible with Bibi because of the heat he's taking. Thus, if he recognizes the Road Map, but secures an agreement to build in the settlements, this will not bring down the coalition. MK Danny Danon, who is staunchly nationalist and thoroughly opposed to a "two-state solution," said, "We would still scream but we would understand his decision." Most significantly, according to Hoffman: "Likud MKs said that if Netanyahu did make such a policy shift, they expected that he would tell them he was doing so with the knowledge that the Palestinians and the Arab world would not do their part to allow US President Barack Obama to advance his policies, so there would not be any real danger that a Palestinian state would actually be created." My perception is clearly in line with this — that is, I believe it is a given that a Palestinian state is not going to evolve from what Obama is promoting (and more about this below). The danger, however, is in agreeing to things in principle that can come back to haunt us later. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to an (unconfirmed) report in the Arab daily in London, Asharq Al-Awsat, Obama formulated a two-year plan for achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace, which was presented to Netanyahu when he was in Washington. And, says this report, Netanyahu "was given six weeks" to respond. If this is true, it puts my back up very badly indeed. Obama giving ultimatums? Making demands rather than requests? Reportedly, the plan was also presented to Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, when they were in Washington. They took in seriously, but saw a stumbling block: the political fragmentation of the Palestinians. How about that! Thus, the Egyptians are now taking it upon themselves, once again, to work on reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. Forgive me, but this is breathtakingly stupid. There is no way to be diplomatic about this, nor should I try to be. Aside from the fact that any coalition they might cobble together would not be stable long-term, there is the refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and honor previous agreements. Do they intend to try the diplomatic slight-of-hand, by which Hamas doesn't have do these things even if it's part of a unity coalition, as long as the members of the government (i.e., the ministers) they select do? And they would expect us to sign off on a significant agreement with such a government? Quite simply, even if Fatah were sincere about making peace (it's not), Hamas is the fly in the ointment that makes it impossible — yet Obama and company won't recognize it. ~~~~~~~~~~ On top of Hamas intransigence, there is this: Abbas has declared that until Netanyahu freezes settlements and accepts a "two state solution," he will not sit at a negotiating table with him. He is counting on Obama to take care of matters. Obama's stance has simply hardened the inflexibility of the PA — hey, the White House is on their side now, no need to worry. Thus are Obama's actions counterproductive to his declared goals. And thus is the likelihood of any agreement even further diminished. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
STOP A NUCLEAR IRAN
Posted by Susana K-M, June 9, 2009. |
|
This is a Press Release from the United Against Nuclear Iran organization.
|
|
New York, NY — Today United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) announced the launch of its first television advertisement, "Unclenched Fist" which will run nationally for several weeks on CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC and will be accompanied by online advertising. The ad urges all Americans to send a message to the Iranian government that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. The ad makes clear that we as Americans can make a difference through economic pressure. As President Obama is extending the open hand of America, UANI's message is also directed at the Iranian people by urging them to reciprocate. Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, President of UANI, said "UANI looks forward to engaging the American people in this important discussion making clear that every American can make a difference in protecting the United States and our allies from a nuclear-armed Iran." To View "Unclenched Fist" Click Here To Read The Ad Facts And Transcript For "Unclenched Fist" Watch here The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran should concern every American and be unacceptable to the community of nations. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran's development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is a danger to world peace. United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons. The Objectives of United Against a Nuclear Iran 1. Inform the public about the nature of the Iranian regime, including its desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's role as a state sponsor of global terrorism, and a major violator of human rights at home and abroad; UANI is led by an advisory board of outstanding national figures representing all sectors of our country. Forward email to American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran,| 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY, 10111 Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
WHY IS THE RIGHT DOING SO WELL IN EUROPE?
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 9, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Anne Applebaum and it appeared in Jewish World Review. |
|
We've been waiting and waiting, but the widely predicted European backlash — against capitalism, free markets, and the right — has never come. There are no demands for Marxist revolution, no calls for nationalization of industry, not even a European campaign for what the Obama administration calls "stimulus" — a policy more colloquially known as "massive government spending." On the contrary, in last weekend's European parliamentary elections, capitalism triumphed, at least in its mushy European form. Admittedly, these European polls are a peculiar species of election. Far fewer people vote in them than vote in national elections, and those who do vote are far vaguer about what their Euro deputies actually do once they are elected to the European legislature. The European parliament's gradual accumulation of real power seems to have had no effect whatsoever on its popular image, which is still that of a do-nothing institution composed of clapped-out politicians who cost everybody a fortune in airplane tickets. As a result, fringe parties, including the so-called far right, always attract protest voters and do unusually well. Nevertheless, European parliamentary elections also provide the only cross-continental simultaneous political snapshot currently available. Although national elections take place at different times and according to different national rules, these most recent, largest-ever European elections took place over a four-day period, according to the same rules, in 27 countries. This time around, with some exceptions, they told an unusually consistent story. In France, Germany, Italy, and Poland — four of Europe's six largest countries — center-right governments got unexpectedly enthusiastic endorsements. In the two other large countries, Britain and Spain, left-wing ruling parties got hammered, as did socialists in Hungary, Austria, Estonia, and elsewhere. In some places the results were stark indeed: In London this weekend, I could hardly walk down the street without being assaulted by angry, screaming newspaper headlines, all declaring the Labor government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown weak, corrupt, tired, arrogant, and, yes, very unpopular. In some constituencies, European candidates of the ruling Labor Party finished behind fringe parties that normally don't get noticed at all. So rapidly are British ministers resigning from the Cabinet that it's hard to keep track of them (four in the last week — I think). But how is it possible that the European right is doing so well — and so much better than their U.S. counterparts — during what is widely described as a crisis of global capitalism? At least in part, the Europeans are winning because their leaders have the courage of their economic convictions. While it is true that the continental European welfare states have kicked into high gear over the last six months, there are few equivalents of either George W. Bush's budget deficits or Barack Obama's spending binge. And where there have been — in Britain, for example — the high spending has hardly bought popularity. The theoretical version of this Euro-American policy gap is the recent public spat between economic historian Niall Ferguson and economist Paul Krugman, both of whom are at least as well known for their newspaper polemics as for their academic writing. Very crudely, Ferguson and the German government think massive deficits and government borrowing will lead to inflation and ulti1mately the collapse of the currency. Equally crudely, Krugman and the U.S. administration think he's wrong. For the record, Ferguson is, at least by origin, a British Tory. For the record, there aren't any U.S. Republican polemicists making the same arguments in quite as public a way. With a few exceptions, the American center-right's loudest and most articulate voices have been focused almost exclusively on national security for the better part of the last decade. Lip service was paid to "small government" and "reduced spending" while successive Republican Congresses, hand in hand with a Republican White House, enlarged government and spent like crazy. How can they now criticize Obama's possibly lethal budget deficits when their own were so vast, so recently? None of this is to say that any of Europe's conservatives would necessarily go down well in the United States. (Picture Silvio Berlusconi, paparazzi and alleged teenage mistresses in tow, campaigning in Mississippi.) It's also true that they don't necessarily have much in common: Allegedly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy can hardly stand to be in the same room at the same time. But if nothing else, the success of the European center-right during the current crisis proves that there is something to their political formula. They are fiscally conservative. They are, if not socially liberal, then at least socially centrist. They haven't been swayed by the fashion for big spending. They are trying to keep some semblance of budget sanity. And, at least at the moment, they win elections. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
TERRORISTS RIDE HORSES STRAPPED WITH EXPLOSIVES AT GAZA CROSSING
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 9, 2009. |
|
Take cover. Now Peta will get upset at Israel for shooting the horses, not at the terrorists for using them. This below was written by
Yaakov Lappin, for the Jerusalem Post
|
|
After foiled Gaza attack, IDF says Hamas risking another Gaza offensive Under the cover of morning fog, some 10 gunmen staged a failed assault at the Karni cargo crossing into Gaza on Monday, in which horses laden with explosives were used, a security source told The Jerusalem Post. At least four terrorists and a number of their horses were killed in the ensuing exchange of fire with the IDF. No soldiers were wounded. "A very big terrorist attack was thwarted," the security source told the Post. "These terrorists were armed with a huge quantity of explosives. They launched a combined attack, using mortars, and attempted to approach the border fence with booby-trapped horses to harm our soldiers, before firing on our force," he added. The Gazan cell belonged to the Janud Ansar Allah (Soldiers Loyal to Allah) organization, a small group that is linked to Iran and Hizbullah, the security source added. Members of the cell, some of whom had suicide-bomb belts strapped around their bodies, led the horses off of trucks and began placing bombs along the fence. They were identified by members of Golani Brigade's 13th Battalion, who were on patrol. The terrorists proceeded to open fire on the infantrymen, and mortar fire from deep within the Gaza Strip was also directed at them. The soldiers returned fire and called for backup. At first, tanks were dispatched to the scene, and fired at the terrorists. Air force helicopter gunships then joined the battle. Lt.-Col. Avinoam Stolevitch, commander of the 13th Battalion, told Army Radio that future assaults of this sort would put Hamas at risk of a second Operation Cast Lead. "We are slowly beginning to understand the magnitude of [the threat from the Gaza Strip]," he said. Stolevitch added that he believed the terrorists had planned a "large explosion... to provide cover for a kidnapping." He said his men did not pursue the surviving terrorists into Gaza, out of concern the attack was a trap aimed at kidnapping soldiers. Stolevitch praised his men's alertness. "Hamas did not carry out this attack but they certainly provide general coverage for these small groups," he said. The source said it was too soon to know whether the cell had planned to kidnap soldiers. "The area turned into a war zone," he said. "Southern Command forces are prepared for these types of attacks, and are aware of the dangers present in the morning fog. There is always the chance terrorists will try to use that for an attack." Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday afternoon praised the army's "effectiveness" in foiling the attack, and said it was quite possible that the terrorists had planned a kidnapping, a claim made by Hamas television. "The results speak for themselves, and prove the preparedness and the alertness of our forces along the Gaza border," Barak told a Labor faction meeting. "I hope that all future operations end with the same type of result." Ismail Haniyeh, who heads Gaza's Hamas government, praised the attackers as "martyrs," and said the violence confirmed Israel's "aggressive intentions" toward the Palestinians. Following the attack, Israel closed the Karni crossing, the main cargo terminal between Israel and Gaza, as well as the nearby Nahal Oz fuel depot. But despite the attack, 30,000 vaccines against foot-and-mouth disease were transferred to Gaza via the northern Erez crossing. The IDF said that 125,000 vaccines had been supplied to the Strip in the past three months in three separate transfers, due to the importance of preventing an outbreak. In addition, 140 truckloads of humanitarian aid was scheduled to be sent to Gaza via the southern Kerem Shalom crossing. |
|
ARAB PROPAGANDA DENIES JEWISH HERITAGE; HAMAS SCAMAS; RUSSIA & OIL
PRICES; CLINTON VS ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 9, 2009. |
|
MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S LACK OF LEADERSHIP New York City has developed one of the best anti-terrorist task forces in the world. But its Mayor has failed to exercise leadership in the two primary issues of the day: jihad and financial recession. For a couple of years, Mayor Bloomberg positioned himself to speak out on national public issues. He built a presidential campaign just short of declaring candidacy. Now he rarely speaks out, even though those two primary issues greatly affect New York City and New York State. Instead, he is running for Mayor, again, on the stated basis that he understands business and finance, important in shepherding the City through recession. If he understands finance, why didn't he resist more the calls to spend surpluses built on a transient bubble? Why didn't he warn against the over-extension of investment houses' resources? Why didn't he make the City more attractive to business and reverse the trend to excessive dependency upon one industry, the cyclical financial industry? Nor is he exercising much leadership now, in behalf of the City, the State, and the nation. The City gets its authority from the State government, that he had been considering becoming governor of. The State is dependent upon the City for tax revenue. Nevertheless, the State government, but especially the legislature, acts as if prosperous instead of debt-ridden and revenue-starved. The State is over-spending as if we can afford business as usual. The State is losing its ability to reimburse the City for many of its programs. Where is our Mayor's leadership? If the Mayor understands finance, why doesn't he demand that the federal government stop trying to solve the recession with officials who made it? Why doesn't he demand reforms that correct and prevent the problem, instead of letting officials tie up the whole federal financial capacity bailing out speculators? In every recent financial crisis, the government taxes the middle class to bail out the rich. As the U.S. forfeits its financial resources, how will it deal with jihad? Pres. Obama lets Iran develop nuclear weapons. He subsidizes our enemies in the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon. He demands that our ally, Israel, sacrifice itself to jihad. Thus Obama does almost as much to help jihad destroy our civilization (no different from Pres. Bush in his later years), as Obama does to fight against jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Other than those ongoing wars, Obama is treating jihad as a series of unrelated crimes to be prosecuted individually, and its leaders to be won over by charming smiles. (Obama seems to be becoming less conceited about his ability in that regard.) Jihad is an international conspiracy, based on a fanatical ideology, spread by means we mostly don't oppose, and supported by some states. It will keep attacking until destroyed. Instead of destroying terrorism abroad, Obama except for those countries, mostly is leaving jihadists free to recruit in U.S. prisons, preach in U.S. mosques, and attempt to attack us. What a burden that puts on New York police and prosecutors! We need better leadership on all levels. We need Mayor Bloomberg to rise to the occasion. President Obama has fallen to the occasion. ARAB PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN DENIES JEWISH HERITAGE To undermine Israel's claim to its capital, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has intensified its propaganda denying Judaism's connection to Jerusalem. The P.A. campaign depicts Jerusalem as a Muslim city having importance for Christians but no historical connection with the Jews. Joining this campaign were top Muslim religious leaders in the city, P.A. cabinet members, and official P.A. television. Going further, P.A. "leaders have been defining all of Israel, and particularly Jerusalem, as land which Muslims have a religious obligation to hold on to, and which must be liberated for Islam." [Misuse of the term, "liberated."] And further — the PA lies that Israel is trying to destroy Al Aksa Mosque, to help Judaize the city. Such false "indoctrination, repeated regularly by the P.A.
leadership, is creating a passionate religious-based hatred among
Palestinians that will blow up eventually into even more Palestinian
violence," said Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch
(which presented those other facts, in An historical note: The Palestinian Arab canard that Israel has been attempting to destroy that mosque has been made for years, without any basis. That defamation preceded the formation of Israel, being used as a rallying cry in massacres in the 1920s or 1930s. The Arab people have never caught on to the deception. Neither do they find it puzzling that Israel, which could destroy the mosque easily if it wanted to, hasn't in all these years. Absurd, isn't it! More absurd is Sec. Clinton's thinking the P.A. reliably wants peace. Why don't Christians declare that their connection to Jerusalem is through their Jewish pedigree? That might dampen the Muslim Arab slander. Who has the best claim to the Land?
BIG HAMAS SCAM? When Hamas seized Gaza, it formed two trading companies. It
promised investors huge profits from smuggling into Gaza. Investors
lent Hamas $800 million. After word came out that those funds were
"Madoffed," Hamas returned about 16% but forced investors at gunpoint
to sign receipts for full recovery
Here's an analogy. The Soviets tortured people into confessing, as if coerced signatures exonerated the regime for mass-murder. For a Hamas scam in its military diplomacy, go to: When the Russian economy sank with the price of oil plummeting to $30 a barrel, Russian policy became more accommodating. Now that the price returned to $60 a barrel, Russian bullying of Europe returned, too. West Europe is easy to bully. It is disunited, thinks short-term,
betrays allies, and lacks courage. It should invest in energy
independence, against Russian continued policy of cutting off energy
supplies to customers and of building pipelines to forestall pipelines
from Central Asian suppliers. Instead, W. Europe praises Russia and
denigrates some of its own members
President Obama should figure out what this reveals about Russia. Russia is mired in past policies of expansion, paranoia, and resentment. Putin's cunning is only regional and short-term. He focuses only on immediate power and rivalry. He is not likely to shift his sights to the international jihad and other problems menacing Russia. By the time he recreates the Soviet Union, his religion and nationality would be overwhelmed by Muslims or stricken by Iran's missiles. CHRISTIAN GRAVES DESECRATED NEAR RAMALLAH At their 200-year-old Orthodox Church in Jafna village north of
Ramallah, Christians found at least 70 graves and Christian symbols
vandalized. They demanded that the authorities investigate and mete
out justice. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights demanded the same
I've read dozens of condemnations by the Center, none before in behalf of Christians. I welcome this change. However, I've never seen any in behalf of Jews, whom the Arabs persecute. The Center takes an anti-Israel line. There's an erroneous tendency to blame the decline of the Christian Arab population on unnamed action by Israel. How do they explain why the same thing happens throughout the Muslim Mideast, where Israel has no influence? Anti-Israel sentiment rarely is informed or makes sense. Radical Islam has plenty of hatred to go around. For example, go to
ISRAEL DENIES SETTLEMENTS ARE OBSTACLE TO PEACE Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon pointed out that Jewish settlements never were an obstacle to peace. When Israeli communities left Gaza, the Arabs didn't become more peaceful but more capable of making war, which they did. (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/23). The Arabs didn't make peace even when they had all the Territories. The real obstacle to peace is Islamist intolerance. For that, go
to:
SECRETARY CLINTON VS. ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS Sec. of State Clinton said that Pres. Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements— not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions." The U.S. is asking Arab states, in return, for symbolic measures such as granting visas to Israelis or allowing Israel to open trade offices in their capitals. Although PM Netanyahu agreed not to build new towns and to remove recently built, unauthorized outposts [as he has been doing], he will allow building within existing communities to accommodate "natural growth." His representative said that the issue should be determined in negotiations with the P.A.. "Many religious Jewish nationalists say it is their right to settle in the biblical heartland of the W. Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria. Other Israelis cite security" for retaining those areas (Mark Landler & Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 5/28, A10.) The U.S. claims to be a democracy and to favor democracy. But it seeks to impose its policy on Israel. This policy and follow-up ones would render Israel vulnerable to jihad and strengthen the jihadist P.A. against the West. PM Netanyahu won office for opposing U.S. policy; candidate Obama assured voters that he would safeguard Israel. His Administration, however, has been condemning Israel for erecting houses, and not condemning the Arabs for promoting terrorism. Not so just or democratic-minded, is he? Nor Is this the diplomatic charm that he thinks would win over Iran and other rogue states. What is his excuse for his risky policy? He merely asserts a disputed linkage to Iran, without evidence. I think that Israel misjudged jihadist intransigence. It had imagined that it could hold most of the Territories open for eventual Arab control, in return for peace. Now it realizes that the Arabs don't want peace, they want Israel. Israel should gradually have annexed the Territories, instead of depending on the Arabs to make an agreement that they either refuse to or would be duplicitous about, as they were with Oslo and Road Map. The NY Times correctly referred to "religious Jewish nationalists." Usually it uses epithets, such as "extremists." But it still pretends that the unofficial, propaganda term, "West Bank," that arose after Jordan seized the area, is the proper one, though Judea and Samaria remain the official terms, as they were under the British Mandate. The NY Times pretends that they are only a biblical term, unconnected with the current area. This reflects hidden bias against Zionism. For more, see the next article. For the start of a string of links
to Obama policy on Israel, go to:
Zionist Organization of America replies to Clinton The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), headquartered in New York City, criticized Clinton's demands. ZOA indicated that she included parts of Jerusalem, the very capital of Israel. ZOA complains that she proposes sovereignty for what is "in effect a two-headed monster comprising the terror-promoting, glorifying and sponsoring Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas in Judea and Samaria and the Iranian armed and funded, genocidal Hamas, which controls Gaza." "At the same time, she is asking nothing of the Palestinians in return for these historic and monumental Israeli concessions, which would endanger its security, while giving away part of its ancient, holy Jewish land." How much building do Jews do in the areas to which Clinton refers? ZOA explains, "Israel has not constructed a single new settlement or community in Judea and Samaria since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. They have only added new homes within the boundaries of communities that already existed at the time of Oslo." Clinton said, "And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist, to renounce violence...and to recognize the prior agreements..." As Senator, "she spoke of the absolute need for Palestinians to end incitement to hatred and murder as being a prerequisite for any progress on peace-making and also affirmed the indivisibility of Jerusalem under Israeli rule and thus the right of Jews to live and build homes in any part of it." She said she thinks that the P.A. and Arab states both are ready for peace. ZOA noted that she talks differently about the Arabs and Israel since she left the Senate. [ZOA implies that the situation didn't change, her constituency did.] She had put it strongly and clearly in "October 2003: 'How can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?' Clinton said she supports conditioning aid to the PA on a 'cessation of propaganda and hateful rhetoric' in textbooks and the media, and that she has written to US President George W. Bush urging him to demand an end to official Palestinian anti-Semitism and the promotion of terrorism as a pre-condition to resuming Middle East peace talks. It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PATV, is complicit' in terrorist attacks, she said. 'This is not Hamas [running the television station]. This is the Palestinian Authority."' [The P.A. has not reformed its textbooks or media.] She often expressed similar sentiments such as, "And I worry about the chance for peace when the next generation is learning that fighting Israel is a glorious, religious battle for Islam." ZOA National President Morton A. Klein commented, "We repudiate the proposition that Jews, because they are Jews, may not move to or live in Judea and Samaria, the religious, historical and political heartland of the Jewish people, as it has been from the Bible, to the Jewish nation-state 2000 years ago, to the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations, which reiterated the fact that this is the Jewish homeland. On what basis is it said that 300,000 Jews cannot live among 2 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when 1.2 million Arabs can live among 6 million Jews in Israel proper? Mr. Klein added that Clinton wasn't referring just to unauthorized Jewish construction, but when she did, why didn't she "call for a cessation of all unauthorized Arab construction as well?" He pointed out the incongruity of the Arabs continuing their incitement to terrorism and terrorism for 16 years since swearing it off at Oslo, but the U.S. demands one-sided concessions from Israel. Her conditions for accepting legitimacy for Hamas are weak. She assumes that if that word-breaking terrorist organization gives its word to make peace, it will and without having to be verified. Haven't we learned from Arafat's similar charade? He pledged peace, but continued incitement and warfare. Taking the jihadist Arabs' word is as foolish as if the heads of the KKK pledged tolerance, so we appoint them to human rights commissions. We are just putting off the day when the Palestinian Arabs have to reform (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 6/22). The U.S. doesn't seem to require P.A. reform. Imagine demanding that a government stop citizens from building houses within its capital! Let Israel ask Clinton to explain what is wrong with her well-expressed doubts about the P.A. as peacemaker! She might try to claim the situation has changed, but the Prime Minister could refute that by citing the terrorist society that the PLO has built. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7 |
|
PROOF THAT OBAMA IS WRONG ABOUT JERUSALEM
Posted by Sammy Benoit, June 9, 2009. |
|
 border=2 cell spacing=3 vspace=10 hspace=16 width=40% align=left>
Israel is the heart of the Jewish people, Jerusalem is the heart of Israel and the Temple mount is the Heart of Jerusalem. Everyday there are new protests about Israel trying to "Judaicise" the area around the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. The Sheiks, the Waqf are all trying to politicize what was originally the place of the two Jewish Holy Temples. I have even read with curiosity how European Foreign Ministers and press reporter's with Christian backgrounds describe the site as "what the Jewish people SAY was the location of the Holy Temples. I wonder when those folks go to church on Sunday do they argue with their Priests and Ministers to change the gospels because the man that they believe is the son of God went to that Temple Mount 3x a year. Last week in his Cairo speech President Obama implied that Jerusalem should be come an international city, he is dead wrong. I am not here to argue history or tradition, no jokes about the Muslims in Israel mooning the Temple Mount when they face Mecca to pray (although it's true). No discussion about how Moshe Dayan was the villain of the mount etc. I don't have to argue about ownership because I have been there. And as corny as it may sound to anyone who has never been there, I felt the presence of God at the Temple Mount. All my life I had this overwhelming desire to go to Jerusalem and especially the Temple mount. I never understood that urge until I stood in its presence, about three years ago when my family and I finally took a trip to Israel (my wife had been before but it was the first time for the rest of us). As soon as we drove through the hills and I got my my first peek at Jerusalem, for the first time in my life I felt comfortable in my surroundings. For me Jerusalem felt like home, despite the fact that I had never been there in my life. The strange part is that I knew where to go and how to get around this holy city without looking at a map. There were times that I would thell my family that I had a shortcut to travel where we needed to go, and my wife who had been there before would tell me I was crazy (true but irrelevant) — I was always correct. Everywhere I went, I knew where we were and its relation to the Temple Mount. And to be honest the lure of the Temple site was stronger in Israel than ever before. Now at this point, anyone reading this who has never been to Israel is probably calling for the guy with the straight jackets to take me away. But ask anyone who has been there (anyone who believes in God) and see if they felt any different. On our second day in Jerusalem, we were finally going to the Kotel (the Western retaining wall of the the Temple Mount), which with rare exceptions is the closest any Jewish or Christian tourist can get to the Temple Mount (and if they can get on top of the Mount no praying is allowed for non-Muslims). The whole family got up early, I packed up my Tallit and T'fillin and took off with our guide into the Old City. Yossi, our wonderful guide took us all over the Old City, He knew how important the going to the Kotel was to me, yet rather than go directly to it he teased me with, "Its right over that wall, we will see this movie first, lets go to the burnt house etc" I was getting very frustrated, but he was masterfully building up my expectations. Finally we walked down the wooden stairway and walked through the gate of the Kotel Plaza, I was overwhelmed by emotions that I had never felt before. All my life I felt this longing to go to the Kotel to and I finally knew why. You see, everywhere else you go in Israel, you can feel the presence of all that has gone on before you, King David, Avraham, the tribes, the two kingdoms and on and on. That is about culture and history. When you visit the Jerusalem it is about God. It is about being able to feel the lingering presence of the Shekhinah (God's presence) that left the Temple over 2,500 years ago.. That's when I learned that the dispute over the Temple Mount was all political, all about delegitimizing the Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Because I was there. And with my ten year old son holding my bag, I celebrated my life long dream, I wrapped the T'fillin around my arm, placed it on my head wrapped my Tallit around my son and me, and prayed to my maker. But it felt like much more than praying when I was at the Kotel, Those words of Hebrew seemed to have meaning like never before. I was it was connecting. Connecting with the God of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov. That "urge" I had felt all my life, was more like an invitation from my Maker, "Come Visit so we can talk."And while God is everywhere, for some reason only a Rabbi can explain, I could feel his presence much stronger in Jerusalem and especially at the Temple Mount. There — that's it, that's my proof, thats how I know that the President is wrong. Nothing scientific, nothing that will work in a court of law, or in an international dispute, I felt this strong connection to the Lord at the Kotel. There is not another place in the entire would that has even come close. Why did I feel the connection? There is something in the DNA of a Jew that acts like a homing device. Just as a compass always points to the north, the heart of a Jew always points to Jerusalem.
Sammy Benoit runs Yid with Lid, a blog that explores theories
of political relativity. This article is archived at
|
|
BY WHAT RIGHT ISRAEL? HOLOCAUST CONSOLATION OR DIVINE GIFT?
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 9, 2009. | |
|
This was written by Sara Yoheved Rigler and is archived at
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/ By_What_Right_Israel$.asp | |
|
Israeli ire over President Obama's historic address to the Arab and Muslim world in Cairo last Thursday centers more on what he didn't say than what he did. At first hearing, Jews around the world should have been gratified by President Obama's strong repudiation of Holocaust-denial, which is rampant in the Arab world: "Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful." After alluding to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust, however, President Obama uttered four words that grated on Jewish ears. Those four words were: "On the other hand ..." President Obama followed his Holocaust statement with: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people ... have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." Some Israeli columnists decried what they considered the moral equivalency of the Holocaust to "Palestinian suffering," but the juxtaposition of these two subjects points to a much more egregious — and dangerous — viewpoint. As almost all the Israeli media analysts point out, by mentioning the Holocaust while failing to mention the Jewish people's "historical and religious rights" to the Land of Israel, President Obama was swallowing whole the Arab narrative. The Arab version of the Jewish presence in the Middle East is that European guilt over the Holocaust prompted the Imperialists to give the Jews their own state. As Imperialists are wont to do, they gifted the Jewish people a chunk of land that they had no right to give away because it really belonged to the Muslims. If Muslims can claim that the Holocaust never really happened (Palestinian Authority head Abu Mazen wrote his Ph.D. thesis denying the Holocaust), one can imagine how insistent they are that a thousand years of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel in ancient times never happened. Once, as I passed an overlook with a view of the Temple Mount, I overheard an Arab tour guide telling a European tour group, "The Jews claim that their two temples stood on this spot, but there is no historic or archeological evidence to their claim." Of course, the Arab tour guide (as well as the official websites of Egypt and other surrounding Arab states) was lying. Countless historical and archeological proofs bear witness to Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel from 1200 B.C.E. until the Roman exile in 70 C.E. (with a hiatus of 70 years during the Babylonian exile). Even after the Romans forcibly exiled most Jews, a significant Jewish population remained in northern Israel until the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Only willful ignorance can deny the veracity of the Jewish people's history in the land of Israel. Forcibly exiled from the land, at no point did the Jewish People relinquish their claim to the Land of Israel (which the Romans renamed "Palestine," referring to the Jews' ancient nemesis the Philistines, as a way of punishing the Jews for their rebellion). On the contrary, every day, three times a day for the last 2,000 years, Jews have prayed, "Gather us together from the four corners of the earth to our land," and "Return to Jerusalem Your city, as You have promised, and build it speedily in our days." Whether dining in London, Dallas, or Sydney, Jews conclude their meals with a grace that includes, "We thank You, the Lord our God, that You have bestowed on our forefathers the inheritance of the precious, good, and spacious land," and "Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days." Jews cannot snack on cookies without thanking God for the Land of Israel and pleading to return there. And the Passover Seder, of course, ends with the plea: NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM! The entire Muslim claim to the Land of Israel is that they occupied it from the Arab Conquest in 634 through a succession of other Muslim military conquests (Syrian, Egyptian, Mamluk, and Ottoman Turks) until the British conquest in 1917 (except for the one century of Crusader rule). But the Jews, under Joshua, began the conquest of the Land of Israel in 1272 B.C.E., nineteen centuries before Islam even existed. For Arabs in 2009 to repudiate the Jews' right to the land because "we were here first" (meaning before the massive Jewish return of the 20th century) is ludicrous given the historical reality that we, the Jews, were definitely "here first." OUR RELIGIOUS RIGHT TO THE LAND As for the Jews' religious right to the land, it is clear-cut and simple: God bestowed the Land of Israel on the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a promise God repeats many times in the Torah. God's creation of the world means that He can give any piece of it to whomever He chooses. In fact, this is how the famous commentator Rashi began his classic commentary on the Torah. Living in France in the 11th century, a millennium after the Jews had lost sovereignty over the Land of Israel, Rashi posed a question: Why did the Torah, which is a book of commandments, begin with the Creation of the world, when it should have begun with the first mitzvah? Rashi answered that the Torah begins with the Creation only to bolster the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. He wrote: "If the nations of the world should say to Israel, 'You are robbers, because you have seized the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan], Israel should say to them: 'The whole world belongs to God. He created it and He gave it to whomever He deigned to give it.'" This is the heart of the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. This is why the post-Zionists, who have jettisoned Jewish faith, waffle in asserting Jewish rights to Israel. The stark truth is that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people because God gave it to us. This is something that every believing Jew knows. REJECTING A REFUGE FROM ANTI-SEMITISM Had the Jewish aspiration for a homeland been based on the need to escape European anti-Semitism, as the Arabs claim, then one of the most extraordinary episodes in Zionist history would have ended very differently. Theodor Herzl, who founded of the political movement of Zionism in 1897, was an assimilated Viennese Jew. Convinced that no amount of assimilation would assuage European anti-Semitism, he began to work fervently for a Jewish national homeland. Rebuffed by the Turkish Sultan who controlled Palestine, and by the German Kaiser, an ally of the Turks, Herzl turned to Great Britain. In March, 1903, the British government magnanimously offered Dr. Herzl the land of Uganda. At first, Herzl rejected Uganda. But a short time later, on Easter, 1903, the Christians of Kishinev, Russia, perpetrated the first pogrom of the 20th century. The attackers threw children out of upper-story windows, gouged out their victims' eyes, and drove nails into their heads. For two days the Czar's police allowed the carnage to rage. On the third day, the government in St. Petersburg ordered the slaughter to cease. The Jewish world was severely shaken. Herzl, convinced that the Kishinev pogrom was the harbinger of even worse anti-Semitism, decided to accept Uganda as the Jewish homeland and refuge from anti-Semitism. At the Sixth Zionist Congress in August, 1903, Herzl rose and addressed the delegates: "I have a great surprise for you. His Majesty, Sovereign of the British Empire, is sending you a gift — a gift called Uganda." Salomea Levite, a young delegate at the Congress, described what happened next: When he returned to his seat, there was unbelievable tension in the room, but total silence. Not a single voice was heard. Then, suddenly, it was as if the entire hall had stirred to life. Some people began shouting, "We don't want it! We don't want it!" Herzl was especially in consternation that the delegates from Kishinev, the survivors of the slaughter, chose to forego the refuge of Uganda because they wanted no place other than the Land of Israel. These delegates were not religious Jews, but the religious and historic yearning of the Jewish people to return to Zion burned in their souls. As Max Nurock, a British Jew who served as Lieutenant-Governor of Uganda during the 1940s, would later say in an interview about the Uganda option: "It wouldn't do. It wouldn't do. You know, it hadn't got the spark of Divinity in it. Do you understand what I mean?"
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
JEW STOPPED FROM TAKING A HANDFUL OF TEMPLE MOUNT EARTH
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 9, 2009. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) The police stopped a Jew from taking a handful of Temple Mount earth for his friend's wedding— though they allowed the Waqf to dump the equivalent of truckloads. The Jew in question is a student at the Elon Moreh hesder yeshiva in the Shomron. He had been asked by his Rosh Yeshiva (dean) to bring back a handful of earth for an upcoming wedding of another student, so that the rabbi could fulfill the usual custom of remembering Jerusalem during the wedding. The friend, David B., visited the Temple Mount after taking the normal Halakhic [Jewish legal] precautions of immersing in a ritual bath and more. At one point, he bent down to pick up some dirt— and within seconds, a Waqf official was at his side, demanding that he unhand the earth immediately. David refused. An Israeli policeman then arrived on the scene and said that he must adhere to the Waqf official's orders. "I refused again," David recounted later. "I told them that I know of no law that prevents me from taking dirt from the site. I know that I am not allowed to pray here or to bow down, but I never heard that I can't take dirt. The policeman told me, 'The law here is the Waqf. Do what they tell you and don't cause provocations.'" David said he had no choice and in fact let go of the dirt. He then went with the policeman to the nearby police station, "because I was told that there might be a commander there with whom I could talk. But no one was there, and they sent me home." David wrote a letter to the Police Commissioner, and received a reply stating that earth may not be taken from the Temple Mount because it is an archaeological site. This reply drew even greater bafflement and shock for David and those to whom he told the story, such as Jerusalem's Deputy Mayor David Hadari. This, in light of the truckloads of soil— and precious archaeological remains of Jewish presence in the area— that the police allowed the Waqf to remove from the Temple Mount and dump in the Kidron Valley in 1999. "This latest incident," Hadari told Israel National News, referring to the handful of dirt the police refused to allow David to take, "is a grave example of loss of Israeli sovereignty. Yes, the law requires the preservation of the antiquities, but if the police chose to close its eyes when the Waqf dumped out truckloads of dirt, then it most certainly could have found the way to allow a groom who wishes to remember the Holy Temple to have ten grams of dirt for the purpose." Hadari also turned to Police Commissioner Dudi Cohen, criticizing the failure of the police to prevent the Waqf from discarding 6,000 tons of Temple Mount earth. Hadari told members of the Jerusalem and Temple Mount Loyalists Forum in his office that he has noticed a "tendency towards purposeful powerlessness in maintaining Israeli sovereignty and Jewish national pride on the Temple Mount." Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). This article is archived at
|
|
BRIGITTE GABRIEL: "AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA"
Posted by Robin Ticker, June 9, 2009. |
|
bs"d A very powerful letter from a very courageous lady. This was written by Brigitte Gabriel, the author of Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. She is a regular guest on national TV news channels and various radio stations. She speaks four languages, Arabic, French, English and Hebrew. She is a member of the board of Advisors of the Intelligence Summit and lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. |
|
Dear Mr. President, You face difficult challenges in matters such as achieving peace in the Middle East and protecting America from the threat of radical Islam and terrorism. These are challenges that have vexed past presidents, going as far back as our second president, John Adams. I have no doubt you appreciate both the gravity of these challenges and the enormous obstacles that exist to solving them. I also have no doubt that you and your staff understood that, no matter what you said in your speech last Thursday in Cairo, there would be those who would take issue with you. That is always the case when attempting to solve problems that are as deep and emotionally-laden as these challenges are. I am assuming it is your sincere hope that the approach you have chosen to take, as evidenced by what I'm sure was a carefully crafted speech, will ultimately prove successful. However, it pains me to say this sir, but, while you said in your speech that you are a "student of history," it is abundantly clear that, in these matters, you do not know history and thus, as Santayana noted, you are doomed to repeat it. In doing so your efforts, however well-intentioned they may be, will not produce what you profess to hope they will produce. A wise man once said that if you start with the wrong assumptions, no matter how logical your reasoning is, you will end up with the wrong conclusion. With all due respect Mr. President, you are starting with certain assumptions that are unsupported by history and an objective study of the ideology of political Islam. You began in your speech by asserting that "tensions" exist between the United States and Muslims around the world, which, of course, is correct. Unfortunately, you then proceeded, incorrectly, to lay virtually all the blame for these tensions at the feet of America and the West. You blamed western colonialism, the Cold War, and even modernity and globalism. A student of American history, who is not trying to reconstruct it to fit a modern politically correct narrative, would state that tensions between America and Muslims began with the unprovoked, four-decades long assault by the Muslim Barbary pirates against American shipping in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I find it telling that you mentioned the Treaty of Tripoli in your speech but ignored the circumstances that led to it. That treaty was but one of numerous attempts by the United States to achieve peace with the jihadists of the Barbary Coast who were attacking our shipping and killing and enslaving our citizens and our soldiers— and who by their own admission were doing so to fulfill the call to jihad. These jihadists were not acting to protest American foreign policy, which was decidedly isolationist, and there was no state of Israel to scapegoat. They were doing what countless Islamic jihadists have done throughout history— acting upon the hundreds of passages in the Qur'an and the Hadith that call upon faithful Muslims to kill, conquer or subjugate the infidel. A student of world history would know that, for all the acknowledged evils of Western colonialism, these evils pale in comparison to the nearly 14 centuries of Islamic colonialism that began in Arabia under the leadership of Mohammed. The student of history would know that Islamic forces eradicated all Jewish and Christian presence from Arabia after Mohammed's death, and then succeeded in conquering all of North Africa, most of the Middle East, much of Asia Minor, and significant portions of Europe and India— eventually creating an empire larger than Rome's was at its peak. The number of dead and enslaved during these many centuries of Islamic imperial conquest and colonialism have been estimated to total more than 300 million. What's more, the wealth of many of the conquered nations and cultures was plundered by the Islamic conquerors, and millions of millions of non-Muslims who did survive were forced to pay onerous taxes, such as the "jizya," a humiliation tax to the Islamic caliphs. Indeed, in some areas Christians and Jews were made to wear a receipt for the jizya around their neck as a mark of their dishonor. These facts have not been invented by Christian or Jewish historical revisionists, but were chronicled by Muslim eyewitnesses throughout the past 14 centuries and are available to be researched by any person seeking an objective understanding of how Islam spread throughout the world. You say in your speech that we must squarely face the tensions that exist between America and the Muslim world. That is a laudable notion with which I agree, but by casting Islam as the historical victim and the West (and by implication, America) as the aggressor, you do not face these tensions squarely, but alleviate the Muslim world from coming to grips with the jihadist ideology embedded in its holy books and acted upon for 1,400 years. Even worse, you empower and embolden militant Islamists who regard your gestures as signs of weakness and capitulation. The issue is not that all Muslims are terrorists or radicals or extremists. We all know that the majority of Muslims are not. We also know that many peace-loving Muslims are victims of Islamist violence. The issue is this: what drives hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide to call for the death of Jews? What drives millions of Muslims to riot, destroy property, and take innocent lives in reaction to the Danish cartoons? What drives tens of thousands of Muslims to demand the execution of a British teacher whose only "crime" was allowing her students to name their teddy bears "Mohammed"? What drives countless Muslims worldwide to actively participate in, or fund, or provide nurture to, terrorist organizations? What drives Muslims in mosques in America to proclaim and distribute materials that call for hatred of and the destruction of infidels? What drives entire Islamic countries to prohibit the building of a Christian church or synagogue? To assume, as you apparently do, that what drives these actions is not an ideology embedded in the holy books of Islam, but rather other "root causes," most of which you lay at the feet of America and the West, is at best naïve and at worst dangerous. Lastly, I must address your statement that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Unfortunately, the examples you gave are the exception rather than the rule. Historically speaking, I seriously doubt the Egyptian Copts, the Lebanese Maronites, the Christians in Bethlehem, the Assyrians, the Hindus, the Jews, and many others who have been persecuted by Islamic violence and supremacism, would agree with your assertion. For instance, Christians and Jews became "Dhimmis," a second class group under Islam. Dhimmis were forced to wear distinctive clothing; it was Baghdad's Caliph Al-Mutawakkil, in the ninth century, who designated a yellow badge for Jews under Islam, which Hitler copied and duplicated in Nazi Germany nearly a thousand years later. I witnessed first-hand the "tolerance" of Islam when Islamists ravaged my country of birth, Lebanon, in the 1970's, leaving widespread death and destruction in their wake. I saw how they re-paid the tolerance that Lebanese Christians extended toward them. My experience is not an isolated one. When you make an unfounded assertion about the "proud tradition" of tolerance in Islam, you do a great disservice to the hundreds of millions of non-Muslims who have been killed, maimed, enslaved, conquered, subjugated or displaced— in the cause of Islamic jihad. Mr. President, those of us like me who are ringing the alarm in America about the threat of radical Islam would like nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. Most Americans would like nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. The obstacle to achieving this does not lie with us in America and the West. It lies with the hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide, including many of their spiritual leaders, who take seriously the repeated calls to jihad in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Who regard "infidels" as inferior and worthy of conquering, subjugating and forcibly converting. Who support "cultural jihad" as a means to subvert non-Muslim societies from within. Who take seriously the admonitions throughout the Qur'an and the Hadith to convert the world to Islam— by force if necessary— and bring it under the rule of Allah. Unless you are willing to courageously and honestly accept this, your aspirations for worldwide comity and peace in the Middle East are doomed to fail. Sincerely,
Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: WAVES LAP SHORELINE OF ISRAELI COAST AT ASHKELON
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 8, 2009. |
|
One result of my ongoing efforts to photograph the natural beauty of Israel is a heightened ability to predict where and when to shoot. One guiding principle I follow is always aim for the edges. The "edge" is where you find drama, tension, and emotional impact. Edges are found both in time— dawn, late afternoon and early spring— and space — where forest meets meadow, storm meets sunshine, or the ocean crashes onto the shore. This image emerged at the end of a relaxing afternoon at the beach
with my family. With nothing to do but contemplate the sun's descent
into the sea, I began to notice the wave patterns as they rolled onto
the shoreline of the Mediterranean Sea at Ashkelon. My interest was
piqued when the steely blue water acquired a golden, late afternoon
glow. A rock jetty built to protect the beach calmed the surf and the
waves followed a gentle, orderly path to the shore. I fired off about
10 frames to ensure at least one shot with a staggered separation of
waves that would boost interest in the composition, which lacked any
focal point besides the wave patterns to keep the image afloat.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
THE POLITICS OF BETRAYAL
Posted by Hands Fiasco, June 8, 2009. |
|
This was written by Malcolm Hedding and is archived at
|
|
It is nothing short of astonishing to note the "agenda driven" politics of today. It gives lip service to grand ideals, "papers over" the truth in order to distort the reality, and in the end amounts to betrayal. This is the picture that is unfolding before our eyes concerning Israel and her battle for survival. Even her modern day historical narrative is being denied in order to achieve certain global goals. Caught in this "web of intrigue", the tiny nation of Israel "twists and turns" in order to somehow appease its allies who have now decided that a "two state solution" is the only way forward for her. This in spite of the following: 1. The Road to Oblivion Israel is now expected to make peace with a Palestinian entity that is presently at war with itself and that does not accept Israel's right to exist! This is not just true of Hamas but also of Mahmoud Abbas's West Bank enclave. A Jerusalem Post report dated Monday 1st June noted that in a separate interview with local journalists Abbas reaffirmed his denial of Israel's existence; his hardline approach on refugees and Jerusalem; and of course his demands that Israel, at least, withdraw to pre-1967 borders. In Gaza we have much of the same situation only it is less sophisticated and openly struts its stuff! Hamas not only butchered Abbas's people but effectively turned Gaza into a militant Islamic camp that repeatedly calls for Israel's destruction. Moreover, like its northern cousin Hezbollah, it is funded and armed by Iran. In reality Israel has fought two proxy wars with Iran in the last two years. Now of course she is expected to open negotiations with these groups in the expectation of ultimately handing over Jerusalem to them! What right thinking western nation would do this and where in history is there a precedent for this nonsense? The allies did this for a brief moment in 1939 when Hitler took over the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland. They realized in the end that their policy of appeasement had encouraged destruction and war when it became Poland's turn. Five years later with millions of lives lost, they counted the cost of "toying with evil" and turning a blind eye. It is unthinkable that the west and friends of Israel would now insist on pushing her into the arms of terrorists who desire nothing less than her total removal from the region. This is the road to oblivion. 2. The Road to Democracy Where in the Middle East region, apart from Israel and the Lebanon, is there an example of democracy? Israel is the stronger of these two and indeed is a shining light of freedom, tolerance, advancement and opportunity for all regardless of race, colour, gender or creed. As a consequence, her contribution to the wider world, in all fields of endeavour, is great and disproportionate to her size. By contrast the Arab/Muslim nations of the region are totalitarian; tolerant of Islam only; suppressing when it comes to women's rights; and illiterate by world standards! The same privilege their people enjoy in western nations concerning freedom of religion, they deny to others in their countries. Christians cannot practice their faith openly, build churches and propagate their message! Bibles are in many cases banned but the "Protocols of Zion" are sold openly on the streets from Damascus to Tehran. From their religious and political podiums one only hears calls for Israel's destruction and incitement to hatred. Their school text books pursue the same message. In short there is no road to democracy as it all but ends at the borders of Israel. The question is, should the west impose democracy on the region? The answer is no! However, it should strongly stand behind Israel and adopt such policies when engaging the non-democratic Muslim/Arab world that do not reward their dictatorships. 3. The Road to Agreement Where Israel has been able to find a genuine peace partner, agreement has been reached and peace has resulted. Both Egypt and Jordan are examples of this. These agreements were reached because all the parties were exhausted from, and tired of, war. They genuinely wanted peace. This cannot be said of the Palestinians. Driven by irresponsible leadership they have embarked on one adventure of destruction after another. Even their so-called peace initiatives were pursued with deceit and dishonesty. Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI have more than proved this by demonstrating time and time again that what was said to western politicians, was denied and reversed when speaking to Arabic-speaking journalists. Even Yasser Arafat, speaking in Johannesburg in 1994, stated that his real intention through the so-called peace agreements under Oslo, etc. was the destruction of Israel. Faced with this fact, western politicians turned a "blind eye" and said it was only rhetoric! And what of Gaza? Israel pulled out with good intentions and was rewarded with hostility. We all saw it coming except the enlightened politicians of the world, and sadly of Israel, who knew better. It begs the question, why is the obvious not seen by the so-called knowledgeable elite? More important still, why is Israel being pushed into the arms of Hamas? What other nation would do so in similar circumstances? The road to agreement must begin with the cessation of violence, the recognition of Israel's right to exist and the genuine desire for peace. Anything short of this is madness but the madness continues! 4. The Road to Peace Israel has fully demonstrated her desire for peace and willingness to make peace where all parties share the same desire. It is almost unbelievable that after 61 years of statehood Israel is yet to be recognized as an existing state by the Palestinian leadership. Both charters, that is of Hamas and the PLO (the backbone of the PA), continue to call for her destruction. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are engaged in a violent power struggle and they have demonstrated this. When Israel makes concessions she is rewarded with violence. This happened in September of 2000 and after the Gaza pullout of 2005. In addition, behind the conflict is a radical Islamic theology that denies that Israel can exist on what was once the Dar Al Salem (House of Islamic Peace). Until these realities are firmly dealt with by the international community, there cannot be and should not be a road to peace. A two state solution is unthinkable as it will result in more of the same. That is, more violence and renewed assaults against the Jewish state. Houses with weak foundations always collapse. The same is true of the House of Peace. If the foundations are not right the house will fall with unnecessary loss of life. Gaza proved this as did the negotiations under Oslo 1, 2 and 3. They failed because the foundations that should lead to true peace were not firmly put in place. In fact they were knowingly ignored. When this happens once it can be excused but when it happens repeatedly, it amounts to stupidity! Or, is there another agenda behind the stupidity? All this is not to say that there should be no road to peace. There should but it must be properly built. Israel has time and again stated that she has no desire to rule over the Palestinians. Her actions have, I believe, proved this. However, if your perceived peace partner continuously denies your existence and calls for your destruction, then the equation changes. To move forward in these circumstances is the road to national suicide— something that Ahmadinejad continuously calls for! Finally, it must be noted that Israel's existence today is not because of the Holocaust. The Holocaust only proved what Herzl believed and that is that the Jews would not be safe unless they had a state of their own. His initiative to found a Jewish State called Israel began in the late 19th century (1897), some forty-five years before the Holocaust. The early 20th century saw the resettlement of what was then Palestine by Jews. At that time even Jews were called Palestinians! The Jewish people have an unbroken 3,000 year history with the region and with Jerusalem. In fact, their first father, Abraham, crossed into the region 4,000 years ago. Their existence is remarkable, their achievements amazing and their book, the Bible, is enlightening. This book warns the nations against dividing the land (Joel 3:1-3), probably because underlying such endeavours was hostility with destruction in mind, and not sincerity. Has anything changed? Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
OBAMA REJECTS JEWISH CLAIMS TO JUDEA — THE LAND OF THE JEWS
Posted by Roberta Dzubow, June 8, 2009. |
|
If this were anywhere else in the world, and one group of people were told they are not allowed to buy land there, or build a home there — or even expand the home they already have — we would call that apartheid. We would call that discrimination. We would call it racist and unfair. But — wait a minute — the people we're excluding from living where they want to are Jews. And the land they're excluded from is ancient, Biblical, Jewish Judea and Samaria. It must be alright then. We'll call this absolutely unbalanced state "peace". Let's take a closer look. Arabs are allowed to live — in safety, with full rights — anywhere in Israel. Jews are allowed to live — out of all the millions of square miles of the Middle East — ONLY in Israel. Let's call this "peace". What's that you say? Judea and Samaria are not really Jewish lands, because so few Jews live there (and we'll make sure to keep it that way). Good, let's forget about history. Because all throughout the 2000 years since the Romans defeated Israel, Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria. For generations. Every so often their communities there would be massacred — by Arabs, by Turks, by Crusaders — and a few years later, more Jews would return, and build communities there again. The most recent large-scale massacre was of all the Jews in Hebron, by Arabs, in 1929. First the Arabs killed all the Jews in Judea and Samaria. Then they said "Look, this land is ours! Jews don't live here!" Then the American president comes and says, "Jews MAY NOT live here". And American Jews say, "that sounds fair...". We'll call this "peace". For 2000 years there has been no Jewish State for Arabs to complain about. And what have they done with the land in all this time? Nothing. There were not even roads when the latest migrations of Jews began returning to the land. There was not one doctor — that's why the organization Hadassah got started, around 1912. Not one hospital. It was a malaria-ridden swamp. For 2000 years. Nobody wanted it at all — until the Jews came. If we sell our souls for "peace", we will have neither our souls, nor peace. Guaranteed. Alexis Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com |
|
HISTORY LESSON FOR PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 8, 2009. |
|
Dear President Obama, Your speeches in Cairo and in Buchenwald were like the proverbial onion which must be peeled back layer-by-layer to get to the truth of the matter. Your comparison of the 6 million dead Jews at the hands of Adolph Hitler and the Europeans with the suffering of the Arabs for 60 years was worth peeling deep into the core. Since the Holocaust has been so well documented by historians, let us move to the 60 years of pain for the mix of Arabs from the surrounding countries who were NOT called Palestinians until 1964 when Yassir Arafat began to head up the new PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization). The Jews were called Palestinians — pejoratively — until the birth of Israel in 1948 when they were finally proud to be called "Israelis". After the British Palestinian Mandate was voted to be partitioned into a Jewish State and another Arab/Muslim State by the United Nations November 10, 1947, and when Israel declared her independence May 14, 1948, Muslim Arab leaders made blood-curdling pronouncements of how they would kill all the Jews in Israel. The street mobs of Muslims in the 22 Arab States and in the 35 other Muslim countries, marched and met in cafes, their conversations were laced with what each would do with an axe or their bare hands or a sword when he could get his hands on a Jewish man, woman or child. Their Mullahs (village leaders) encouraged the build-up of rage and joy for the great opportunity to kill and, in doing so, to be killed and thus become a Shahid (martyr for having killed an infidel — non Muslim). In the military echelons of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, etc. they boasted to each other of how they would "Dance in the blood of the Jews". They spoke of gathering their personal loot from the Jews and the mass rape of Jewish women which they planned as an Arab/Muslim way to dignify their macho testicle-driven blood culture. They knew Jewish women were unusually attractive — not like their own, often fat and ugly women. (We are watching this in Darfur as the Muslim Arabs are raping the black women whom they view as merely sexual beasts.) During the 1948 War of Independence the Muslim Arab peasantry were told to move out of the way by the command of the Arab armies so the tanks and trucks of seven Arab Muslim armies (helped by the British army) could get through and over-run the Jewish Israelis. The fellaheen (Muslim Arab peasants) were told, not only would they get a bit of land they had worked, which was owned by out-of-state Muslim Arabs but, they could get the houses of the Jews and all the farms, businesses, universities, and schools the Jews had developed. Above all, they too could have the white Jewish women as their bonus! One is reminded of Jomo Kenyatta, Chief of the Mau Mau, who virtually promised the same rewards to his Mau Mau killers. They could have the land and the farms of the white settlers and also their white wives and daughters. Strangely, much of that came true as the black leader, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe did, indeed, take the land of white farmers — which he turned into trash. Zimbabwe is now a failed nation, plagued with cholera, HIV, Aids, among other diseases, as well as famine, while Mugabe lives in opulent splendor. As for the poor, pained Muslim Arab Palestinians in 1948, they either left, awaiting the glorious victory or they joined in the fighting. Their intentions were to have a "glorious" victory, equal to the army of the Muslim Kurd Saladin in the 12th century. But, that victory eluded the 7 Muslim Arab armies attacking Israel on all fronts in 1948. They wanted desperately to massacre the Jews but ended up running from the field of battle, even leaving their boots in the dirt so they could run faster. The orgy of anticipated slaughter turned out to be an embarrassing defeat for the Muslims who had 7 well-armed Armies. The Arab Muslims called their defeat their Nakba (catastrophe) — all of which they brought upon themselves. Keep in mind that the Jewish army in 1948 was only a rag-tag army, made up of raw, untrained recruits, some of them just off the boats from Europe's concentration camps, who had never even fired a rifle. Their training might have been to fire 3 bullets from World War I and II scrap piles of weapons. When the British left their Palestinian Mandate, they abandoned their Taggart Forts, field artillery, rifles and handed them over to the Arab Muslims. Although they had contempt for the Arabs, calling them "Wogs", they hated the Jews even more. The pain of those who came to be known as the Palestinians which you spoke about for over 60 years, Mr. President, was the pain they brought upon themselves. After seven later lost wars wherein they gambled away the land, it was always their intention to re-arm their forces and slaughter the Jews in Israel in another Holocaust. In between the actual wars, they pursued continual Terrorism against Jewish men, women and children in Israel and around the world. As a macho, testicle-driven society, they could not bear to surrender, make peace, enjoy life which the Israeli Jews made good for them in the land they shared West of the Jordan River. Anything short of "dancing in the blood of the Jews" was inadequate because they, as all loyal Muslims, must obey the Koran and Mohammed's teaching of making false peace agreements ("Hudna" or temporary peace agreements) and then coming back to slaughter those who believed his tricks. The day after Yassir Arafat signed the Oslo Accords at the White House in 1993, he said in Arabic that they were like the Hudabiya Treaty which Mohammed made with the Jewish Banu Qurayza Tribe in Medina. Mohammed agreed to peace for 10 years in order to enter and pray in Medina. But, after 2 years when he was stronger militarily, he came back in 627 CE, slaughtered all 600-750 Jewish men, selling all the women and children into slavery, thus bringing an end to Jewish life in Medina. Clearly, the radical Arab Islamists are a low, murderous and suicidal people who live by conquering others and then feeding off the work of others like parasites. They have envied what the Jews have produced in a relatively few years and simply want it now for themselves.. Mr. President, you are a Christian who was born a Muslim. You wish to give the Muslims what they could not win on the battlefield. They also wish to recover their lost manhood, having been beaten repeatedly by a Jewish adversary whom they hold in deep contempt. Since you, Mr. Obama, are an educated man and since you have enough court Jews in your employ, you should be aware that your Palestinians are the same cultural savages who make up your Islamic religious and cultural heritage. We as Jews, having experienced centuries of deadly experience at the hands of Muslims in the Middle East and Christians in Europe, can smell the stench of Jew hatred once again fouling the air of Planet Earth. Our Jewish antennae (of at least some of us) are not fooled by your charismatic ways and the spoiled honey that coats your promises. You have gathered about you "Poison Dwarfs" who sit on your shoulder, whispering advice on how to have the Muslims over-run Israel. You think your Islamists will give America peace IF you betray the Jews of Israel but, you will be wrong — dangerously. Hopefully, you will be only a one term President IF for nothing more than what you are doing in ravaging the American economy. You are, indeed, a fool for confronting the G-d of Israel and His messengers. Moreover, your hostility to the Jewish State masked by friendly words shames America and Americans. You are telling all nations that you cannot be trusted. Strangely, you are acting like a clone of Mohammed who taught Muslims that you could cheat with false promises and then, as approved in the Koran, then break all agreements. All Presidents and Congressional members before you, expressed their unending commitment to the Jewish State of Israel. You have broken this continuous commitment and made an indelible impression on history as an enemy of the Jewish State, in deference to your Islamic upbringing. No nation (including America) can trust you and your gang of hateful advisors. Now, it's just a matter of how much damage you are going to do to America and Israel before you leave office in disgrace. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
THE CAIRO SPEECH: A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE
Posted by Eye on the UN, June 8, 2009. |
|
This article by Anne Bayefsky originally appeared in National
Review Online
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org. |
|
President Obama's Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is not surprising that Arabs and Muslims in a position to speak were enthusiastic. It is more surprising that American commentators are praising the speech for its political craftiness, rather than decrying its treachery of historic proportions. Obama equated the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation." In his words: "The Jewish people were persecuted. . . . anti-Semitism . . . culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. . . . Six million Jews were killed. . . . On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." This parallelism amounts to the fictitious Arab narrative that the deliberate mass murder of six million Jews for the crime of being Jewish is analogous to a Jewish-driven violation of Palestinian rights. Speaking in an Arab country to Arabs and Muslims, Obama pointedly singled out European responsibility for the Holocaust — "anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust." In other contexts, the European emphasis would be a curiosity. In Egypt, it was no accident. The Arab storyline has always been that Arabs have been forced to suffer the creation of Israel for a European crime. In fact, Obama's Egyptian hosts would have been only too familiar with Arab anti-Semitism during World War II (and beyond). After all, Obama was speaking in the country that schooled and later welcomed back Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini as a national hero. This was the man who spent the war years in Berlin as Hitler's guest facilitating the murder of Jews. Obama thought he would prove his even-handedness towards Israel by boasting of Friday's trip to a concentration camp and rejecting Holocaust denial. In this context, however, the move of doing Jews these supposed favors appears to be cynical political opportunism, especially having just set the Holocaust side-by-side with the "suffering" and "pain" of Palestinians "for more than 60 years." After all, the president made no emotive references to the "intolerable" "suffering" of Israeli victims of Arab terror "for more than 60 years." The word "terrorism" never left his lips. Far from bolstering the fight against terror and the anti-Semitism driving it, such maneuvers embolden more hate and violence against Israelis. Instead, Obama sought Arab and Muslim approbation by drawing a moral equivalence between those who have rejected Israel from the outset (and still seek its outright destruction or a "right of return" intended to terminate a Jewish majority) and the Jews who have kept them at bay since May 14, 1948. In his words: "There has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history. . . . It's easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks." Calling the Israeli-Arab conflict a "stalemate" represents an abysmal failure to acknowledge historical reality. The modern state of Israel emerged after an internationally approved partition plan of November 1947 that would have created two states, one Jewish and one Arab; this plan was accepted by Jews and rejected by Arabs. One people has always been prepared to live in peace, and the other has chosen war in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and 1973 and 1982, and renewed terrorism after its every loss. Bereft of the most basic understanding of Judaism and Jewish history, Obama claimed that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied," for "around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries." A Jewish homeland in Israel is not rooted in tragedy or in centuries of persecution around the world. It is rooted in a wondrous, unbroken, and spiritual relationship to the land of Israel and to Jerusalem for thousands of years. Coupled with the president's stress on "European responsibility" for the Holocaust, his words reinforced the lethal belief that Israel is the creature of transplanted, alien Jews. Obama's stunning offense to Israel and the Jewish people went farther. Israelis have come to occupy territory in response to Arab-initiated wars of intended annihilation, but Obama analogized Palestinian "daily humiliations . . . that come with occupation" to the "humiliation of segregation" of black slaves in America and the "moral authority" of "people from South Africa." His Arab audience understood that the president of the United States had just given a nod to the single most potent defamation of the Jewish state today — the allegation that Israel is a racist, apartheid state. After expressing his belief in a moral equivalence between the claims of Palestinians and the claims of the victims of slavery and apartheid, Obama juxtaposed his admission of Israel's "right to exist" with his assertion that "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Every word of this speech was carefully weighed. It was therefore no mishap that for the first time a U.S. president has denied the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, period. Such an assertion abrogates every agreement between Arabs and Israelis, which have always left the ultimate determination of which settlements will stay or go to a bilateral peace process and final status negotiations. Even the Roadmap reads: "Phase III: Permanent Status Agreement and End of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict . . . a final, permanent status resolution . . . on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements." Furthermore, the idea that Jews are not permitted to live in any territory that might become part of a future Palestinian state means only one thing: apartheid Palestine. Twenty percent of Israel's population,1.5 million people, are Arab (with more democratic rights than in any Arab state). But the notion of any Jewish presence in Palestinian territory is allegedly an abomination. Why should a future transfer of governmental authority mean "no Jews allowed"? But judging by Obama's speech, only one "dislocation" counts. After placing the Holocaust side-by-side with the Palestinian "pain of dislocation," he ignored the dislocation of 800,000 Jewish refugees from all over the Arab Middle East in response to the creation of Israel. Jewish refugees from Arab intolerance were not the only human-rights casualties the president chose to dismiss. Three different times Obama defended the right of Muslim women to cover up their bodies. Never once did he mention the right of Muslim women to refuse to cover up their bodies — a right denied on pain of arrest and death by many of the very communities he was addressing. In the name of "freedom of religion" he chose to "welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue." The Saudi Arabian government criminalizes the public practice of any religion but Islam. This manufactured human-rights fantasy has done a tremendous disservice to the oppressed across the Arab and Muslim world. President Obama's meticulously planned and executed Egyptian speech marks the lowest point in the U.S. presidency's understanding and appreciation of the Jewish state, its history, and its people's future. Added to his administration's evident infirmity on Iran, the speech of June 4, 2009, by the supposed leader of the free world will be remembered as a major decline in human history. Contact Eye of the UN at info@EYEontheUN.org and visit their
website:
|
|
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. PRESIDENT,... YOUR SPEECH CONTAINED MISLEADING INACCURACIES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 8, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Jacobo Kaufmann, "a very concerned Israeli citizen." |
|
An open letter to President Barack Hussein Obama Most people in Israel listened very attentively to your recent speech in Cairo, giving you anticipated credit for meaning well, which was confirmed in your clear and steadfast expressions of America's support, friendship and loyalty to our State. However, after hearing and in reading the text of your passionate speech, which I happen to have in front of my eyes as we speak, one cannot but raise one's eyebrows vis-a-vis some vital and misleading inaccuracies, and some phrases that lend themselves to concern and confusion, and must therefore be clarified. Some of them are of a general nature, like for example to claim that "throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality", or to surprise your delighted and selectively listening audience with the statement that Islam's "light of learning through so many centuries, paved the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment..." Both of these so called "facts", you said, you have learned when you studied history. But many of us, who have also studied history, have researched well documented sources obviously different from yours, and found that religious tolerance has never been a trademark of Islamic military conquests on African lands, the Balkans and the Iberian Peninsula, to name but a few. Some information on this subject can be found, first of all, in the Qur'an itself. Many other sources, for example in Spain and Portugal, tell us about the massacres and forceful conversions perpetrated in the name of Islam, in its struggle against Christianity. Racial equality on the other hand harshly contradicts the fact that Muslims hunted down millions of African men, women and children for at least two centuries, and sold them to slave traders who sent them to North, Central and South America. A few words should also be said about the claim that Islam paved the way to Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. Nothing further removed from the historical facts. Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment are local products, mainly in Italy, France, the Austro Hungarian Empire and Germany, much influenced by its own artists, architects and thinkers, among whom the Jewish sages did not exactly play a minor role, as much as all those Jewish scientists, medics, astronomers, cartographers, navigators, writers, poets and philosophers who for centuries shaped the cultural life in Spain and Portugal, and without whom many of the Islamic achievements in those lands would not have been possible. Those of us who live in this part of the world, and many distinguished historians elsewhere, know only too well that in the Renaissance period there was practically no other Islamic cultural contribution along the Mediterranean shores than constant Muslim terror, violent attacks, piracy, slavery and naval clashes. Israel's sovereignty and the right to settle anywhere we see fit Of a more vital character for Israel are your statements on our right to establish settlements in what you call the occupied territories. To avoid any confusion and cast away any doubt on the right of Jews to settle in the Holy Land, you surely know and I allow myself to remind you that the Land of Israel unequivocally belongs to the Jewish People. As a Christian you have surely read the Bible and come across all those paragraphs in which this fact is stated very clearly. As a person with profound knowledge of the Qur'an, which you have so profusely quoted, it cannot have escaped your attention that the Qur'an itself states the same in Sura 5:20-21, Sura 7:137 and Sura 17:104. And you surely must have seen that the Qur'an does not mention the city of Jerusalem even once. There it is. No doubt about it. This land belongs to the Jewish People! And therefore no one has the right to interfere on our rights to build and live wherever we see fit in our own land. No one. Neither the U.S.A. nor any country in Europe, Asia or Africa. So, how come the USA does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements? On what grounds? This is also stated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 (1): "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" and (2)"Everybody has the right to leave any country, including his own and to return to that country. Obviously both paragraphs apply to the above mentioned. Furthermore we read in Article 17 (1) "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and (2) "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". Which reminds me that even though this territory already belonged to us, the Keren Hakayemet Le'Israel made this claim double sure by acquiring these lands with money donated by the Jewish People. Obviously the Holy land is not and has never been anybody else's property nor homeland. It has been ravaged, conquered, invaded and occupied by a multitude of powers, including the Greek, the Romans, the Persians, the Crusaders, Saladdin, the Ottoman Empire, etc., but all of them stayed on our land illegally. It is not us who live here illegally. It is all of them! True, Arab minorities have lived on this soil for several centuries, but that does not mean that they are its legitimate owners. On the contrary, they should pay their rent retroactively and indemnify us for transforming it into a desert which only the Jewish People have caused to bloom again. Law abiding minorities should be able to peacefully live and prosper within the borders of each country, as is the case also in Israel. But this does not give them the right to question that country's sovereignty nor to make any territorial claims, least of all to create another country on part of that territory. Who should understand this reasoning better than the President of the United States? What would any American say if some large communities such as the Greek, Italians, Irish, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Afro Americans, Arabs or Jews would suddenly claim territorial rights or even the creation of independent states on American territory separated from the USA? By the way, have the USA consented to more than a handful of Indian reservations for those who owned their land before any European set its foot on their shores? Should they not have the right to at least one state? Where they not deprived of their lands? Where they not slaughtered by the millions? Does anybody care? Should the President of the USA not strive for justice in his own country, before making statements on others? On refugees and displaced persons It is not the founding of Israel that has brought about the displacement of all Arabs and Christians living within its borders. This was caused by the Arabs themselves by not accepting the partition plan voted upon at the United Nations and accepted by the Jews. It were the Arabs who invaded Israel trying to occupy the whole land. But they did not succeed. They were defeated. Nevertheless, many Arabs decided to stay in their cities, villages and fields and have become citizens of Israel, where they live also today. Others decided to leave. Is it Israel's fault that not one of the many Arab states agreed to integrate those people in their midst? Has Israel created the refugee camps in Lebanon, Egypt and Transjordan (who changed its name into Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)? Why have these Arab nations isolated and discriminated their own brethren? Who has caused their misery by not accepting them among them? Surely not Israel. As for the security wall and the military control posts in Judea, Samaria and the border with Gaza, everybody wishes they were not necessary and did not exist. They have been erected with the sole purpose to avoid and diminish Arab terror attacks. Before these started, everybody could move freely in whatever direction. Stop the suicide bombs, trapped cars and other terror attacks, and they will go away. One thing in your speech that has struck me as being simply outrageous is your comparison of centuries long persecution, anti-semitism and the Holocaust, with the suffering of the Palestinian people "in pursuit of a homeland". First of all, Israel is not their homeland! For most of them it is Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Egypt. Second, we Jews were not persecuted and murdered by the millions in pursuit of a homeland, but simply because we are Jews, and this has also happened in Arab countries. This was possible only because at the time we had still been deprived of our homeland! To compare this with the situation of displaced Arabs in neighbouring Arab refugee camps is not only unfair, to say the least, but also misleading and a reflection of the worst disinformation tactics ever produced. The President of the USA should know better. Finally a word about Jerusalem. This city, which has never ever been the capital of any other nation, already provides free access and worship facilities for Christians, Muslims and Jews. This has not been the case before 1967, when Jews were systematically prevented by each of the foreign occupying powers, and most recently by the Jordanians, from praying at their holy sites. Freedom of worship in the Holy City of Jerusalem as well as in Bethlehem and everywhere else in Israel have only been guaranteed by the presence of Israeli security forces. Two states? Is this a real solution? For quite a few years presidents and other politicians from different countries have tried to persuade the various Israeli governments of the two states solution, in order to obtain peace and recognition. Some Israeli politicians, eager to obtain a lasting peace and tranquility at all price, even support such a proposal. The Palestinians could have had a state of their own long ago. Certainly not during the years the West Bank was under Jordanian rule and Gaza a part of Egypt. But Arafat could have declared one and most countries in the world would have recognized it. But he has not done so. And neither has any other Palestinian leader. To this day Hamas rejects the proposed two state solution. So do Hizbullah, Al Qaeda and Iran. Shouldn't we ask ourselves why? The answer is pretty obvious: Because it would mean their recognition of Israel's right to exist. And because they want Israel to disappear and get it all. So, Mr. President: with whom do you suggest we talk about this idea? Now, after Israel's unilateral abandon of the Gaza strip and its fierce consequences, no one in his right mind can even think of unilaterally giving up Judea and Samaria in exchange for an illusion. Never in history has any country exchanged land for peace, let alone an uncertain peace. To obtain peace one gives peace. Not land. The land is not any government's private property. It belongs to the people. Governments have no right to give away even the smallest handful of earth. But regardless of all of these considerations, the plain fact remains that the two states idea has failed. So, why try to impose on Israel an idea that simply doesn't work? Why not think of something else? Something new and refreshing? Something viable? Mr. President you have raised much hope in your country and in others. Those who voted for you, and many others, believe that you can bring about change on many issues. This alone should be a good reason to try a new path and not insist on the same old mistakes committed by some of your predecessors. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
COOL SCENE WITH FOUNTAIN
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 8, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
OBAMA'S POP QUIZ
Posted by Bill Warner, June 8, 2009. |
|
Last week, Obama gave his much anticipated talk in Cairo and spoke at length about Islam. If you would like an excellent tactical analysis of his speech go to Robert's Spencer's fine article. By my count his speech had at least 21 errors about the doctrine of political Islam and its history. This does not include opinions about Israel and the Arabs of Gaza. Some of Obama's fans shift the burden of guilt to Obama's speechwriters. But, you don't hear that argument if the Obama supporters like the speech. Since the errors he made all track the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is little doubt that he has help. So what? Obama is a politician and most politicians are noted for shading any truth for their own good. We should not blame Obama for being a propagandist for Islam. He is not the problem. If I were to teach a class on the history and doctrine of political Islam, I would hand out Obama's speech as a final exam. The instructions would be to choose at least 18 errors and counter them with a short paragraph about the truth of the actual doctrine and history. Obama gave America and the world a pop quiz and our "expert" commentators in TV, newspapers and the rest of the mainstream media failed. Included in the list of those who failed the exam are politicians, preachers, priests, professors and rabbis. As a civilization we have no way to sort truth from lies about Islam. We simply accept any apologist's analysis because it is positive. We want to be told sweet lies and not bothered by the truth. As a civilization we have accepted the lie that "authorities" in the media and politics will tell us what the true nature of Islam is. But there is only one authority on the true nature of Islam-the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira (Mohammed's life) and Hadith (his Traditions) — the Trilogy. But Obama's speech ignores this fact and refers only to the Koran. Anytime someone tries to explain Islam solely on the basis of the Koran, you are dealing with someone who is either ignorant or a deceiver. Of course, the media and the rest of our so-called experts do not know that Islam is based upon the Sira and Hadith either. No matter what he said-good, bad, or indifferent-we have no way to discern truth from falseness. We are just too ignorant of even the most basic ideas of political Islam. Obama's speech is in gross error due to his assumption that Islam can only be viewed from one perspective-that of the believer. But Islam tells us that all of humanity is divided into believer, kafir (unbeliever) and dhimmi (servant of Islam, an apologist). Hence, there are three views of Islam-believer-centric, kafir-centric and dhimmi-centric. The best example of these three views of Islam is to study the day that Mohammed executed 800 male Jews in Medina because they denied that Mohammed was a prophet. Believer-centric view is that the execution was a victory for Islam and a day of triumph. These views are not reconcilable. But Obama and the media deny that any kafir view even exists. He leads a nation of kafirs and is unwilling to voice the view of Islam that is kafir-centric. He consistently only allows the believer-centric view to be expressed. The only scientific way to approach Obama's talk is to allow all three views. To deny that the kafir view even exists is intellectual bigotry and blindness. But all authorities insist that there is no kafir-centric view, only Islam. The only way to defeat Islam is to kafir-ize the arguments and to insist that kafirs have a right to be heard, not just the Muslims and their dhimmis. We want to tell our side of Islam. We demand a fair forum. So Obama gave the world a pop quiz and we failed. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that we are so ignorant and weak. Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com and visit their website at http://www.politicalislam.com/ |
|
HOW DO YOU SAY 'KUMBAYA' IN ARABIC?
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 8, 2009. |
|
This was written by Richard Z. Chesnoff and it appeared in Jewish World Review. A few thoughts after the Cairo Address |
|
I don't know about you, but I am increasingly weary of our national leader trying to win friends and influence enemies by fancy word-work mixed with apologies for America's past sins — real or imaginary. Yes, the presidential speech in Cairo could have been a lot worse. But in the opinion of this veteran of 40 years of Mideast reporting President Obama really stretched it. Islam has "always been a part of America's story." That's news to me. And why beat your breast over American involvement in the 1953 overthrow of Iran's Mossadeq regime. If Mr Obama thought he was reaching out a conciliatory hand to the Mullahs of Tehran, he missed it. The mullahs who seized power in 1979 have tried to use Mossadeq now as a martyr. But they always opposed and despised Mossadeq who was a secular nationalist. Nor was his regime "democratically elected". At the time Mossadeq was overthrown with CIA help, he had autocratically suspended elections and ruled Iran by "emergency decree". As David Frum put it, "for the United States to apologize to the present Iranian regime for the overthrow of Mossadeq would be a little like President Eisenhower apologizing to Josef Stalin for the murder of Trotsky." But in my mind, our president erred most unhelpfully in trying to convince the Arab world that "a Jewish homeland" (why not a Jewish "state"?) deserves to exist because of past Jewish suffering in Europe — most specifically the Holocaust. No doubt, the monumental horror of last century's mechanized slaughter of Jews helped nudge the world into finally recognizing the justice and need of a Jewish state. But Jewish dreams of reestablishing a nation of their own are not derived from centuries of anti-Semitic suffering in Europe or even the tragedy of the Holocaust — but rather from thousands of years of Judaism itself, a global religion and culture that inexorably links the Jewish faith and people with its ancestral promised land. The two are inseparable. Israel is the land of David and Solomon, the place where the prophets preached, and Jewish wisdom was formed, the land Jews have yearned for and to which they have directed their prayers for more than 2500 years — long before Islam was even born. Indeed, the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their nation! And their capital city of Jerusalem was a central force in that faith. Jerusalem and Zion are mentioned 622 times in the Bible and in almost every prayer that Jews utter each day. The Holy City is not mentioned by name once in the Koran. And Mr President, thanks to Israel's reunification of the city 42 years ago, it is already a place where the followers of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed can freely pray. Worse yet, a primary Islamic argument against Israel (one often used by Iran's hateful Ahmad Ahmadinijad) is that Palestinian Arabs should not have to pay for the anti-Semitic sins of European nations. By so firmly linking the Holocaust to Israel's birth, Obama strengthened this false claim — he did not weaken it. So too does the idea — even vague idea — that somehow the Holocaust, black-African slavery and Palestinian suffering are comparable. I have no doubt that daily life is tough for the Palestinians. But so much of their suffering is of their own doing — or at least that of their leaders. No one has been trying to exterminate them and the fact is it is the Palestinian and Arab world that has prevented the formation of a Palestinian state for more than 60 years. How many statehood offers by the United Nations, by the United States and its allies and by left and right wing Israeli governments have been rejected by the Palestinians since 1947? All offers have been based on Arab acceptance of Israel as an independent Jewish state in the Middle East — something that even the so-called "moderate" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas still says he refuses to accept. That is the core problem. It was. It is. and it remains so post-Cairo. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
15 HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH
Posted by Family Security Matters, June 8, 2009. |
|
This was written by Dr. Walid Phares, he author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad. He is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. |
|
Perhaps the most challenging task for analysts and commentators to accomplish after having listen to President Obama's speech in Cairo (addressed to the "Muslim World") is to know how to read it, understand the links between the points he made, capture the arguments inserted by his speech writers and thus analyze the text as a major policy change since 9/11. In short, I would recommend for readers to establish a "map of the speech" before venturing to its various exotic suggestions and hints. Evidently, each political constituency in America, the region and the international community has its priorities and will jump to the part it deems most pressing, either exciting or depressing. However, I suggest looking at the whole idea of addressing the "Muslim world" or as the President coined it often in his speech, "the Muslims" (two different things), and understand where Obama is coming from and going to. To help in this analytical task— and to simplify what seems to be complex— I propose to raise the following questions and address them separately in the debate before re-sowing them as a one bloc of ideas. Here are the ones I identify as building blocks of the Obama "Muslim platform" drawn from his speech 1. Is the equation of mending relations between a nation state, America, and a whole civilization, Islam, rational? Is it academically sound to put one country and 52 other countries in one framework of relationships? Are all 52 Muslim countries in one basket and America in another? Who framed this equation? 2. The speech mentioned "violent extremists" several times as the foe to contain and isolate. Is there not a clearer explanation of what "violent extremism" is and who the followers of such a behavior are? Is about violence only? Are all those who practice violence, from household abuse, gangsterism to mass murder part of one group? Of course not. So what constitutes extremism? Do "violent extremists" have an ideology, a platform, goals, strategies? Are they the Jihadists that the whole world knows about? Why wouldn't President Obama simply name them as such? 3. The speech argued that Americans were "traumatized" because of 9/11 and thus their view of Islam changed. Why would their view of a religion change because of an attack perpetrated by 19 hijackers? Who is drawing this conclusion? In short, if indeed Americans had a change in perception after 9/11, what was their perception before? Is this reality or is it the framing of the war of ideas by the apologist elite? Why is there a complex of guilt forced on Americans? 4. The speech argued directly and indirectly that the U.S. government— because of 9/11— did things it was not supposed to do constitutionally (or ethically). Among these breaches Mr. Obama mentioned the opening of Guantanamo. The question is: Is opening a detention center in a state of war (even if not declared officially) in which active elements of the armed opponents are detained is an act aimed against an entire religion? Who said so and who framed it as such? 5. The speech delved in the claim that Islam "has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." While it is perfectly legitimate for academics to engage in such research and draw the conclusions they wish, can an elected President in a liberal democracy make philosophical assertions in the field of controversial and debated conflicts— not part of his or her national realm? 6. The speech— rightly so— praised the integration of Muslim-Americans in their own country. But did the President mention why a large number of American citizens fled many Muslim countries, including Muslim-American citizens? 7. The speech— rightly so— rejected stereotypes about Muslims and America. However, who made these stereotypes, who propagated the narrative that they exist, and who is indoctrinating segments of societies about the latter? 8. The President gladly (after significant messaging preceding the speech) mentioned Darfur. But he never called it genocide, why? Moreover, what is to be done about it? The speech was generous about what Israel and Hamas must do, and about U.S. forthcoming spending in the region, but left the audiences clueless about what to do about the first genocide of the 21st century. Why? 9. The speech called Iraq's war one of choice but stated that Iraqis are better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Doesn't this statement need more explanation? Is the conclusion that it is better to leave people under tyrannies even if they are subjected to mass killing? As for Afghanistan, the President didn't mention the Taliban once. Who are NATO, the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan facing off with? Is it normal that the one Jihadi force which protected al Qaeda as launched the 9/11 attacks and is on the offensive against democracies in two Muslim countries is not identified in the speech to the Muslim world? 10. The speech reasserted— logically— a U.S. standing policy of supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, if Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed on such principle already in 1993, who then is obstructing the process? Why wasn't the obstructing force, Hamas and Iran, named as such? 11. The speech granted Iran a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, but who denied it to the Iranian people to begin with? The question is about the Iranian regime's expansionist agenda in the region not the type of technology. Nuclear capacities in the hands of a terror regime will become dangerous and armed. Is it not about the intentions of the regime? 12. The speech mentioned that there has been a controversy about democracy in the region, particularly because of the Iraq war. The question is: what is that controversy about and thus, where does the U.S. stand in this debate? Are there different values for different countries and cultures when it comes to freedom? What are they? 13. The speech advocated religious freedoms. The question is who is breaching them? The President mentioned the Maronites and the Copts but didn't explain who is causing them harm? 14. The speech addressed women's rights and the President rejected one Western position in the debate about Muslim women's freedom assessment, and asserted the rights of some women to wear the Hijab unquestioned. However why didn't he list the grievances of Muslim women who do not want to wear the Hijab and are forced to do so? The President argued that the real issue in women's status is education. But isn't their education a political and fundamental right? How can women practice the right to education if they cannot practice their freedom to choose it? 15. The speech announced— gladly— that the United States will be spending money to help Muslim communities develop on multiple continents. But why didn't the President ask the rich elite in these countries to share the burden if not to assume it fully? Why would a nation in the northern part of the Western Hemisphere be footing the bill of development in remote regions where the financial establishment is buying shares of and controlling the American economy? These are only few questions about a speech that will be studied and used by the current administration, its opposition, future administrations, regimes in the region, the Jihadists and dissidents alike for many years to come. It is essential that the students of such text focus on the essence and draw the proper conclusions. Indeed words matter, especially in the midst of a raging war of ideas, even if the author of the speech and the speech writers' main goal is precisely to end such a war.
|
|
OBAMA TWISTED FACTS AND OMITTED OTHERS
Posted by Family Security Matters, June 8, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Dr. Sami Alraba and it is
archived at
Sami Alrabaa is a sociology professor in Germany. Previously, he taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University and Michigan State University. He has written numerous articles on Arab issues and Islam. His latest book, about life in Saudi Arabia, will soon be published by Prometheus Books. |
|
Obama's insistence on splitting the world into "Muslims" and "non-Muslims" (in his speech on June 4, 2009 in Cairo) is exactly what radical Muslims and Islamists have always wanted to achieve. They wanted to build a Muslim front against the rest of the world. It is one of two things. Either Obama did not read the Koran and Hadith and does not really know what is really going on in Muslim countries and communities, or he simply wants to appease Muslims like most Islam stooges in the Western world, like Arabs say, "The hand which you cannot condemn, just kiss." Let us see how the President of the United States twisted facts and omitted many others. Obama said: "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." He also said: "Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." (emphasis mine) Islam is "justice, tolerance, and dignity of all human beings"?! "Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds, religious tolerance and racial equality"?! This is laughable. Here is the proof, from the Koran and Hadith, that this is absolutely not true: "Kill the Christians and Jews...." (Sura 2, verse 191), "Do no take the Jews and the Christians for friends......" (Sura 5, verse 51), "Men are superior to women because Allah has made them so...." (Sura 4, verse 34), "Beat them (women)...." (Sura 4, verse 34). The Koran is replete with passages like these. For further details, read "Is Islam a Violent Faith?" The Hadith says: "Women are deficient in intelligence" (Hadith 301), "Women are crooks and useless creature." (Hadith 3466), "If women, Jews, dogs, and donkeys pass by a praying Muslims, they annul his prayers." (Hadith 493, 704), "Non-Muslims must subjugate to Shari'a" (Hadith 413). The list of atrocious Hadith like these is long. For more, check out "Women in Hadith." In practice, if you wear a cross or carry the Bible in Saudi Arabia, you risk being jailed, tortured, whipped, and afterwards deported. Prominent Islamist chaplains like the Egyptians Al Qaradhawi, Ali Gom'a, (grand mufti of Egypt) and the Saudi Al Lehedan (head of Fatwa Council in Saudi Arabia) urge Muslims to kill foreign soldiers in Arab and Muslim lands, including Israel. Al Qaradhawi said after the invasion of Iraq, "If we don't do that, then we are all a bunch of donkeys." These chaplains and imams across the Muslim world approve of suicide and car bombers in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Al Lehedan said, "Our prophet, peace be upon him, urged us to kill the infidels. They are the enemy of Allah. The holy Koran also urges us to kill the enemies of Islam." One of the biggest lies which Obama presented in his speech in Cairo was his saying, "It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities." It was Al-Azhar which forced Nasser Hamed Abu Zeid to divorce his wife for interpreting Islam in a modern manner. It was Al Tantawi, the grand imam of Al-Azhar who issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from donating any parts of their body to Copts, non-Muslims. Obama also said, "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust (between America and Muslims)." Who is actually mistrusting whom, and who is not trustworthy? Would you trust someone who denies your existence and is determined to subjugate you? Is it Muslims or the rest of the world? Who is preaching and practicing religious despotism? It is orthodox Muslims who mistrust the West and reject its value system. Then Obama turned to talk about the "civilization's debt to Islam." This is also not true. Arab Scholars like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun were prosecuted in the so-called "golden ages" of the Muslim empire for discussing rationalism and secularism, opposed and rejected by Islam. Ibn Sina's scholarly medical works were due to his study of Greek and Roman scientific books and not due to Islam. Islam's legacy is replete with oppression, violence, and discrimination. Obama reproduced in his speech what Islamic establishments across the Muslim world have always preached: Islam is misunderstood in the West. It is blemished with stereotypes. He also said, "partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." So, murdering non-Muslims and discriminating against women in the Koran, Hadith, and in practice are all stereotypes? Obama also wants "to protect the right of (Muslim) women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it." I think Obama missed adding that Muslims must also have the right to introduce and practice Sharia. It is their right under religious freedom. Obama must be credited for condemning radical Muslims like al Qaeda, but at the same time he failed to mention that these thugs have simply acted according to the "commandments" of the Koran and Hadith. Obama stressed in his speech that "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace." Over and over again, this is not true. Repeating a lie will never change it into truth. The Koran and Hadith include lots of passages that incite followers to violence. Obama also said, "military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan." This is true so long the West does not tackle the root causes of Islamic terrorism that is fed in madrassas across the Muslim world, funded by the Saudis and petrodollars of other Arab Gulf countries. Then Obama turned to Guantanamo to justify its closure and said, "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States." That is fine. But how about torture in Arab prisons which is a daily exercise, especially in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan? If Obama were honest, he should have raised this issue in his speech. But he did not dare do so. That would antagonize and hurt his friends, Abdullah and Mubarak. Instead, Obama commended King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, one of the worst dictators on earth, and on top of that he sought his advice. Advice on what? Advice from a despot? How to appease radical Muslims? Furthermore, Obama was full of praise to King Abdullah. He said, "I consider the king's friendship a great blessing, and I am very appreciative that he would bestow this honor on me during this visit." Obama also thanked Abdullah for his "extraordinary generosity and hospitality." Also, Obama praised the "efforts" of King Abdullah in relation to "interfaith dialogue." While this King bans followers of other religions to practice their own faiths and build their own temples in Saudi Arabia, and teaches hatred against other faiths in his schools, he calls for interfaith dialogue. This is sheer hypocrisy which Obama, of course, digested greedily. For Obama, democracy is a controversial issue. He said in his speech in Cairo, "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years." Instead of demanding straightforward democracy for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the other Arab countries, Obama said, it was a controversial issue, and ignored the fact that decent Muslims and Arabs are yearning to have their societies. All in all, Obama twisted facts and avoided naming the root causes of bloodshed and misery in the Middle East and in the Muslim world at large. Instead, he tried to appease radical Muslims and Muslim regimes. Thank you Mr. President for emboldening such people. Family Security Matters (FSM) has a website at www.familysecuritymatters.org. |
|
WHY NO OUTPOST DEMOLITION; EGYPT DECLARES ISRAEL "ENEMY STATE"; LIBEL TOURISM; A "JUST" PEACE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 8, 2009. |
|
PM NETANYAHU'S ARGUMENT #1 ON OUTPOST DEMOLITION
Earlier articles have shown that Israel does not practice equal enforcement of the law, but discriminates against the Jews. For example: Nor is it just a matter of law enforcement. What he calls the law has no principle behind it. His discriminatory drive to "enforce the law" against only Jews is a policy, one against Zionism and for the jihadists in behalf of State Dept. anti-Zionist policy and Pres. Obama's policy of appeasement of the Muslim world. Here is a plan for law enforcement. Let Netanyahu change his policy so as to: (1) Authorize outposts that are within municipal boundaries, on land owned by Jews who gave permission, which did not violate any regulations, and which would have received all the necessary permits if the government hadn't delayed and foreigners hadn't interfered; and (2) Of the remaining unauthorized or illegal buildings in the Territories and in Israel, each month demolish 5% of those occupied by Arabs and 5% of those occupied by Jews. The demolition would fall proportionately the same on each people, but since the Arabs have so many more illegal buildings, most demolition would be of Arab-occupied buildings. That would be a practical program to enforce the law fully within two years. How the State Dept. would dislike that! Here is an example of extensive illegal building that Israel does
nothing about:
PM Netanyahu's argument #2 on outpost demolition is a plea not to criticize it, so as to maintain national unity. He contends that national unity is vital, now. The plea for national unity is special pleading. PM Netanyahu is asking for national unity by submitting to his policy. Why not strive for national unity by his not initiating that divisive policy? (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/25). In the prior piece, I suggested a more reasonable policy. PM NETANYAHU'S ARGUMENT #3 ON OUTPOST DEMOLITION PM Netanyahu's argument #3 on outpost demolition is that criticism of
his demolition policy distracts attention from the main danger to
Israel, which is Iranian
Removal of the outposts would be a step towards U.S. demands for Israeli withdrawal from the Territories, part of Jerusalem, and the Golan. That would doom Israel, by depriving it of secure borders, most of its water supply, and the core of its homeland and a major reason for the return to it of its exiled people. Keeping the outposts could become the start of staking more of a claim in Judea-Samaria, a Zionist solution that would reduce the likelihood of a terrorist state arising side-by-side with Israel. Netanyahu's contention that criticism of his policy detracts from the Iran problem could be answered another way — that his policy, sure to cause a reaction, detracts from the Iran problem. Netanyahu also has policies on boosting the economy, military spending, and many other matters. Does he ask that they not be criticized either, lest it detract from the Iran problem? Silly, isn't his reasoning! He isn't logical also because he implies that people can deal with only one problem. It is his job to make the problems clear, so that people can deal with them. He is capable of being clear. Since his defense of the outpost policy does not make sense, he must not have much of a case. One surmises that he is kowtowing to U.S. demands on this. The next article takes up U.S. relations with Israel. Here, let's just observe that Netanyahu's argument insinuates that if he gives in on outposts, the U.S. would support an Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. However, news sources with their ears against White House walls, or at least against leakers' lips, indicate that the U.S. bars an Israeli raid. Certainly, U.S. officials have taken up that line. Giving in to the U.S. on matters vital to Israeli survival does not pay. It is up to the government of Israel to make that clear to the American public and to tell the U.S. officials that foreigners don't make Israeli policy. PM NETANYAHU'S ARGUMENT #4 ON OUTPOST DEMOLITION PM Netanyahu's argument #4 on outpost demolition is that it is
necessary to keep good relations with the U.S. Keeping good relations
with the U.S. is important to Israel. He asserts that Israel has
better relations with the U.S. now than during his first stint as
premier
PM Netanyahu's remarks sound reasonable, but they conceal certain truths. They obscure the actual relationship with the U.S.: (1) Israeli relations with Congress and the American people usually are good; (2) Relations with the presidents usually are poor; and (3) Relations with the State Dept. usually are subversive on the part of the State Dept.. The State Dept. has had an anti-Zionist agenda for many decades. It influences the presidents. Whom do Israeli premiers lobby with? With the presidents, who usually seek to subvert Israel. The premiers should lobby at least with the Congress and with the American people, who could be a bulwark against the presidents. The premiers would have to explain why a policy supporting Zionism would protect the American national interest and why the State Dept. policy does not. Would such lobbying annoy the U.S. administrations? Yes. Since Israel cannot reform the State Dept. Arabist culture, it must treat the State Dept. as hostile, keeping it from a mediating role and from interfering in Israeli affairs. Therefore, the manner of lobbying must be polite but assert the same right to lobby as other countries enjoy. Israel should firmly reject the presidents' implicit notion that the State Dept. has a right to dictate to Israel, however it phrases its demands. The premiers and their ambassadors must explain how those demands would be suicidal for Israel and unjust and, most important, how they would empower enemies of the U.S.. This approach requires Israeli representatives who exude charm rather than bluster. They must display a friendly and constructive attitude that cannot be an excuse for feigned indignation. They have to expose the fallacies of U.S. policy so thoroughly, that the presidents would have to stop pressing Israel. This is not easy, inasmuch as the U.S. sets up compliant Israelis to become prime ministers, can blackmail the many corrupt Israeli politicians, and has leftist collaborators in Israel. To deal with this, Israel must remove much of the source of corruption, which is excessive government ownership, police state power, discretion over business, and control of the broadcast media. It must end U.S. and E.U. subsidy for subversive NGOs in Israel. Not likely to happen! To improve Israel-U.S. relations, let Netanyahu point out that the U.S. forgave Egypt its debt to the U.S., so he'd like the U.S. to forgive Israel's debt to it, and Israel would relinquish U.S. military and non-military aid. A more independent relationship would result. It would be a healthier one. However, Israel might have to refrain from military sales to countries to which the U.S. won't make military sales, because the U.S. considers those countries risks to its security. Israel could ask that the U.S. refrain from military sales to declared enemies of Israel, but the U.S. won't— it has a double standard. C.I.A. DIRECTOR'S VIEWS ON IRAN: REALISTIC? C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta urged Israel not to decide on its own to raid Iran's nuclear facilities. He contended that this would set off a nuclear arms race. Acknowledging that Iran helps destabilize the Mideast, Mr. Panetta does not believe that Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons, just wants the capability. Iran successfully tested a missile that flew 2,000 kilometers,
although the East-West Institute experts had estimated that it would
take Iran another six years to achieve that
With what does the C.I.A. think Iran destabilizes the Mideast? Surely one factor is its nuclear development. If its race to complete that development before sanctions work is not a nuclear race, what is? If the reaction by some Arab states to develop their own nuclear weapons is not a nuclear race, what is? If Israel or the U.S. destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, there might be less rush by the Arabs to develop nuclear weapons, no? C.I.A. estimates have lost their credibility, after the C.I.A. constantly was surprised my major international blows to U.S. national security, such as N. Korean, Pakistani, and Iranian nuclear development, and other events, such as the fall of the USSR. The Obama administration should consider how to reform the C.I.A. so it can fulfill its role adequately. The U.S. would be wiser to prepare for worst case scenarios. To see
its actual policy:
EGYPT DECLARES ISRAEL "ENEMY STATE" "A CAIRO court ruled yesterday that the citizenship of Egyptian men married to Israeli women must be revoked, saying that such a marriage jeopardizes Egypt's national security." "Incumbent Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Mohamed Sayed Tantawi had declared
that, while such a marriage in itself is not haram (religiously
forbidden),'in case of [the woman belonging to an enemy state, the
State [of Egypt] has the right to ban marriage [or] revoke
nationality.'"
What does that say about the peace treaty Egypt signed with Israel? What does it say about the value of peace agreements with Arabs? What does it say about U.S. policy of heavily arming Egypt? (The people of Jordan, whose government signed a treaty with Israel, mostly boycott Israel.) When Egypt seems to help Israel, it may have an ulterior motive. For
more on Egypt:
MUSLIMS STATES SEEK A "JUST PEACE" In Damascus, Muslim government representatives criticized Israel but claimed to be open to better relations with it. They said Israel must agree a "just and comprehensive peace" (NY Times, 5/26, A7). What is a "just and comprehensive peace" to them? Since they consider their war to eradicate Jewish sovereignty "just," because they believe Islam has a right to rule the world and especially areas it previously conquered, such as Israel, they consider a "just" peace a resolution solely on their terms. "Comprehensive" means that Israel should accede to all their terms, which would leave it helpless and at their unmerciful disposal. With a final military thrust, they would destroy Israel. That is not "peace" to us. There is a lesson for us in that. When the Muslim states use terms that sound reasonable to us, they really mean what is not reasonable to us. This double-talking vocabulary is part of their diplomacy. Beware, Obama, about the pitfalls of diplomacy with negotiators who are so unscrupulous! We should be alert to their systematic abuse of English in behalf of jihadist war goals, whether against Israel or against the West. Many of their misleading terms have been adopted by anti-Zionists in the West. These terms are loaded against Israel. Other articles have discussed Arab misuse of the words "Palestinian" as if a separate nationality; "peace process" as if genuine rather than a war process; need for a Palestinian Arab state, as if the Palestinian Arabs didn't already have a state, Jordan, "illegal" for Jewish building in the Territories; "terrorism" for Israeli self-defense; national "resistance" for Arab terrorism; "jihad" for inner psychological struggle when in context it has the more common meaning of holy war; "democratic" for their police state in which almost the only candidates were rival terrorists; "aggression" for Israeli self-defense; "genocide" for that self-defense that inflicted a smaller percentage of civilian casualties than most other countries do, and would be still fewer if the Arabs didn't illegally use civilians as human shields; "war crimes" for collateral casualties whereas the Arabs fight intending to inflict civilian casualties, which is war crime. You get the idea. For more on Arab culture:
LIBEL TOURISM The NY Times belatedly discussed libel tourism. The editorial defined it as suing American authors in countries that require defendants to prove their criticism, instead of, as in the U.S., that requires the party bringing suit to prove the criticism false. This dampens freedom of the press. The example given was of Rachel Ehrenfeld, an expert on terrorist financing, whose book accused a prominent Saudi businessman of financing terrorism. She published it in the U.S.. On the basis of a few sales made over the Internet from England, British courts allowed the businessman to sue. He won, by default. The rest of the editorial discussed legal remedies. New York is one of the few states with an advanced legal remedy. Similar bills are progressing through Congress (NY Times, 5/26, A7). The article is correct but deficient and misleading. I think that it wasn't fair to the libeled public. U.S. libel laws make it difficult for libeled people to win. They have to prove malicious intent, not only that the authors erred and damaged their reputations and perhaps incomes. Thus when Ariel Sharon proved in New York that a magazine had no evidence for what it accused him of, and that it took the word of someone notoriously unreliable, he was unable to prove that the editors intended to defame him. Such things were not put in writing. Worse, however, is that the editorial defined libel tourism too tepidly. Libel tourism is used by that Saudi as part of jihad, to repress written defense against it. He does this systematically. He has silenced dozens of authors named in his many lawsuits. Who knows how many other authors censored themselves, so as to avoid his suits! The NY Times failed to explain that the rich Saudi can pay stiff legal costs that his shoe-string literary opponents cannot. He is exploiting the legal system to engage in a form of jihad now called "lawfare." I ask why the NY Times concealed the jihadi purpose of the Saudi's lawsuits. Is it part of the downplaying of the jihadi menace to civilization that forms Pres. Obama's policy? For an unusual example of "lawfare":
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7 |
|
"STUDENT OF HISTORY" BARACK OBAMA FLUNKS ISLAM 101
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 8, 2009. |
|
This comes from Gateway Pundit. |
|
Student of history, Barack Obama, spoke to the Muslim World this week. During his speech Obama congratulated the Muslim World for their many accomplishments. "As a student of history, I also know civilisation's debt to Islam. It was Islam— at places like Al-Azhar University— that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." Unfortunately, Dear Leader was once again repeating Far Left talking points and not facts. Here is what he forgot to mention: ** The compass — The use of a magnetic compass as a direction finder occurred sometime before 1044, but incontestable evidence for the use of the compass as a navigational device did not appear until 1119 in China. The earliest reference to an iron fish-like compass in the Islamic world occurs in a Persian talebook from 1232 — Wikipedia. ** The pen — Ancient Egyptians developed writing on papyrus scrolls when scribes used thin reed brushes or reed pens. The quill pen was used in Qumran, Judea to write some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and then introduced into Europe by around 700 AD before the founding of Islam. Ma'ād al-Mu'izz, the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, was provided a fountain pen 250 years later — Wikipedia. ** Printing — Woodblock printing is a technique for printing text, images or patterns used widely throughout East Asia and originating in China in antiquity as a method of printing on textiles and later paper — Wikipedia. ** Spread of disease and how it is healed — It's not clear how Islam contributed to the understanding of disease but today Muslim Sharia Councils in Nigeria and Pakistan have opposed vaccinations in their districts. ** Arches — Arches appeared as early as the 2nd millennium BC in Mesopotamian brick architecture, but their systematic use started with the Ancient Romans who were the first to apply the technique to a wide range of structures — Wikipedia. ** Religious Tolerance — No churches or synagogues have been destroyed in Saudi Arabia since it was established in 1932 — because none are allowed. There is no declared Muslim state, which offers full civil rights to members of other religions. — Front Page. ** Racial Equality — Muhammad and many of his companions bought, sold, freed, and captured slaves. At the end of the 19th century, a shift in Muslim thought and interpretation of the Qur'an occurred, and slavery became seen as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This interpretation has not been accepted by the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. Slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the African republics of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan. — Wikipedia. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
SETTLEMENTS ARE NO THREAT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 8, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Aron U. Raskas, a Baltimore attorney currently residing in Jerusalem. His e-mail is aronuraskas@gmail.com. It appeared in the Baltimore Sun
|
|
As the Obama administration moves to transform Palestinian arguments about Israeli settlements into U.S. policy, an examination of the facts underlying these issues is appropriate. There may be no better place to begin than the swimming pool at Rimonim, a Jewish settlement in the heart of the West Bank. The scene is a familiar one. Families picnicking together. Mothers yelling at children to be careful. Young children calling out to moms to watch them do dangerous things. But it is the view from the hilltop pool that is striking. It quickly dispels many of the myths that today masquerade as dogma concerning Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As one looks out from Rimonim, the most telling fact is what one does not see. Over the miles of rolling hills that unfold across the landscape, there is not a village, building, home or even a herd of sheep to be seen. The scene is the same at other Jewish settlements as well. Palestinian propaganda machines have for years purveyed the myth of Israeli settlements choking Palestinian communities the way commerce and residential developments have encroached upon rural America. Yet, in reality, nothing like this exists in the largely unsettled expanses of the West Bank. When Mark Twain walked this land in 1867, he described in his book, Innocents Abroad, this very same "deserted" and "desolate country" with its "rocky and bare" landscape. Today, despite Palestinian efforts to portray it differently, not all that much has changed outside the few towns and villages that dot the land. Even the pro-Palestinian group Peace Now concedes that Israeli settlements — mostly bedroom communities of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv — occupy less than 3 percent of the West Bank. More than 98 percent of Palestinians already live under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and there is no shortage of land there for Palestinian expansion. Moreover, Israeli professionals living a suburban life with their children in the vast expanse of these territories do not threaten or harm Palestinians. Israeli checkpoints and security measures have been implemented because Palestinians have seemed more interested in destroying Israel and killing Jews than establishing an independent Palestinian state. Nor are Jewish settlements the result of Israeli colonial aspirations. Most represent the return of the Jewish people to the cities of their ancestors. As Twain painstakingly reported, Jews have lived here since time immemorial, and a drive through these territories highlights the Jewish history — cities, tombs and other landmarks — rooted in this land. Yet it is not just ancient history that speaks to the great Jewish legacy. The Jewish presence has been a constant right up to modern times. While many bristle at the terms "Judea" and "Samaria," dismissing them as propaganda invented by extremist "settlers" for political ends, maps, photographs, travel guides and other books have throughout history described these territories by those time-honored names. Even United Nations resolutions — including, notably, the 1947 Partition resolution — used those terms. Given this history, the rights of the Jewish people in these lands are rich, historic and firmly enshrined. While negotiations about sharing this land may be necessary for the sake of peace, they cannot proceed from a premise that these are "Palestinian lands" or occupied "Palestinian territory." They are, at most, "disputed territories." Indeed, the Oslo Accords firmly recognized the issue of "settlements" as one of the "final status" issues to be addressed by negotiation after other, less difficult, issues were resolved. It is wrong for the Obama administration to now seek to prejudice that delicate issue with pronouncements adopting the Palestinian narrative and actions designed to preclude the building of additions to homes and new units necessary to accommodate natural growth in existing Jewish settlements. The thousands of young children who frequent the Rimonim pool look to the future like children anywhere. They seek only to grow up in peace, experience the joys of youth with sufficient room in their homes and schools and, ultimately, have the right to raise families in the communities that nurtured them from birth. There is no morally sound reason for the Obama administration to challenge these basic rights. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
[06.04.2009]
MR. PRESIDENT JERUSALEM IS A FREE AND OPEN CITY
Posted by LEL, June 7, 2009. |
|
This comes from One Jerusalem.org. It is archived at www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/mr-president-jerusalem-is-a-fr.php |
|
In his much ballyhooed speech to the Muslim world President Obama said, "when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together ..." Clearly President Obama thinks that Jerusalem is not a secure and welcome city for all people.That this a goal to be achieved in the future. President Obama is clearly confusing the pre-1967 Jerusalem with the Jerusalem of today. Before Israel unified the Holy City Jews were prohibited from entering Jerusalem and Christians were restricted. From 1948 until 1967, Jerusalem was ruled by Muslims, Muslims who ejected Jews from their homes, and destroyed practically any remnant of the Jewish community that thrived there prior to 1948. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a secure home for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA ON THE NILE
Posted by Truth Provider, June 7, 2009. |
|
Dear friends,
Many articles have been published following President Obama's speech in Cairo, most of them, as expected, devoid of any criticism. Two thoughts: 1) Since the Oslo Accords of 1993 Israel adhered to her side of the bargain while the "Palestinians" have not fulfilled even one requirement, yet the world chooses to blame and pressure Israel. 2) What Israel may be forced to do is irreversible. Once territories are handed to the Arabs, such as Gaza, the act cannot be undone. The eviction of 300,000 Israelis and the destruction of their communities in Judea & Samaria cannot be reversed if the Arabs do not fulfill their promises (which are always empty). Assume for a moment that the world and the US force Israel to vacate Judea & Samaria after which Hamas takes over and with the help of Hezballah and Iran attacks Israel. Israel now has to defend a country 8 miles wide. This scenario is absolutely probable. Now ask yourself, is President Obama a friend of Israel as he claims, or is he the false friend, Israel's enemies have been waiting for? The solution of "Two States Living in Peace Side by Side" is indeed the best solution: ISRAEL & JORDAN. This solution exists already!!! Your Truth Provider,
This was written by Yoram Ettinger and is entitled "Obama Pressures? No Need to Panic!" |
|
President Obama's speech in Cairo intensified psychological pressure on the Jewish State. Obama erodes Israel's special standing in the US. He has adopted evenhandedness and moral equivalence toward Israel (a staunch democratic ally, a role model of counter-terrorism) and toward the Palestinian Authority (an ally of US' enemies, a role model of terrorism and hate-education). He ignores Israel's ancient history, suggesting that the justification for its existence is rooted in the Holocaust. And, he has transformed "Settlements" into the crux of the Arab-Israel conflict, although Palestinian terrorism and Arab wars against Israel preceded the 1948 establishment of the Jewish State and the 1968 establishment of the first "Settlement." Obama hopes that Prime Minister Netanyahu will succumb to psychological pressure. But, he cannot break Israel's back or sever US-Israel special relationship. Notwithstanding the Cairo Speech, the resolution of the Palestinian issue is not Obama's top priority. The national security of the US and the political future of Obama do not depend on the fate of the "Settlements." Obama was elected, primarily, in order to stop the monthly increase of unemployment by over 500,000 persons, the loss of homes by millions of Americans, the collapse of credit and consumption, the disintegration of American banks and the destruction of large and small American businesses. In addition, President Obama is challenged by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential volcano which could erupt following the evacuation of Iraq, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran, a potential takeover of nuclear Pakistan by the Taliban, a possible Pakistan-India eruption, imperialist Russia and China, etc. If Obama were practically — and not just rhetorically — preoccupied with the Palestinian issue, then he would resemble a person preoccupied with tumbleweeds, while being smothered by a West Texas sandstorm. The unique covenant between the US and the Jewish State has never evolved around the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has evolved around shared values (which precede 1948 and even 1776), joint interests and mutual threats. Between 1948 and 1992, all Israeli Prime Ministers rejected US prescriptions/ultimatum for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The 1957 withdrawal from Sinai was an exception. However, US-Israel strategic cooperation catapulted to unprecedented levels, as a result of regional reality and Israel's steadfastness in face of pressure. For example, two unprecedented strategic memoranda of understandings were concluded in November 1983 and April 1988, in spite of brutal US pressure on Israel during the First Intifada and the First Lebanese War. These strategic memoranda were signed due to Israel's unique contribution to vital US national security interests: war on Islamic terrorism, ballistic missile defense, restraining the USSR and regional rogue regimes, sharing of critical intelligence and battle experience, upgrading of defense and commercial industries, etc. In fact, a critical mass among the US public, Congress and even the Administration appreciates the Jewish State — irrespective of "Settlements" — for sparing the US the need to deploy tens of thousands of US military personnel and to invest annually mega-billion dollars in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean. This 2009 psychological pressure is dwarfed by past practical and brutal pressure, which was exerted by the US and by the international community and was fended off by Israel's Prime Ministers. In 1948, the Department of State and the Pentagon imposed a military embargo and threatened to add economic sanctions, in order to force Ben Gurion to refrain from a declaration of independence and to accept a UN Trusteeship. The Administration demanded an end to "occupation" in the Negev, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the absorption and compensation of Palestinian refugees. In 1967, President Johnson warned Prime Minister Eshkol: "If you shall act alone (in pre-empting an Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian strike) you shall remain alone." In 1981, President Reagan threatened Prime Minister Begin with a military embargo and a severe rupture should Israel bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor. The US was joined by the USSR, Europe, the UN and Israel's own Peres, Weitzman and chiefs of Mossad and Military Intelligence, who all opposed the bombing. Israel's Prime Ministers withstood massive US and global pressure, with relatively-limited economic, military and diplomatic resources at their disposal. A US President is a very powerful leader, but he heads one of three branches of government, which are totally independent of each other. The US president is substantially constrained by an elaborate system of checks and balances. He does not appoint congressional leadership or candidates for congressional seats. Congress — which possesses the "Power of the Purse" — has been a consistent bastion of support for the Jewish State. The loyalty of the legislators is first and foremost to their constituents and to the Constitution, including an effective Separation of Power. Therefore, most Democrats opposed Obama's appointment of Charles Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. Most Democrats opposed President Clinton's free trade initiatives, over 30 Democratic House Members voted to impeach Clinton. A Democratic majority in both chambers did not prevent a failed 1992-1994 presidency and a Democratic collapse at the 1994 election. Moreover, the relative weight of Congress rises during economic crises and the assertiveness and independence of legislators grow as congressional campaign season (whish will be launched in September 2009) approaches. Will Prime Minister Netanyahu retreat in the face of President Obama's psychological pressure, or will he leverage the strategic and political reality in the Middle East and in the US for the mutual benefit of both the US and the Jewish State? Having previously declared that America is 'no longer a Christian nation' — to be precise: ... At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers... Obama has now announced, on the eve of his pilgrimage to make obeisance to the entire Islamic world, that the US can be seen as a Muslim country: 'And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,' Mr. Obama said. Here are some statistics of the number and percentage of Muslims in various countries: Indonesia: 207,105,000 (88.2%);
Just what planet is this US President on? Or is this not a statement but an aspiration? Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
THE TRAGEDY OF THE YEMENI JEWS
Posted by Lyn Julius, June 7, 2009. |
|
The government has stood by and let jihadist gangs drive Jews out of Yemen. Now their community is on the brink of extinction |
|
The last Jews of Yemen are leaving. They are packing their bags and moving to Israel or the US. A community dating back to Biblical times is on the brink of extinction. Sixty years ago one million Jews lived in Arab countries, but violence and state-sanctioned discrimination scapegoating them as Zionist spies have forced out all but 4,000— who remain mainly in Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia. Most Jews were airlifted from Yemen to Israel in the 1950s. The 400 left have resisted moving to Israel, having come under the influence of the non-Zionist Satmar sect. Some returned after a taste of life in the US or Israel (the government generally turns a blind eye to Jews travelling to the Jewish state). Now things have got so bad that even these die-hards are departing. The murder in December of Moshe al-Nahari, a 30-year-old teacher based in Reda, north of the Yemeni capital, sparked this latest crisis. At first, the authorities claimed that the murderer was "mentally imbalanced". But it became clear that he was religiously motivated, screaming "convert or die, Jew!" as he pumped five bullets into his victim. For some time jihadist gangs have been harassing Jews in Yemen. Girls have been abducted and forced to marry local tribesmen. Two years ago, 45 Jews, driven out of their village of al-Salem in north Yemen by threats from Shia Houthis, were relocated to the capital Sana'a. Yemen is hardly an oasis of tranquility: it has more guns than people. The Jews are not the only ones to suffer in its long history of lawlessness and instability. Lately, however, Jews have had it especially tough. Jews, tribal sheikhs, rights activists and lawyers all concur that harassment has reached an all-time high. After al-Nahari's murder, the Jews were besieged in their own homes and petrol bombs lobbed at them. Moshe's brother, rabbi Yahia Ya'ish, appealed to the government: "protect or deport us". Those wishing to leave could not claim their passports because the government's computers had mysteriously broken down. Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, pledged to take the Jews under his wing in Sana'a, where, in contrast to the countryside, he has firm control. Some say the government is well-meaning but ineffective; others that the promised relocation was never serious. The Jews were to be re-housed in two blocks, too cramped for their large families and vulnerable to attack. But they could not even sell their homes in Reda after local imams intimidated would-be buyers. The Al-Nahari murder verdict in March was the last straw. During the trial the murderer's family threatened the victim's relatives. Instead of the prescribed death sentence, the judge ordered the murderer to pay "blood money". The Jews felt less secure than ever: the Jewish Agency and the US government swung into action to plan the Jews' rescue and resettlement. and have reached an intolerable situation," he said. Mansour Hayel, a Muslim human rights activist and Yemeni Jewry expert, blames the government: "In Yemen there is hardly a mosque sermon that's free of bigotry. The government's own political rhetoric marginalises the Jews, and civil society is too weak to protect them," he says. Perhaps because they understand that tolerance towards minorities is the key to strengthening Yemen civil society, Yemeni human rights activists have been vigorously defending Jewish rights. They want the media to start promoting democracy and tolerance; and equal civil rights for Jews, who pay discriminatory taxes and, as dhimmis, suffer various handicaps under sharia law. But Jews whose lives are in danger are unlikely to stick around long enough to see such reforms implemented. The lesson one draws from the final exodus of the Jews of Yemen is that the Arab world does not even tolerate non-Zionist Jews. There can be no future for the pitiful remnant in Arab lands if their safety cannot be guaranteed. In Morocco, where the Jewish community is largest, Jews traditionally repaid the king's sympathy with tremendous loyalty. But the king of Morocco was unable or unwilling to prevent 260,000 Jews leaving in the face of rising antisemitism in the 1960s, media incitement and forced conversions. Even benevolent rulers have been powerless to stem the rising tide of anti-Jewish hatred engulfing the Arab world. Few Arabs are now likely to meet a Jew in their lifetime, and the gullible believe the demonisation and conspiracy theories peddled by their media. No wonder Jews have spurned official invitations for them to return to live in their countries of birth. Jews visit as tourists, but few see their future in these countries. In Tunisia and Morocco al-Qaida targeted Jews in 2002 and 2003. In April the murder of a Jew in Casablanca sent the community into a panic.In May, eight terrorists were arrested for planning attacks on Jewish sites. If Morocco and Tunisia fail to keep a lid on jihadist terrorism and incitement, their last Jews, too, will soon be following the beleaguered Jews of Yemen into exile. Lyn Julius is a journalist and co-founder of Harif (www.harif.org), a UK association of Jews from the Middle East and N. Africa. This appeared today in the Guardian (UK) and is archived at
|
|
OBAMA GIVES BIASED SPEECH, INIMICAL TO ISRAEL, SUPPORTIVE OF FALSE PALESTINIAN/ARAB CLAIMS
Posted by ZOA, June 7, 2009. |
|
He May Become The Most Hostile President To Israel Ever |
|
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein has made the following statement regarding President Barack Obama's President Barack Obama's speech delivered in Cairo yesterday. His glosses to Obama's speech are in red. "President Obama made some positive comments about Israel, stating that the U.S.-Israel bond is 'unbreakable' and criticized those who threaten Israel's destruction and repeat vile stereotypes about Jews— without, however, naming those who do so like Iran, Syria, and Abbas' Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) (through the Fatah Constitution, PA-controlled publications, curricula, media, mosques, schools and youth camps). "Overall, however, this was primarily a strongly biased speech, inimical to Israel, supportive of false Palestinian and Arab claims against Israel, blatantly factually inaccurate— inaccuracies that always benefited the anti-Israel Palestinian, Arab and Muslim cause. "For example, Obama falsely claimed the Palestinian Arabs were 'displaced' by Israel in 1948; falsely claimed the Palestinian Arabs have been suffering trying to establish their state for 60 years (they could have had a state in 1937, 1948 or in 2000, but turned down each opportunity). Obama also bizarrely claimed that he longs for the day Jerusalem is secure for Jews, Muslims and Christians even though this has been precisely the case since Israel reunited the city under its control in 1967. "Just as egregious, Obama claimed there are 7 million Muslims in America when major studies show there are between 1.3 and 2.7 million Muslims. He strongly implied that Palestinian suffering was equivalent to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. He also seemed to equate the Palestinian situation to that of U.S. Blacks during slavery and Blacks during South African apartheid. The assumption, just barely left unsaid, is that Israeli Jews are the oppressors. "The President even claimed the Muslim country of Morocco was the first to recognize the United States when in fact, it was the Netherlands; and that Muslim Cordoba and Anadulus were shining examples of Islamic tolerance, when a cursory examination of historical scholarship on the subject shows them to have been nothing of the kind: Jews and Christians lived under religiously-sanctioned discrimination, could not worship in public or build new synagogues and churches and had to pay the jizya poll tax because they were not Muslims. "Despite the fact that President Obama declared that he would be totally 'honest' in discussing Mideast issues, he said nothing about Palestinian Arab and Saudi Arabian persecution of Christians. (Even the Pope recently expressed dismay by the huge numbers of Christians who have left the Muslim countries.) And while speaking of the slaughter in Darfur, he didn't even hint that Egypt and other Arab states have for years been blocking international action to end it. President Obama used the Palestinian apologetic term of 'resistance' to discuss Palestinian terrorism, implying a legitimate basis for violence. He also never asked the Arab countries or the PA to put Israel on their maps— something which none of them do. "President Obama recently declared that the U.S. won't 'dictate' to other countries, yet he strongly dictated to Israel to support the dangerous Arab so-called Peace Initiative and to stop Jewish construction in the territories, thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian suffering is due to Israel and the settlements. He praised the Arab Peace Initiative, which requires Israel to go back to the indefensible 1967 borders and allow Arab refugees and their millions of descendents to move into Israel. He made no demand to abrogate this refugee issue which, if implemented, would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian statehood remains a repeated demand by Obama for Israel to accept even though Hamas controls Gaza. Also, Abbas doesn't fight terrorism in any serious way, which makes it likely that this would become another terrorist state. He also claimed that Israel's creation was rooted in a tragic history of the Jews and the Holocaust. Incorrect — firstly, for Bible-believers, it was G-d who promised this land to the Jews; and the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations mandated the creation of a Jewish State on both sides of the Jordan River— before the Holocaust occurred. "Most frighteningly, he said virtually nothing about stopping Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons, even though he strongly promised this during his election the campaign. "President Obama claimed it was illegal for Jews to build homes in Judea and Samaria or East Jerusalem, ignoring the fact that this area was no one's sovereign or legal territory since 1948. Jordan occupied this territory illegally, without UN recognition, from 1948 until 1967 when Israel captured it in a defensive war. In 1967, Israel even offered to return it for peace treaties. The Arab nations, including Jordan, refused. "Finally, President Obama ended his talk with quotes from the Holy Koran, and the Holy Bible, but when he quoted the Jewish Talmud, he omitted the term 'Holy.' We were perplexed and concerned about that. "Taken together, the President's remarks in this speech may well signal the beginning of a renunciation of America's strategic alliance with Israel. It was also a clarion call to all American supporters of Israel, both Christian and Jewish, to make clear to President Obama that strongly supporting the democratic, human-rights loving state of Israel is in America's interest, especially when the truth of the Arab war against Israel in on Israel's side. The following is an analysis of President Obama's Cairo speech, with ZOA commentary appended to specific passages from it: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." [ZOA: What does this mean? How exactly do settlements stop? Is the President saying that Jews have no right to live in these places? The implication that these communities are illegal is wrong. Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria in 1948. When Israel captured it in 1967, it belonged to no sovereign entity. Legally, this is unallocated territory under international law. Practically, it is not the cause of conflict: there were no Jews in these territories between 1948 and 1967, but there was no peace during that period as well. We repudiate the proposition that Jews, because they are Jews, may not move to or live in Judea and Samaria, the religious, historical and political heartland of the Jewish people, as it has been from the Bible to the Jewish nation-state 2000 years ago, to the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations, which reiterated the fact that this is the Jewish homeland. On what basis is it said that 300,000 Jews cannot live among 2 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when 1.2 million Arabs can live among 6 million Jews in Israel proper? Jewish growth in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem has a fundamental legitimacy and poses no obstacle to a true peace if Palestinians are ready for one, so the Obama Administration's insistence on a construction freeze would remain inappropriate even if the prospect of genuine peace negotiations with a truly peaceful Palestinian partner were possible. In any case, no peace can be built on the notion that the biblical, historical and religious heartland of the Jewish people, or any territory for that matter, must be judenrein. Discussing further Israeli territorial and other concessions should be conditional on Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority arresting terrorists, outlawing terrorist groups, ending the incitement to hatred and murder against Israel in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps and the transforming of Palestinian society into one that opposes terrorism and accepts the legitimacy of Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state.] Morton Klein is President of The Zionist Organization of America (www.zoa.org), founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver. |
|
OBAMA'S OUTPOST
Posted by Boris Celser, June 7, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tamar Yonah
and it appeared in Arutz-7
|
|
I am an obstacle to peace. At least that is what Barack Obama thinks. I am what he calls, a 'settler'. It is because of me and my family and neighbors that there is no peace in the world. After all, we are sending our kids to school to get educations to better themselves and the world. We are living our daily lives, farming the land and turning the desert to green. What a crime! At the same time, look what the Arabs are doing today. The Arabs who came in as occupiers of our land, hate Jews, lose wars they waged against us, and then blame us for all their ills. They support terrorism, harbor terrorists and run a totally corrupt government both in Gaza and the Samarian region. They burn American flags in the streets and hand out candy to strangers when Americans are killed in terror attacks. And Obama comes to this region and says that the Arabs have suffered under us and that it is intolerable? Aren't there more appropriate issues for this U.S. president to focus on? Hmmm, North Korea has the bomb, Iran wants to get it to use against Israel and the West, and Obama, oops, I mean Osama, is threatening another terror attack on America, bigger than the 9-11 attack ...but I, a Jewish re-settler in my own homeland am the obstacle to peace? President Obama stated in his 'A New Beginning' speech in Cairo: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." He also stated his desire to see a carved up Israel in order to make way for a Palestinian Arab Moslem state. There are many reactions one can make to this type of anti-Semitic, apartheid agenda of his, but here's one creative way of responding to this evil decree from the Obama administration, and I thought that I would report on it for you... Young Jewish 'settlers' are answering Obama's call for the dismantling of Jewish outposts and settlements, by naming new ones after him. So now in what Obama deems a horrible illegal outpost, he has a new building that has popped up like a mushroom named especially after him. The logic of this, according to the YESHA youth is that with Obama's efforts to prevent building in our national and Biblical homeland, it gives our people even more motiviation to double their efforts to build. And since this new surge of motivation was due to Obama's evil decree, they want to acknowledge him with naming an outpost after him. By the way, can you imagine the headlines if Israeli security forces came and bulldozed down 'Obama's outpost'. And so, I thought, why not help our youth with re-naming other out posts in acknowledgment of the other key players wanting to oust Jews from their land. How about Hillarly Hill? Or Mount Mitchell for George Mitchell? Or maybe even an Oslo Outpost or a 'Road map ranch'? Seeing bulldozers sent by the Israeli government by order of the U.S. president to destroy and flatten these places would be a riot to watch on CNN, BBC and other International News channels. "And now for the CNN news headlines: Israeli forces have bulldozed down and destroyed Obama's Outpost and Hillarly Hill today. Tomorrow they are set to destroy the Roadmap Ranch and Oslo Outpost. It is reported that hundreds of Israeli youth are gathering to defend the area, and there could be violence from security forces on these settler protestors if they don't abandon the outpost. More details to follow as they come in. And now to sports..." Maybe some of you more creative readers can come up with some good ideas for the re-settler youth? Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
OBAMA'S U.S. GOVERNMENT DOUBLE-CROSSES ISRAEL
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 7, 2009. |
|
Are Ma'Aleh Adumim, Betar Illit, Ariel & Gush Etzion On The Chopping Block? We already knew that President Barack Hussein Obama, his anti-Semitic gang and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were never to be trusted. May G-d curse their days and nights. His speech as an Islamist spoke about his real goals and later with Chancellor of Germany Andrea Merkel, agreeing on a "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", completed the Hitlerian scenario of world conquest. For Hitler it was to be a 1000 Year Third Reich; for the Muslims their goal is a Global Caliphate — the whole world under Sha'aria Law of Islam — now with Obama's assistance. May they all live long in great pain and may no Jew lift their hand against these people who spread their curse against innocent Jews who only want to live in their ancient homeland. Obama's perfidy is resolute in bringing the plague of Palestinian Terror to further contaminate the Land of Israel but, now it's come to America. If the recent past is any indication of what Obama has brought to America, I have little doubt that what was once a great and honorable country will pay a terrible price from what G-d promised in retribution. As for the Netanyahu government, will they use this pressure of being pushed up against the wall? Will Bibi and his government push back? We hope and pray that Jews won't be pushed out of their homes...again...by Governments of Betrayal. This below is called "US Rejects Bush's Promise; Ma'Aleh Adumim, Betar Illit, Ariel & Gush Etzion Are On The Chopping Block." It was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu for yesterday's Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com). Lots of news items have come in tonight after Shabbat. We'll send you some. |
|
Maaleh Adumim, Betar Illit, Ariel and Gush Etzion are on the chopping block. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she refuses to honor an American promise that Israel retain large population centers. Former President George W. Bush, in a letter to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, wrote, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion." Secretary Clinton's blunt dismissal of the "informal" promise places more than 100,000 residents of Maaleh Adumim, Ariel, Betar Illit and Gush Etzion on the list for future expulsions to make way for a Palestinian Authority state. The State Department previously had dodged taking a stand on whether the Obama administration would honor the promise. "There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which of course people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States government," Clinton said at a news conference with the Turkish Foreign Minister. She repeated a claim that the Roadmap requires Israel to surrender all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, although the document only calls for the future borders of Israel and a new PA state to be negotiated. President Bush wrote his letter after Sharon proposed the "Disengagement" plan to expel nearly 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif and parts of northern Samaria and turn the Gaza communities over to the PA, which was taken over by Hamas in the area following implementation of the plan. The letter also states, "I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the road map as the route to get there.... Under the road map, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel.... "Your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities." Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
DESCENDANTS OF INQUISITION VICTIMS SUPPORT ISRAEL
Posted by Susana K-M, June 7, 2009. |
|
This is by David Bedein
and it appeared in the Bulletin (Philadelphia)
Spanish And Portuguese Citizens, Whose Jewish Ancestors Were Forced To Convert To Catholicism, Initiate Efforts To Promote Israel |
|
Dozens of people whose ancestors were forced to convert to Catholicism during the Inquisition over 500 years ago, often referred to by the derogatory term "Marranos," gathered this past weekend in Barcelona for a special seminar run to train them to make Israel's case to the media. Amid rising anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment throughout Europe, especially in Spain, the Shavei Israel (Hebrew for "returning to Israel") organization convened a special seminar this past weekend in Barcelona with the aim of training to become effective advocates for Israel and its cause in their home countries. A number of experts on Israel advocacy were brought in to take part in training sessions for the participants and to provide them with guidance and tools to defend the Jewish state in the local and international media. The seminar was held at the Jewish community center in Barcelona and drew some 70 participants from Spain and Portugal. This marks the first time these "Marranos" have organized themselves to promote Israel in their own countries. The idea behind the seminar arose several months ago when descendants of the Inquisition rose at a demonstration in support of Israel that was held in front of the Israeli Embassy in Madrid during the recent Gaza conflict. Many had traveled for hours to Madrid for the sole purpose of expressing their support for Israel. According to "Shavei Israel" Chairman Michael Freund, there are tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, in Spain and Portugal who are conscious of their actual identity and their special relationship with Israel and the Jewish people. Mr. Freund said they "can serve as a wonderful corps of goodwill ambassadors for the Jewish state, and it behooves us to reach out to them and forge a stronger relationship with them." Shavei Israel is a nonprofit organization founded by Mr. Freund, who immigrated to Israel from the United States, with the aim of strengthening ties between the State of Israel and the Jewish people and descendants of Jews around the world. The organization is currently active in nine countries and provides assistance to a variety of distant Jewish communities in India, Spain, Portugal and South America, and even in Kaifeng, China. Historical Background The Jewish community in Spain in the early Middle Ages was one of the oldest and most successful Diaspora Jewish communities. Despite this, from 1391 onward, a series of terrible disturbances and great tribulations befell the local Jewish community. One of the direct results was an unprecedented wave of forced conversions. These events continued on through 1492, when they reached their peak, and the remaining Jews were formally expelled from Spain. Many of those who had been compelled to convert to Catholicism — known by the Hebrew term "Bnai Anousim" — remained behind, where they continued to preserve their Jewish identity and to practice Jewish tradition covertly. As a result, this unique phenomenon is still evident even today, even though the Inquisition invested enormous efforts over the centuries to eradicate it. Bnai Anousim In Portugal In 1497, the Portuguese monarch forced the Jews of his kingdom to convert to Catholicism. Despite this, these "New Christians" did their utmost to remain loyal to their Jewish roots, secretly passing on their identities down through the generations, despite the wrath of the Inquisition. Many of those who were caught practicing Judaism in secret were made to pay a heavy price by the Inquisition for their fidelity to the faith of their ancestors. One of the most famous examples of Portuguese Bnai Anousim was the community of Belmonte, in northern Portugal, which was discovered 80 years ago by a visiting Jewish engineer. Two decades ago, the Bnai Anousim of Belmonte were formally restored to the Jewish people by a rabbinical court sent from Israel. Bnai Anousim In Brazil When the doors of the New World swung open in the 16th century, Brazil came to play an important role for those with initiative, opening new opportunities for a better life. In addition, because of its geographical distance from Portugal, many Bnai Anousim saw Brazil as a possible place of refuge that might put them beyond the reach of the Inquisition. Nonetheless, the long arm of the Church reached across the Atlantic and continued to pursue the Bnai Anousim. But many remained undeterred, and continued to preserve Jewish rituals and traditions in secret, passing down their covert Jewish identity from generation to generation. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
MAKING LIFE MISERABLE FOR PIRATES
Posted by Cprocerl, June 7, 2009. |
|
This article is from Strategy Page
|
|
June 5, 2009: The success of the Somali pirates (who have gotten over $50 million in ransoms so far) has encouraged pirates, and potential pirates, worldwide. The publicity given to the tactics of the Somali pirates has educated larceny minded boat owners worldwide. These guys know that they aren't going to score a multimillion dollar ransom (you need a place to stow the boat during the negotiations, and only the Somalis have that), but now they know there are splendid robbery prospects with these large ships. Slip aboard in the wee hours, mug the crew, grab everything portable and clean out the safe. In a poor country in West Africa or Southeast Asia, the few thousand bucks you get from a robbery like this is a life changer. And the word is getting around that pulling off stuff like this is easier than you think. In response to the growing piracy threat, maritime security companies are doing a booming business. One Israeli firm, Mano International Security, has specialized in this kind of work for over three decades. But there is competition, usually divisions of larger firms, and business has never been better. The Israeli firm has long supplied plain clothes security operatives for cruise ships. These men, and women, keep an eye on security matters in general, but they have always been trained to deal with pirates, and terrorists. Other firms are trying to get into this corner of the industry, but the Israelis have set a high standard. There is plenty of new business from the non-cruise ship segment (over 99 percent of the big ships out there). Most of this consists of training officers and senior crew how to deal with pirates. A lot of this is common sense (like posting lookouts 24/7 when in dangerous waters) and the need to teach crewmembers anti-piracy techniques, and carry out regular drills. The lookouts should be equipped with high end optics, which are useful at sea, even when no pirates are about. Ships that can afford it should upgrade their surface radars to a model that is better at detecting small boats. There are a lot of simple techniques for fighting off pirates. If your lookouts fail to spot the pirates, and they start to board, having stuff ready to toss overboard at the boarding pirates, often works. Firing a maritime flare gun right at the pirate boat will do lots of damage, because these industrial strength flares use magnesium, which not only burns very bright, but also very, very hot. As in hot enough to burn a hole through the bottom of the pirate boat. You cannot extinguish magnesium with water. Ships are not supposed to carry guns (many ports forbid armed ships to enter), but some ships have taken to putting a few pistols in the ships safe, and keeping quiet about it. Other ships have installed, or the crews have improvised, a water cannon (basically a very high powered fire hose, with a longer nozzle to provide longer range and a more precise stream of water). A more expensive solution (several thousand dollars) is a sonic cannon (that directs a beam of very loud sound at someone hundreds of meters away), which works in most cases. But the best defense remains speed. Not only can most large ships outrun speedboats on the high seas (where waves slow down small boats more than huge ones), but the big ship can provide even larger waves with its wake, and that can be enhanced by zig-zagging a bit. Security experts also advise captains to deviate from their official course, because the pirates now have informants in various shipping, insurance and maritime affairs organizations, where they obtain the official course for a ship. Pirates try to use this to set up a night time ambush at sea. But deviating a bit on your official course, the pirates will be left waiting. Generally, the pirates only get lucky when a merchant ship crew gets sloppy. Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
OBAMA'S 'WHITE PAPER' OF 2009
Posted by Moshe Dann, June 7, 2009. |
|
Attempting to appease Arabs who had been attacking Jews and rioting throughout Palestine during the late 1930's, Britain, the Mandatory Power, issued a cruel policy statement — a "White Paper" — in 1939. Britain restricted the number of Jews desperately trying to escape the Nazis and immigrate to Palestine to 75,000, spread over 5 years, after which time no Jews would be allowed to immigrate (without Arab approval); it also prohibited Jews from buying land in Palestine. This directly violated the purpose and conditions of the Mandate and condemned millions of Jews trapped in European savagery. Despite this draconian "law," however, many Jews were smuggled illegally into Palestine, a rescue mission that became a defining symbol in Israel's (and Jewish) history. Seventy years later, President Obama has issued a new "White Paper" against Jewish settlements. Directed only against Jews, Obama's policy is clearly anti-Jewish and blatantly discriminatory. He does not even mention the issues of incitement and terrorism officially sponsored by the Palestinian Authority and most Arab and Muslim countries. Jihadism is not on his agenda; Jewish communities in Yehuda and Shomron (the "West Bank") are his obsession. Obama has no effective policy on the on-going atrocities in Sudan, Somalia or other Muslim countries that oppress and slaughter their own populations. Israeli Jews are in his crosshairs. He cannot and will not prevent North Korea and Iran from their nuclear ambitions. He can't secure Pakistan. He is determined, however, to defeat Israeli Jews. This is an issue that strikes at the heart of American values and ideals — as well as common sense. No American political leader has enunciated and carried out a policy intended to destroy the State of Israel — as Obama's policies surely lead. No American President would dare violate basic American interests — the support of the only democracy in the entire region. And no American President would retreat from the battle against terrorism. Obama's 'White Paper' against Jews, like that of the British in 1939, is a sign of moral depravity — not only because it means Jews will be murdered, but because it contradicts fundamental American beliefs in human rights. If Obama would subject his policies to review by Congress or the Supreme Court he would be ridiculed — not because he doesn't have the Constitutional right to make such policies, but because what he proposes violates values embodied in the Constitution. Obama's anti-Israel policy, unlike those of some of his predecessors, like Jimmy Carter, lacks even the pretense of "even-handedness," — the code words for punish Israel — since there is no reciprocity. Israel has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Obama's anti-Israel policies are un-American because they are unfair. Obama's anti-Israel policies are un-American because Israel is America's only reliable ally in the entire region. A danger to American interests, Obama's policies should be of deep concern to Americans — not because they put Israel at risk — but because they damage America. Moshe Dann, a former asst professor of History (CUNY), is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il |
|
MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
Posted by Susana K-M, June 6, 2009. |
|
Over the past few decades there has been a systematic and brutal campaign being leveled at the world's Christian community. This has been happening in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. As disparate as these regions are, the common thread in all of these cases of persecution is that the perpetrators are Muslims. The Muslim persecution of Christians has reached Genocidal proportions. It is an issue that no one wants to discuss. The level of international attention given to this issue is deafeningly quiet. No outcry, marches, protests, no speeches on the floor of Congress, no speeches at the United Nations. There are no major Hollywood productions and no Tibet-like bumper stickers. Millions of Christians have been put to death for the sole reason that they are Christian. All of these deaths have been at the hands of Muslims, who kill the "infidel" in the name of their prophet Muhammad. The time for silence at this Genocidal persecution of Christians is over. The Freedom Center has written pamphlets and numerous articles on this issue, screened an exceptional movie by Pierre Rehov and brought speakers on the campuses of America to shine a light on these atrocities. Now, the Center is releasing another in its series of flash videos to show in striking reality, the plight of the world's Christians and to explain the threat they face. Our flash videos have been viewed by millions, from students to activists, the media and public officials. This flash video, The Muslim Presecution of Christianse truth and exposes the nature of Islam and the threat it poses to all peoples of the world and in this case specifically, the plight of the Christians. The once vibrant Christian communities of the Middle and North Africa are disappearing before our eyes. The video accompanying this message is not pleasant viewing. But once you have seen it I am sure you will agree that it should be as widely spread as possible. The danger from Islam extremists is not limited to a few terrorists but is now threatening all of Europe and both North and South America. Politicians are shutting their eyes to it, and are afraid to open their mouths about it. The news media are silent. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
AMERICA'S IMPORTANT ALLY — ISRAEL
Posted by M.S. (Steve) Kramer, June 6, 2009. |
|
PART I The late senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, said, "If Israel did not exist, what would U.S. defense costs in the Middle East be? Israel is at least the equivalent of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Without Israel promoting its and America's common interests, we would be badly off indeed." (The influential senator, though known to favor segregation, was a strong supporter of Israel.) The history of American-Israeli relations is checkered, starting with Dwight Eisenhower's disapproval following Harry Truman's strong support. With the new Obama administration just getting its feet wet in the region, a look back at the two countries' relationship is worthwhile. Obviously, the relationship between sovereign countries is always about self-interest. There's no case to be made by friends of Israel that America should always support the Jewish state. Things just don't work like that between nations. If and when American leaders believe that supporting Israel will promote American interests, Israel will benefit from American help. If Israel is deemed a strategic mill stone around the neck of an administration, America's policy will be to rapidly distance itself from Israel, regardless of the fact that Israel is the only Middle Eastern democracy, that Israel is the most consistent American ally in the region, that America has an influential Jewish population, that sixty million Christian Zionists in America fervently support Israel, and that Israel and America share many cultural and historical ties. So, is America better off with a strong Israel, or not? Let's go back to 1948, when the State Department was pressuring President Truman to renege on his backing for the establishment of a Jewish state based on the UN Partition Plan. From www.mideastweb.org: "The State Department and Defense Department were working hard to dissuade Truman from the partition plan. Loy Henderson, director of the State Department's Near East Agency, Secretary of State George Marshall and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal cited the importance of Arab petroleum to US interests and intelligence reports indicating that Zionists were communists." It's true that Arab oil was strategically important to America. It's also true that Jews have historically leaned leftward and that Russian Jews were a bulwark of the Communist Party, leading some leaders of the Yishuv [pre-state Israel] to lean more towards the Soviet Union for backing than towards America. Regardless of those facts, President Truman, not unmindful of the upcoming presidential election where he faced a strong Republican candidate from New York, resolved to honor his promise of support to Chaim Weizmann, the famous British scientist who became Israel's first president. The Yishuv's leaders had already decided to declare a state to coincide with the withdrawal of British troops and there was a strong possibility that the Jews would be slaughtered by regular Arab armies, in line with Arab statements and State Department predictions. If Truman had succumbed to State Department pressure, America would have been dealt a severe blow for not supporting Israel. That event would very likely have had a disastrous impact on American sensibilities, following so closely on the Holocaust. Without America's backing Israel would have looked for help from the Soviet Union, which would have thereby gained a foothold in the Middle East. It turned out that America was the first state to recognize Israel, that Israel defeated the Arabs without much help from the West, and that Israel didn't turn towards communism, though it did establish a socialist-influenced state. The Soviet Union's influence in the Middle East was put off for years and the region's first and only Western-oriented democracy began to prosper while simultaneously welcoming millions of displaced Jewish immigrants from Europe and Arab countries. The strength of Israeli leaders, in the face of State Department objections, promoted American self-interest. Abraham Ben-Zvi, professor of political science and head of Tel Aviv University's Center for International Studies, has written that President Eisenhower, who followed after Truman, relied heavily on coercive diplomacy and deterrence strategies against Israel "to obtain unilateral Israeli territorial concessions in the Negev, to induce Israel to stop retaliatory raids against Jordan and Egypt, and to secure Israeli agreement to repatriation of an unspecified number of Palestinian refugees. The quest for Israeli concessions was predicated on the calculation that as long as core issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict remained unresolved, the U.S. effort in the mid-1950s to enlist the Arab states into an anti-Soviet military alliance was bound to fail." This coercive approach to Israel was unsuccessful for two reasons: there was no commitment to sell American weapons to Israel or to provide U.S. guarantees to Israel's security and Israel was adamant not to jeopardize its core security interests, regardless of the diplomatic costs. The Eisenhower administration's prickly posture in the early 1950s towards Israel failed to change Israel's behavior and also provoked Israel to adopt a more aggressive posture toward Egypt, which culminated in the 1956 Suez war. But Ben-Zvi noted a gradual shift between 1957 and 1960 in American policy toward the Middle East in general, and towards Israel in particular. The Eisenhower administration eventually realized that the lack of an Arab-Israeli peace wasn't an impediment to attain Arab unity and support in the struggle against Communist expansionism. Ben-Zvi wrote that the perception of Israel as a potential strategic asset to the United States became increasingly apparent to Washington's policy makers. This shift was evident when, in July 1958, Israel agreed to a British and American airlift of strategic materials through Israeli airspace to prop up the embattled Jordanian monarchy, which was being challenged by a radical nationalist uprising fomented by Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Ben-Zvi claims that "the 1958 Jordanian Crisis can be thought of as the 'trigger event,' which provided the impetus for completing the swing of the perceptual pendulum from Israel as a strategic liability and an impediment to American regional designs, to Israel as an indispensable asset to American and British strategic plans and objectives." Confrontational issues between America and Israel were gradually reduced during Eisenhower's second term, and he even expressed regret about his belligerent attitude towards Israel to his biographer. However, the United States continued to refuse to sell advanced weapons systems to Israel for a number of reasons. These included the persistent fear that arms sales would harm America's relations with Arab states, or generate a costly arms race between Israel and its neighbors. Mostly this policy was the result of entrenched bureaucratic resistance by the upper echelons of the State Department to any change in their pro-Arab mindset. [See the Middle East Council article by Michael Rubner: www.mepc.org] In any event, France took the place of America to assist Israel militarily while the Soviet Union did the same for Egypt.
PART II When American leaders believe that supporting Israel will promote American interests, Israel will benefit from American help. If Israel is deemed a strategic mill stone around the neck of an administration, America's policy will be to rapidly distance itself from Israel. President Truman disregarded his State Department's advice and supported Israel's independence, which benefited America's interests in the Middle East. President Eisenhower at first was disdainful of Israel, but eventually saw Israel as a potential strategic asset to the United States. After the Suez War, Israel got a commitment from the US in the form of an Aide de Memoire (1957) from President Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, stating that America would support Israel's right to unrestricted access to the Straits of Tiran, in accordance with international law, and the UN agreed to station an emergency force in Sinai (UNEF). But ten years later, during Lyndon Johnson's presidency, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israel. Tension mounted and Israel's Arab neighbors girded for war and promised Israel's destruction. Israeli foreign Minister Eban implored the United States for some guarantee against an Egyptian attack and some firm action to break the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, but he was turned down by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and President Johnson. "The US could not commit itself to the defense of Israel for constitutional reasons, according to the administration. It couldn't allow Israel to start a war either. Johnson was to tell Eban and President Eshkol that Israel was gaining by waiting, but it was obviously not so." [www.zionism-israel.com] Israeli leaders then took the bull by the horns, recognizing that waiting would be suicidal. The result was the victorious Six Day War, which raised Israel's status in the world and especially with the American government. Analyzing the more recent presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, we find the same dynamic at work: America, usually with good intentions, pushing Israel in a certain direction, with Israel resisting or not, depending on its own perspective. President Clinton was ebullient and optimistic when the Oslo Accord was officially adopted on the White House lawn in 1993. Israel was an enthusiastic participant, even holding its nose and inviting Yasser Arafat to the West Bank to take power in Ramallah. Israeli left-wingers were ecstatic, relying on Shimon Peres' announcement that the PLO had dropped its mandate for the destruction of Israel (it hadn't). In retrospect, the peace plan negotiated by Israeli leftists under Norwegian auspices failed, leaving thousands of dead Israelis and Palestinians in its wake. Israel's value as a potent ally of America was certainly diminished when the Second Intifada (2000), was launched by Arafat in the wake of a failed peace conference at and the Labor Party was unable to deal with it. Israel's prospects improved when America elected the younger George Bush as its leader and Israel chose Arik Sharon. The two seemed to be on the same wavelength regarding "facts on the ground". After all, Arik Sharon, known as the "father of the settlements", was a distinguished military leader and right-wing visionary. The new American president was also perceived as a proponent of tough military tactics and he must have been impressed by Sharon's Operation Defensive Shield, which effectively ended the Second Intifada in 2002. Two years later, President Bush issued a letter to Prime Minister Sharon with the most forthright recognition of Israel's position vis a vis peace with the Palestinians. Here are the two key paragraphs of that letter, with emphasis added: "The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel. As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion." Bush's letter marks the high point of American support for Israel's vision of peace with the Palestinians. However, Israel lost credibility in the Second Lebanon War against Hizbullah, when it failed to destroy the Iranian proxy army Hizbullah, and in Operation Cast Lead, when it again failed to destroy Hamas, the Iranian proxy in Gaza. On the other hand, the scales were somewhat tipped towards Israel's favor by long-range military exploits in Syria, where a nuclear plant being constructed was destroyed and in the Sudan, where weapons on their way to Hizbullah were interdicted. As the most stable and powerful Middle Eastern country, Israel proves its value to the United States when it remains committed to its own self-interest, not when it vacillates and acts like a banana republic. President Obama himself has recently called for the complete cessation of construction in the very "major Israeli population centers" that George Bush condoned, seemingly prohibiting even the addition of a few bedrooms to an existing home. If Israel accepts this fiat, it will gain a few temporary points with the new administration but will be a loser in credibility in the longer term. Facing the new Obama administration, Israeli leaders must do everything possible to remain a potent ally of the West, even if the American government doesn't recognize that Israel's defense of its own security will ultimately benefit the United States. One can hope that President Obama, like most presidents before him, will give Israel the respect it deserves when it fights to protect its existence. 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." Contact him at sjk1@jhu.edu |
|
FROM ISRAEL: REVISITING OBAMA
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 6, 2009. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) A deluge is the proper word, I think, for the amount of commentary that is being produced with regard to Obama's speech (with much of it being forwarded to me). Here I will provide key insights and background that I have not yet covered, and then, in the next few days, I hope to turn to other issues. Please my friends, unless you uncover commentary with a whole different perspective, or news that is startling, do not send me anything else with regard to Obama's talk. ~~~~~~~~~~ In his talk, Obama spoke of the Holocaust, and the suffering Jews endured. In practically his next breath, however, he said: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people...have suffered in pursuit of a homeland...." And, following this observation, he went on to say: "For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history..." ~~~~~~~~~~ This is deeply troubling — offensive! — and must be challenged at several levels. There is, first, the unacceptable moral equivalency of his statement: The Jews suffered in the Holocaust...the Palestinians suffered the "nakba" — as if the historical experience of pain of the Palestinians in being "dislocated" is as great as what we endured in the Shoa (Holocaust) when six million died. Within this formulation is a libelous implication: That just as we endured the Holocaust, we then brought commensurate suffering on another people. But I won't go in that direction now. For there is more that is unacceptable: What is also implied in Obama's statement is that we are entitled to a Jewish state BECAUSE there was a Holocaust. And this too, fits with Palestinian mythology. See, they say, it is because of the Holocaust that they suffered dislocation — the Jews who had nowhere to go came here and pushed them out. Obama doesn't say, as the Palestinians do — when they lament that they shouldn't have to suffer because of our problems — that we are not entitled to a state, but his approach leans in this direction. ~~~~~~~~~~ What Obama misses, when he focuses on the Holocaust as the reason we have a claim to a state, is the entire religious and historical basis for our claim here. He says not a word about this land as divine Jewish inheritance, and this is critical. From the time of the Patriarchs, we Jews have been tied to this land. But the Muslims say today that we have no religious connection here. They have written us out in their falsified version of things, they have attempted to destroy ancient archeological evidence, and they call this land a Muslim wakf (trust) for eternity. It has gotten so bad that they call the Kotel (Western Wall) an exclusively Muslim site: the place where Mohammad tied his horse or something. (Arafat denied there was a Temple on the Mount, ever, and Abbas has made similar statements.) Make no mistake about it. The battle for the Land of Israel is at heart a religious battle, not a political one. By not acknowledging the Jewish connection to the land, Obama has left room for the Arabs to continue to make their claims. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama said not a word about our ancient presence here, going back 3,000 years at least: The City of David, the Temple of Solomon, the Machpelah — the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and much more, well before there even was Islam. And he failed to mention our devotion to the land over the millenia, and our continued presence. In short, he failed to acknowledge this land as our traditional homeland. ~~~~~~~~~~ Beyond all of this, he ignored our modern Zionist history and the legitimacy of our claim to the land that is founded in international law. It was in 1922 that the League of Nations granted to Great Britain the Mandate for Palestine, which charged Britain with "secur(ing) the establishment of the Jewish national home," which meant, in the words of the Mandate, that Britain was to "facilitate Jewish immigration" and "encourage close settlement by Jews on the land." Wording in the Mandate was actually drawn directly from the British Balfour Declaration of 1917. This was a letter that had been written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, which said, in part: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object." ~~~~~~~~~~ This is still a matter of international law that has never been superceded. The responsibilities born by the League of Nations were assumed by the United Nations. When the UN General Assembly, in 1947, voted for partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, this was only a recommendation, as GA resolutions carry no weight in international law. In any event, the Arabs relinquished all claims by rejecting the recommendation. ~~~~~~~~~~ To this day, at the very most, Judea and Samaria, which represent the very heartland of the ancient Jewish presence here, can be said to be unclaimed Mandate land. By no stretch of the imagination is it a given that this is "Palestinian" land or land which is destined, either morally or legally, to be a Palestinian state. This is yet another myth that the world has bought. The Green Line was an armistice line from the end of the War of Independence in 1949 — it is not the demarcation of our border. In fact, when Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement, written into it was the understanding that future negotiations on a final border for Israel would not be prejudiced by the armistice line. We are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "occupiers" in Judea and Samaria. This is land to which we have a most legitimate claim (a claim enhanced by the fact that in modern times we re-acquired it in a defensive war). Legally,"occupation" occurs only when one sovereign nation moves into the land of another sovereign nation. This is simply not the case here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Egypt moved into Gaza, and Jordan into Judea and Samaria, in 1949. In 1964, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded. In its charter was a statement that the PLO made no claim against either Egypt or Jordan. That is, there was no claim that Gaza and Judea and Samaria had to be turned over to the Palestinians for a state. It was only Israel within the Green Line that was to be "liberated." Only after Israel acquired control of Gaza and Judea and Samaria in 1967 did the PLO claim that it had a right to these areas for a state. But in point of fact, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, does not even mention either the Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. It speaks about pullback of Israel from "territories" but not "all territories": It was never the intention of the framers of this resolution that Israel should return to the Green Line. Withdrawal from whatever territories would not, in any event, take place until Israel was also provided with respect for her sovereignty and territorial integrity, and her right to live in peace within secure borders was acknowledged. This was all to be accomplished concurrently. Under no conditions was Israeli withdrawal conceived of as a precondition, something to be done absent the other stipulations of the resolution. Israel is absolutely not in non-compliance with the resolution because she hasn't withdrawn from territories. It was not expected that Israel would move from one inch until secure boundaries for Israel were accepted by all belligerents. There is no legal reason for us to not have settlements in Judea and Samaria. Even Oslo in no way restricted our right to these settlements. ~~~~~~~~~~ How different this legal reality is from the way the world has come to perceive the situation. This is information that every Jew and every lover of Israel must possess. We must publicize the realities of the situation continuously and energetically in every possible forum. We must speak out, finally, to tell our narrative and claim our rights. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to news yesterday, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Beitenu) told reporters in Washington, after meetings he held with government officials and members of Congress, that "Israel won't give up on the continuation of construction in settlement blocs. "Even if it results in a harsh response from the American administration and tension with Washington, it will ultimately dissipate." Right on! ~~~~~~~~~~ Israel's official response after Obama's talk was appropriate and also demonstrated strength: "The Government of Israel expresses its hope that this important speech in Cairo will indeed lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Moslem world and Israel. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SAUDIS: US MUST CUT AID IF ISRAEL DOES NOT AGREE TO PEACE TERMS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 6, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com). |
|
The United States should cut off all to Israel if the Jewish state does not accept the terms of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told Newsweek magazine. In answer to a question if U.S. President Barack Obama should use financial help as a tool to force Israel to implement the plan, the Foreign Minister stated, "Why not? If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people's lands, you bear some responsibility." He also made it clear that the only concession the Arab world can make to Israel is diplomatic recognition, meaning that all other terms of the Saudi peace initiative are non-negotiable. "We don't have anything to offer Israel except normalization, and if we put that before the return of Arab land we are giving away the only chip in the hands of Arab countries," he told the news weekly. The interview was conducted the day after President Obama's speech calling on a "new beginning" in relations between Muslim nations and the U.S. Foreign Minister al-Faisal said that Israel "must be reasonable and make reasonable concessions." Echoing the Arab demand that the Obama government take concrete steps, he revealed that during the president's visit to Saudi Arabia the day before his Cairo speech, the monarchy told him it wanted to see action. "But we did not expect him [Obama] to be so specific," the Foreign Minister revealed. "He called Israeli settlements in the West Bank 'not legitimate' — and this is more important, and stronger, than 'not legal.'" The Saudi Peace Plans calls for the 22-member Arab league to recognize Israel as a country, but not necessarily as a Jewish state, on condition that it surrender all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, including numerous neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Old City, where the proposed PA state would be headquartered. It also wants to allow the immigration to Israel of five million foreign Arabs who claim ancestry in Israel. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
WE ARE ALL "PAYING" FOR NOT SAVING THE JEWS DURING WWII!
Posted by GWY, June 6, 2009. |
|
No words minced here — something to think about.
|
|
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth — Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of these people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned. And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime, poverty and unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning In filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for building a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy — for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe. Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
THE END OF AMERICA'S STRATEGIC ALLIANCE WITH ISRAEL?
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 6, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick; visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Caroline B. Glick is the senior fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Center for Security Policy and the senior contributing editor of The Jerusalem Post. |
|
From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama's speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama's speech was a renunciation of America's strategic alliance with Israel. Rhetorically, Obama sugar coated the pathologies of the Islamic world — from the tyranny that characterizes its regimes, to the misogyny, xenophobia, Jew hatred, and general intolerance that characterizes its societies. In so doing he made clear that his idea of pressing the restart button with the Islamic world involves erasing the moral distinctions between the Islamic world and the free world. In contrast, Obama's perverse characterization of Israel — of the sources of its legitimacy and of its behavior — made clear that he shares the Arab world's view that there is something basically illegitimate about the Jewish state. In 1922 the League of Nations mandated Great Britain to facilitate the reconstitution of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan River. The international community's decision to work towards the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in Israel owed to its recognition of the Jewish people's legal, historic, and moral rights to our homeland. Arab propaganda finds this basic and fundamental truth inconvenient. So for the past 60 years, the Arabs have been advancing the fiction that Israel's existence owes solely to European guilt over the Holocaust. As far as the Arabs are concerned, the Jews have no legal, historic, or moral right to what the Arabs see as Islamic land. In his address, while Obama admonished the Arabs for their pervasive Jew hatred and Holocaust denial, he effectively accepted and legitimized their view that Israel owes its existence to the Holocaust when he said, "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied," and then went on to talk about the Holocaust. Just as abominably, Obama compared Israel to Southern slave owners and Palestinians to black slaves in the antebellum south. He used the Arab euphemism "resistance" to discuss Palestinian terrorism, and generally ignored the fact that every Palestinian political faction is also a terrorist organization. In addition to his morally outrageous characterization of Israel and factually inaccurate account of its foundations, Obama struck out at the Jewish state through the two policies he outlined in his address. His first policy involves coercing Israel into barring all Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank), and Jerusalem. Obama claims that this policy will increase prospects for peace. But this is untrue. As Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his Washington Post interview last week, Obama's trenchant campaign against Jewish construction in these areas has convinced the Palestinians they have no reason to be flexible in their positions towards Israel. Indeed, Obama's assault on Israeli construction and his unsubstantiated, bigoted claim that the presence of Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem impedes progress towards peace ensures that there will be no agreement whatsoever between Israel and the Palestinians. After all, why would the Palestinians make a deal with Israel when they know that Obama will blame Israel for the absence of a peace agreement? Even more strategically devastating than his castigation of Israel as the villain in the Arab-Israel conflict is Obama's stated policy towards Iran. In Cairo, Obama offered Iran nuclear energy in exchange for its nuclear-weapons program. This offer has been on the table since 2003 and has been repeatedly rejected by the Iranians. Indeed, they rejected it yet again last week. Obama must know that his policy will not lead to the hoped for change in Iran's behavior. And since he must know this, the only rational explanation for his decision to adopt a policy he knows will fail is that he is comfortable with the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power. And this is something that Israel cannot abide by. The only silver lining for Israelis from the president's speech in Cairo and his general positions on the Middle East is that Obama has overplayed his hand. Far from bending to his will, a large majority of Israelis perceives Obama as a hostile force and has rallied in support of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against the administration. This public support gives Netanyahu the maneuver room he needs to take the actions that Israel needs to take to defend against the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and to assert its national rights and to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists and other Arab and non-Arab anti-Semites who wish it ill. 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. |
|
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: OBAMA PREPARED TO ACCEPT PRO-SHARIA ORGANIZATIONS THAT RENOUNCE VIOLENCE
Posted by Robert Spencer, June 6, 2009. |
|
"It suggests that Obama is prepared to adopt violence, and not Islamist ideology, as the key issue determining American attitudes towards such organizations" — such as Hamas. If this is true, it amounts to an abject surrender to the stealth jihad: spreading Sharia in the West would be just fine, as long as it isn't done violently. "Obama's subtle shift on Islamism," from IkhwanWeb.com [...] But I do want to note that without making a big deal about it, President Obama has already introduced a subtle and potentially extremely important shift into American discourse about Islamism. In an interview with NPR, Obama offered these comments on Hamas:"With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the Quartet principles [referring to the United States, Russia, European Union and the United Nations] that have been laid out — and these are fairly modest conditions here — that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate, that you abide by previous agreements, that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals — then I think the discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed. And so, the problem has been that there has been a preference oftentimes on the part of these organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars or advancing their organizational aims. At some point though, they may make a transition. There are examples of, in the past, organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means. And I hope that occurs." The article appeared in Jihad Watch |
|
PHOTO: HAMAS TERRORISTS WATCHING OBAMA ON T.V.
Posted by Cpocerl, June 6, 2009. |
Palestinian Hamas militants wear masks to conceal their identities
from the camera as they watch the televised speech of US President
Barack Obama as they pose with their weapons in front of journalists
at at training base in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, Thursday, June 4,
2009. Quoting from the Quran for emphasis, President Barack Obama
called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims"
Thursday and said together, they could confront violent extremism
across the globe and advance the timeless search for peace in the
Middle East.
Contact C Pocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
PROTEST WITH US JULY 5, 2009 IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Posted by Ted Belman, June 5, 2009. |
|
Rally against any "2 state — PLO state" that will attack Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion, (which Obama did in Egypt on selling out Israel and America). 3321 years ago G-d gave us the Torah after liberating us from slavery in Egypt . Now President Obama, elected by U.S. Jews, is going to "enslave' Israel" while he demands the division of Jerusalem and "2 states", and while Egypt also wants millions of Arabs to resettle there including in all of East Jerusalem and "NO" Jewish State. If you have any self-respect, please show up and bring your own signs on how you feel about this Obama/Hillary betrayal of Israel and America ! NO NUKES FOR IRAN ! — BIBI: STAND FIRM! We will also hold rallies in front of the Federal Building in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on June 9,16, 23, 30, 2009, 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. on Broward Blvd. and 3rd Ave. against this Obama 'sellout' Yours in Shalom,
From Oct. 2007 to the present, Shalom International has led this effort in 113 rallies and 964 news interviews. From "Annapolis", The White House, Dem/GOP Conventions; National Congress of 3000 Jewish leaders, AIPAC, "Durban II" in Geneva, and when the Pope was in Israel,as part of these efforts all over the world, we broke the 'silence' and challenged all who would divide Israel, Jewish, for 5000 yrs. and divide Jerusalem, Jewish, for 3000 yrs., incluidng our so-called 'Jewish leadership' supporting Obama. Obama/Hillary telling Jews not to reproduce on Jewish land is 'anti-semitism' and 'genocide', and then they tell us to forget our Covenant, history, identity and faith and to make the land 'Jew Free', in order to make 'peace' with those who want us dead, is the height of the Obama/Hillary rip-off that will lead to the next major war. Dividing Jerusalem with the U.N. Flag, rewards, with a forum, the Little Hitler from Iran, who cowardly denies the Holocaust, but wants to finish the job Hitler started and Obama/Hillary are cowardly allowing Iran to get its nukes it will use on Israel and then America and the West. These are the same "UNazis", who do nothing about the genocide of 300,000 Blacks by Muslims in Darfur, while this UN supports Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and Saudi Arabia blackmails the world with its oil and global terrorism and is behind '9/11', Obama/Hillary ignore, and 57 Muslim countries have made the UN useless, other than a tool to bash Israel with. In all, appeasing, groveling and catering to the terrorists only invites more attacks upon us all, which the Obama//Hillary strategy is all about. Iran didn't even cover Obama's speech in Egypt, anymore than this weakling Obama, has stopped N. Korea who is supplying Syria with nukes and uranium. Obama 'morally equated ' the Holocaust with the sufferings of the Arabs, who voted for Hamas in Gaza and its 10,000 rockets into Israel. Obama conveniently forgot to mention 7 Arab wars to kill Jews, over the last 61 years, and Obama didn't mention, the word terrorist, or terrorism, while supporting the very Islamic dictators enslaving their own peoples. Rewarding the very Muslim forces alligned with Hitler, who cowardly deny the Holocaust and then to insist that what is Jewish must be 'Jew Free' and divide Jerusalem, the heart of Israel, and the Jewish nation, to accomodate these Islamic Nazis, is beyond comprehension except to promote the next war. Obama has lied to the Jews/Israelis and is siding with those who are attacking Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, "All infidels" and countless fellow Muslims. Donate to make these efforts possible by going to our web site: http://www.defendjerusalem.net or by mail to: "Defend Jerusalem", P.O.Box 402263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140. Call you Congressperson or any candidate and get them to commit to a 'NO 2-state sellout of Israel and America' and the above issues. Write Letters to the Editor. Call Talk Shows. The dangers are so great and we are in an 'emergency'. If you are going to a 'tea party' on July 4, bring these issues of national and Israeli security and defense to your rallies. If Israel is sacrificed, America is next. Get our "Defend and Protect" America and Israel, and "Keep Jerusalem United" bumper stickers and also our "Obamination" buttons, with your donations. Help spread the word to everyone in your networks. June 6, marks the anniversary of the "6 Day War" and the reunion of Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem, lost in 1948 war. We honor the 25,000 Israelis, killed by the Arabs since 1948 and the 7 million Jews murdered for being Jews, in the Holocaust, who also own Jerusalem with every other Jew in the world. Obama dishonors all of them. Doing 'politics; at a 'death camp', doesn't change this outrageous attempt by Obama to deny the 'land for peace' efforts by England to satisfy Hitler, that led to WWII and the Holocaust. Obama's terrible accomodations with the Islamic Nazis, will G-d forbid, bring on WWIII. If you would like to be a co-sponsor of this major event, or to be a speaker, please let us know immediately.
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com. |
|
CONTACT LIST FOR PRO ISRAEL ACTIVISTS
Posted by Ralph Levy, June 5, 2009. |
|
It is almost certain now that there will be massive pressure against Israel. I took the time to create a small blog website that has some main contact numbers to contact people to protest any pressure against Israel. Please pass this around to as many people and Pro Israel activists as possible. I will update as time permits. I have also been increasing my Twitter presence as much as possible to widen the audience. Go here. |
|
Contact Ralph Levy at his website http://israelprotect.blogspot.com/
|
|
ISRAEL IS DIFFERENT
Posted by Moshe Brodetzky, June 5, 2009. |
|
This was written by Elyakim Haetzni and it comes from Ynet Haetzni explains why Jewish State is different from all other countries |
|
How is this country different from all other states? In all other states, the winner gains — yet in the Jewish State, the winner tends to lose. In all other states, rightist parties adopt rightist policies — yet in the Jewish State, a rightist government is expected to be leftist. In all other states, guests on official visits utter respectful and polite words — yet in the Jewish State, such guests preach to us and provide the master of the house with suicidal advice. In all other states, both sides adhere to agreements — in the Jewish State, the Arabs are exempt from this, while only the Jews have to live up to signed agreements. In all other states, each party to the negotiations gives something and receives something — yet in the Jewish State, the Arabs keep on getting and the Jews keep on giving. In all other states, an area that must not be expanded is compared to a ghetto from the Middle Ages — yet in the Jewish state, the ghettoization of settlers (known as "a settlement freeze") is the zenith of political correctness. In all other states, the expulsion of certain population groups is referred to as "ethnic cleansing" and its perpetrators are punished for committing crimes against humanity — yet in the Jewish State, the "evacuation" of settlers is legal and normative. In all other states, the notion of clearing a whole area of Jews (Judenrein) is condemned as anti-Semitic and racist — yet in the Jewish State, the notion of removing all Jews from areas handed over to "Palestine" is a legitimate plan. In all other state, a warring party imposes a blockade on the enemy — yet in the Jewish State, we provide our enemy with fuel, water, electricity, food, money, and medical treatment. Finally, all states demand payment in exchange for offering their help — yet the Jewish State is asked to pay in exchange for military backing for Arab states vis-à-vis Iran! Moshe Brodetzky was a leader in the "Let My People Go" campaign to persuade the USSR to let Jews leave for Israel; he developed innovative and creative ways of dramatising the plight of the Soviet Jews. |
|
CAIRO SPEECH TURNS TRUTH, JUSTICE AND TOLERANCE UPSIDE DOWN
Posted by Walid Shoebat and Keith Davies, June 5, 2009. |
|
Our President just spoke in Cairo and he said he wanted to speak truth but the speech was a lie from start to finish. He tried to portray Islam as a tolerant religion. Try ask the families of the million and half Armenian Christians butchered by the Turks in the name of Allah, or the Hindus butchered in the tens of millions in India during the middle ages or try telling the 850,000 Jews who fled Arab countries between 1948 and 1973, or what about the millions of Christians and Black Muslims (not real Muslims according to the Arabs) butchered by the Arab Muslims in Darfur Sudan; just a few of the tolerant moments of Islam. Maybe we could examine the persecution of Copts, Maronites and other Middle Eastern Christians over the last several centuries including the current times. I personally have spoken to dozens of families about how their wives, daughters, aunts and nieces have been subjected to unspeakable rapes, kidnapping and imprisonment with no course for redress. John Adams the second president may have signed a peace treaty with Tripoli (morocco) Pirates but did not compliment Islam, the President Obama took those words out of context and then on top omitted the castigation and condemnation of Islam by John Adams' son; John Quincy Adam's, the sixth president, who said quote "The essence of his doctrine (Islam) was violence, lust: to exalt brutal over the spiritual part of human nature." President Obama continues with his his lies about the "Justice, progress and dignity of all Human beings in Islam". Well Mr. President try asking that question to the wives of most Muslims; if only those women had a chance to taste Western freedom of expression. Our President deceives himself as he deceives others. He is a disgrace to the cause of civil rights, not for just Christians and Jews but to all that live under the yoke of Islam. The huge amount of evidence showing Islamic brutality today and of the past hat is denied by President Obama with omission and unfortunately also denied by many in our society, including most of the church in America and the West. According to the philosophy of the left and our President, is that if you are a minority you have the right to be more privileged than the majority because of the past injustices that were inflicted on that minority. Affirmative action is for every minority except for Jews/Israelis because if you are a Jew living in the Middle East or Israel you have to be subservient to the Muslims and to our President Barack Hussein Obama, who is "proud of his Muslim heritage." If Islam is not a peaceful religion and Zionism is true then I am a proud extremist. The President does not speak the truth and should be impeached for hate crimes and racism against Jews, for despising and undermining our constitution, for attempting to bankrupt the country, for lying to the American people about what he promised them before being elected and allegedly for proposing a racist supreme court judge. America is still divided and not united because the truth is lost, lies are embraced and deception is the order of the day. In regards to Israel the President made a clear and unequivocal statement at AIPAC about an undivided Jerusalem but that I am sure will be the next change in his position after he pounds the Jews into giving up Judea. If you are a true liberal how can you justify Jews giving up their homes or expanding their economic welfare because they are Jews? Arabs want a state called Palestine, fine, if that is what they want why can Jews not live in a state called Palestine as a peaceful minority just like Arabs live within Israel's Green Line. If Jews cannot be part of "Palestine" then Arabs should not be part of Israel, kick them all out, let them live in their utopia terror state called Palestine. No, because if Israel were to do this th ey would be called an apartheid state but it is OK to be an Arab and be guilty of an Apartheid policy, which is called "freedom fighting" by the left and the Arabs. How tolerant Mr. President! And for those that say that Jews should not be there in the first place, that is another lie. Jews lived in JUDEA continuously for nearly 4000 years except between 1948 and 1967 when THEY were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians. In 1967 after the Six Day War did Jews return to reclaim the birthright of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Hebron is in Judea, Bethlehem the burial place of Rachel is in Judea. If Judea does not belong to the Jews then neither does Tel Aviv or Haifa. Stand up Jews and make your case, stop being so practical and reasonable, your enemies are not interested in land, or economic development, or living in harmony with you, their religion of Islam forbids it, they are only interested in destroying you, Islamic tolerance is a myth, a lie and a deception. When they shouted idbah-al-Yahud (slaughter the Jews) prior to 1948 war, prior to 1967 war and today in every mosque in the Middle East, what part of 'slaughter the Jews' do you Jews not understand? When Israel withdrew all the Jews from Gaza, all this brought was more war, actually more Palestinian Arabs died when Israel gave them "freedom," more Palestinian Arabs have been murdered by their own people; more Palestinian Arabs have be en imprisoned by Hamas, due to Israel's foolish policy which has also caused the death of dozens of Jews, as well as terrifying the whole population of towns in Southern Israel. Yet our rock star President wishes to direct Israel to make the exact same concessions in Judea and Samaria and expect a different result. In fact if Israel does do the President's bidding, and withdraws from Judea and Samaria can we expect peace or another Gaza blueprint? You do not have to be a committed right winger or Zionist ideologue, but use ones common sense to be able to understand that the most likely outcome would be another Gaza situation, but this time it will be even worse, because now you have every person in Israel that can be targeted by Hamas Rockets. Yes Hamas rockets, because every person who understands the security situation knows that if Israel hands control over Judea and Samaria to Abbas of the PLO, then Hamas will immediately overthrow him and you will have the same situation as Gaza. Abbas depends on Israel's security forces for him to maintain power. The whole peace process with Abbas is a complete sham. If the American administration truly understood the reality then it needs to be racist towards Hamas instead of the Jews, i.e. destroy the terrorists with uncompromising force then you may not get peace but you will have neutralized the enemy and disemboweled their ability from making war which is much better 0Athan the current status quo. If Israel had some common sense it would use the above arguments in the public domain to make their case, but alas they stand silent. By their silence they will not get peace, they will not get security and they will continue to suffer. They suffer because they will not honor truth, they will not honor G-d's Promise. Walid Shoebat of the Walid Shoebat Foundation is an ex-terrorist, who has become a Christian and a strong advocate of Jewish rights. Keith Davies is with the Walid Shoebat Foundation. This article comes by email from news@shoebat.com |
|
EXTENT OF NAZI CAMPS FAR GREATER THAN REALIZED
Posted by Daily Alert, June 5, 2009. |
|
This was written by Monica Hesse, Washington Post staff writer,
and it is archived at
|
|
Emaciated prisoners in Germany's Mauthausen concentration camp, just one of 20,000 such camps documented in a new encyclopedia. (Photo: Kurt Zalud, Associated Press) A little more than a decade ago, researchers at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum decided to create an encyclopedia of concentration camps. They assumed the finished work would be massive, featuring a staggering 5,000 to 7,000 camps and ghettos. They underestimated by 15,000. Their ultimate count of more than 20,000 camps — which they reached after a year of research — is far more than most scholars had known existed and might reshape public understanding of the scope of the Holocaust itself. "What's going to happen is that the mental universe of how scholars operate is going to change," said Steven Katz, director of Boston University's Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies. "Instead of thinking of main death camps, people are going to understand that this was a continent-wide phenomenon." The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos: 1933-1945 "is the first major reference work for Holocaust studies since . . . the fall of the U.S.S.R." and the opening of many European archives, says Paul Shapiro, director of the museum's Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies. As a result, more information was available to researchers than had ever been before. Scholars chased footnotes in old books and used Internet mailing lists to find historians who might possess tiny pieces of the puzzle. Volume 1 is scheduled for release June 12. Most of the sites included in the encyclopedia were known, says Geoff Megargee, the encyclopedia project director. "But they were known to one or two people. . . . Sometimes there would be just one person who had done research on one prison." The first volume focuses on SS-run camps and contains more than 1,100 entries written by some 230 contributors. The Holocaust's horror always has been its precision and vastness: how many people died, how many people were complicit, how many countries fell to the Nazi regime. The enormous number of sites catalogued in the museum's encyclopedia reveals that for every commonly known camp — Auschwitz and Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen — there are literally dozens more that the average reader has likely never heard of. The book is organized as a traditional encyclopedia; each camp or ghetto receives its own alphabetic entry, some with photographs or maps. Few people might realize, Megargee says, that each of the 23 main camps had sub-camps — nearly 900 sub-camps, each placed into categories with chillingly euphemistic names. There were "care facilities for foreign children," where pregnant prisoners would be sent for forced abortions. There were Germanization camps, where foreign youth with desirable racial features would be indoctrinated. There were youth protection camps for the rebellious German teens who'd been caught listening to jazz. In his decade of working on the project, Megargee says that he never stopped learning of new atrocities or personal stories. "There was a woman who was a professional singer in the barracks" in a sub-camp of Flossenburg, he recalls, "who sang 'Ave Maria' for [her fellow prisoners] one Christmas. She moved the barracks to tears, then a guard overheard her and came and knocked her teeth out." Her story is recounted in the entry on the Wilischthal sub-camp. The book reveals "a complex ecology of coordinated devastation," says Henry Knight, director of Keene State College's Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies in New Hampshire. He has previewed the book, and sees it as particularly useful for college students or serious Holocaust researchers, but adds that "anyone looking through this volume is going to be astounded at how vast the camp system was. . . . It's simply not possible to think of these activities as an aberration when you see all of the information." Shapiro says that the sheer number of camps may end one of the lingering protestations surrounding the Holocaust — that ordinary people knew nothing of the killing underway in their locales. "In most towns, there was some sort of prison, or holding area or place where people were victimized," Shapiro says. "Think about what this means. For anyone who thinks this took place out of sight of the average person, this shatters that mythology. There was one Auschwitz. There was one Treblinka. But there were 20,000 other camps spread through the rest of Europe." Says Shapiro: "What we are seeing in this project is that all of Europe was a camp."
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
|
|
OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 5, 2009. |
|
Mr. President — FACTS you cannot ignore about Jewish/ and Israel HISTORY.... (as much as you try) ONE CAN HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS AT TIMES Sir..... BUT ...ONE cannot dispute or change FACTS that are established ... in order to WHITEWASH Islamic Jihad Terrorism |
|
The general impression given in the media is that Palestinians have lived in the Holy Land for hundreds, if not thousands of years. While the modern media maybe short on information about the history of the "Palestinian people" The historical record is not !!!!!!.... Books, such as Battleground by Samuel Katz and From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters long ago detailed the history of the region. In fact, according to official Ottoman Turk census figures of 1882, in the entire Land of Israel, there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab. This number was to skyrocket to 650,000 Arabs by 1922, a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938 that number would become over 1 million or an 800% increase in only 56 years. Population growth was especially high in areas where Jews lived. Where did all these Arabs come from? According to the Arabs the huge increase in their numbers was due to natural childbirth. In 1944, for example, they alleged that the natural increase (births minus deaths) of Arabs in the Land of Israel was the astounding figure of 334 per 1000. That would make it roughly three times the corresponding rate for the same year of Lebanon and Syria and almost four times that of Egypt, considered amongst the highest in the world. Unlikely, to say the least. If the massive increase was not due to natural births, then were did all these Arabs come from? All the evidence points to the neighboring Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. In 1922 the British Governor of the Sinai noted that "illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria." In 1930, the British Mandate — sponsored Hope-Simpson Report noted that "unemployment lists are being swollen by immigrants from Trans-Jordania" and "illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material." The Arabs themselves bear witness to this trend. For example, the governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey el Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Hauran had moved to the Land of Israel. Even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Land of Israel, noted in 1939 that "far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied." Far from displacing the Arabs, as they claimed, the Jews were the very reason the Arabs chose to settle in the Land of Israel. Jobs provided by newly established Jewish industry and agriculture lured them there, just as Israeli construction and industry provides most Arabs in the Land of Israel with their main source of income today. Malcolm MacDonald, one of the principal authors of the British White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, admitted (conservatively) that were it not for a Jewish presence ..... the Arab population would have been little more than half of what it actually was. Not only pre-state Arabs lied about being indigenous. Even today, many prominent so-called Palestinians, it turns out, are foreign born. The Late Edward Said, an Ivy League Professor of Literature and a major Palestinian propagandist, long claimed to have been raised in Jerusalem. However, in an article in the September 1999 issue of Commentary Magazine Justus Reid Weiner revealed that Said actually grew up in Cairo, Egypt, a fact which Said himself was later forced to admit. But why bother with Said? PLO chief Yassir Arafat himself, self declared "leader of the Palestinian people", has always claimed to have been born and raised in "Palestine". (Even said Jerusalem?)
In fact, according to his official biographer Richard Hart, as well as
the BBC, Arafat was born in Cairo and that's where he grew up.... In
fact all his life.... Arafat spoke with an Egyptian accent .... It's
ironic that the man who personified the Palestinian movement was
neither born in the region it claims, nor conforms to his own
organization's definition of "Palestinian identity".
To maintain the charade of being an indigenous population, Arab propagandists have had to do more than a little rewriting of history. A major part of this rewriting involves the renaming of geography. For two thousand years the central mountainous region of Israel was known as Judea and Samaria, as any medieval map of the area testifies. .... The term "Palestinian" is itself a masterful twisting of history. To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Canaanite tribe, the Phillistines, that died out almost 3000 years ago. The connection between this tribe and modern day Arabs is nil. If the Palestinians are indeed a myth, then the real question becomes "Why?" Why invent a fictitious people? The answer is that the myth of the Palestinian People serves as the justification for Arab occupation of the Land of Israel. On second thought, it may be unfair to compare Palestine to Disneyland. After all, Disneyland really exists. ON THE OTHER HAND... HISTORY TELLS US ... THAT !!!! The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years. The rule of Israelites in the land of Israel starts with the conquests of Joshua (ca. 1250 BCE). The period from 1000-587 BCE is known as the "Period of the Kings". The most noteworthy kings were King David (1010-970 BCE), who made Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, and his son Solomon (Shlomo, 970-931 BCE), who built the first Temple in Jerusalem as prescribed in the Tanach (Old Testament). In 587 BCE, Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar's army captured Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews to Babylon (modern day Iraq). The year 587 BCE marks a turning point in the history of the region. From this year onwards, the region was ruled or controlled by a succession of superpower empires of the time in the following order: Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire.
587 BCE Babylonian Destruction of the first Temple. 538-333 BCE Persian Return of the exiled Jews from Babylon and construction of the second Temple (520-515 BCE). 333-63 BCE Hellenistic Conquest of the region by the army of Alexander the Great (333 BCE). The Greeks generally allowed the Jews to run their state. But, during the rule of the king Antiochus IV, the Temple was desecrated. This brought about the revolt of the Maccabees, who established an independent rule. The related events are celebrated during the Hanukah holiday. 63 BCE-313 CE Roman The Roman army led by Titus conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple at 70 CE. Jewish people were then exiled and dispersed to the Diaspora. In 132, Bar Kokhba organized a revolt against Roman rule, but was killed in a battle in Bethar in Judean Hills. Subsequently the Romans decimated the Jewish community, renamed Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and Judea as Palaestina to obliterate Jewish identification with the Land of Israel (the word Palestine, and the Arabic word Filastin originate from this Latin name).
The remaining Jewish community moved to northern towns in the
Galilee. Around 200 CE the Sanhedrin was moved to Tsippori (Zippori,
Sepphoris).
313-636 Byzantine 636-1099 Arab Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph Abd el-Malik on the grounds of the destroyed Jewish Temple. 1099-1291 Crusaders The crusaders came from Europe to capture the Holy Land following an appeal by Pope Urban II, and massacred the non-Christian population. Later Jewish community in Jerusalem expanded by immigration of Jews from Europe. 1291-1516 Mamluk 1516-1918 Ottoman During the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Population of the Jewish community in Jerusalem increased. 1917-1948 British Great Britain recognized the rights of
the Jewish people to establish a "national home in Palestine".
A sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948. Nor was a state of Palestine ever promised by UN Security Council Resolution 242. Contrary to popular understanding, a state of Palestine has never existed. Never. Even as a nonstate legal entity, "Palestine" ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. Let us return to an earlier history. From the Biblical Period (ca. 1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918-1948), the land — named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines — was controlled only by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I, at the San Remo Peace Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over "Palestine" (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People." Palestine, according to the Treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including West Bank and Gaza. Present day Israel comprises only twenty-two percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally — and without any lawful authority — split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews — all of Palestine east of the Jordan River — and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name "Transjordan,' which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan. From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement — a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations under international law. On July 20, 1951, a "Palestinian" Arab assassinated King Abdullah for the latter's hostility to Palestinian aspirations and concerns. Regarding these aspirations, Jordan's "moderate" King Hussein — 19 years later, during September 1970 — brutally murdered thousands of defenseless Palestinians under his jurisdiction. In 1947, several years prior to Abdullah's killing, the newly formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the long-promised Jewish national homeland, enacted a second partition. Curiously, because this second fission again gave complete advantage to Arab interests, Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgment. On May 15, 1948, exactly 24 hours after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to a tiny new country founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre." This unambiguous declaration of genocide has been at the core of all subsequent Arab orientations toward Israel, including those of "moderate" Fatah. Even by the strict legal standards of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Arab actions and attitudes toward the microscopic Jewish state in their midst has remained patently annihilatory. For some reason, this persistence has repeatedly been made to appear benign. In 1967, almost 20 years after Israel's entry into the community of states, the Jewish state, as a result of its unexpected military victory over Arab aggressor states, gained unintended control over West Bank and Gaza. Although the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is properly codified in the UN Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the Territories could be "returned." Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer them back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and terribly cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of "extermination" in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self-determination" had only just begun to emerge after the Six Day War, and — significantly — had not even been included in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967. For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...." The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed three years earlier, in 1964, before there were any "Israeli Occupied Territories." Exactly what was it, therefore, that the PLO sought to "liberate" between 1964 and 1967? This critical question should now be considered by Barack Obama's special envoy to the region, Senator George Mitchell. This has been a very brief account of essential historic reasons why the so-called "Palestinian Territories" are not occupied by Israel. This means, at a minimum, that the aspiring U.S. peacemakers familiarize themselves with correct history, and not simply allow themselves to be swallowed up with their many predecessors in ritualistic dogma and empty platitudes. THEY SHOULD ALSO STUDY AGAIN 1. The Question of the Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention on Occupation to Judea, Samaria and Gaza by Howard Grief. See http://www.think-israel.org/grief.4thgenevaconvention.html 2. Toss the Travaux? Application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Middle East Conflict by David John Ball 3. The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law by Howard Grief [Preview is available on the MAZO Publishers website; purchase the book on Amazon] 4. Which Came First — Terrorism or "Occupation"? by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 5. The Origin of the Occupation Myth by Howard Grief (Israel's Borders and Legal Right to Eretz Israel) Date 03:03, 03-16, 09 See "http://www.think-israel.org/grief.occupationmyth.html Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: MORE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 5, 2009. |
|
I knew there'd be more to say about Obama's speech. How could there not be, when I wrote in the heat of my first response, and when I had not yet read what others were saying. Sharing a couple of important takes, and reserving the right to comment still further after Shabbat: Daniel Pipe's comments are incisive. Obama, he said, cited the figure seven million Muslims in the US. But this figure, according to numerous studies, is three times too high. Where did Obama get it then? Islamist organizations such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of America use this figure. Says Pipes, "Obama's accepting their version amounts to a giveaway, a cheap way to win the approbation of Islamists." Are we surprised? ~~~~~~~~~~ A deeply serious and highly informed take comes from B. Ramam (thanks to Judith N.) who was with the Secretariat of the government of India, and is now director of the Institute for Topical Studies. He is an expert on terrorism. From his latest paper: President Barack Obama's address at the Cairo University on June 4,2009, which was billed in advance by his staff as a historic message of goodwill and reconciliation to the Islamic world, had a limited audience. Though projected as an address to the Islamic world, it was largely an address to the Arab world and focused largely on issues of interest to the Arabs. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE: OBAMA...OR MAIMONIDES?
Posted by SoccerDad, June 5, 2009. |
|
Hot Air has an ongoing feature called Obamateurism of the Day Barack Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday, whatever else one thinks of it, did produce something in abundance: Obamateurisms. We'll start with one noticed by Barcepundit, and fittingly so, because it relates to Spain, Barcepundit's country. In praising the history of Islamic tolerance, Obama told his audience that Islam even showed its tolerance ... during the Inquisition?The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. But I am not as interested in the anachronism as I am in the way Obama — again — gives Islam a free pass. So Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance in the history of Cordoba? In Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, Ibn Warraq quotes Fouad Ajami in the foreword: Maimonides [(1135-1204), Jewish rabbi, physician, and philosopher], born in 1135, did not flee "Europe" for the "Arab world": He fled his native Cardoba in Spain, which was then in the grip of religious-political terror, choking under the yoke of a Berber Muslim dynasty, the Almohads, that was to snuff out all that remained of the culture of conviviencia and made the life of Spain's Jews (and of the free spirits among its Muslims) utter hell. Maimonides and his family fled the fire of the Muslim city-states in the Iberian Peninsula to Morocco and then to Jerusalem. There was darkness and terror in Morocco as well, and Jerusalem was equally inhospitable in the time of the Crusader Kingdom. Deliverance came only in Cairo — the exception, not the rule, its social peace maintained by the enlightened Saladin. Ibn Warraq then goes on to quote what Maimonides himself wrote about the Muslim rule under which he lived: Maimonides's The Epistle to the Jews of Yemen was written in about 1172 in reply to inquiries by Jacob ben Netan'el al-Fayyumi, the then head of the Jewish community in Yemen. The Jews of Yemen were passing through a crisis, as they were being forced to convert to Islam, a campaign launched in about 1165 by This history of Muslim persecutions goes hand in hand with the history of Al-Azhar University the 1,000 year old Muslim university which to this day preaches racism and hatred of Jews. It's bad enough that Islamists today try to — successfully — whitewash history. Now Obama is helping them. UPDATE: According to the New York Post, Obama even went so far as to tell the audience that he considers "it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Well, that explains it. UPDATE II: Michael Ledeen writes: On the other hand, there were so many errors of history that I was left wondering if there is anyone in the White House that checks facts. "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition." But the Muslims had been driven out of Spain by the time of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was Catholic, after all. What was he thinking? And even if he was thinking about an earlier epoch, the so-called Golden Age, "tolerance" is hardly the right word. Yes, non-Muslims were permitted to live, provided that they submitted to Muslim rule and paid their rulers. Yes, Jews were better off in Muslim lands than in Christian areas during the Middle Ages. But "toleration" it wasn't. One of my best professors used to argue that the word, in its contemporary sense, only began to make sense in the seventeenth century. Good thing that Obama didn't mention that Jews also built the pyramids. http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2009/06/05/ who_are_you_going_to_believe_obamaor_maimonides.html |
|
NEW OUTPOST NAMED "OBAMA HILLTOP"
Posted by Hands Fiasco, June 5, 2009. |
|
This was written by Hillel Fendel, senior news editor for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). |
|
Jewish youths in Judea and Samaria, refusing to accept Obama's "no Jews" decree, have built yet another neighborhood outpost and named it "Obama Hilltop". The few against the mighty? With U.S. President Barack Obama having told billions of people across the world that a Palestinian state will happen, and that Jews have few if any rights in Judea and Samaria, several dozen Jewish youths in Israel continue to build more outpost neighborhoods in those very areas. When Israel's armed forces come to raze the structures, the youths rebuild them once more. Ramat Migron, Pnei Shilo This pattern has repeated itself several times just this week. On Tuesday, youths who had been thrown out of Ramat Migron, outside Migron, north of Jerusalem, set up camp in an abandoned army base near Shilo. Army forces arrived the next day on the scene, named Pnei Shilo, and destroyed the lone wooden hut. The youths say they will return or rebuild somewhere else. Shvut Ami, Maoz Esther In Shvut Ami, just west of Kedumim, young pioneers have rebuilt two structures, which had been destroyed a few days earlier by Border Guard police forces. In Maoz Esther, outside Kokhav HaShachar in eastern Binyamin (north of Jerusalem), some 250 people gathered to celebrate the re-dedication of a synagogue in memory of Merkaz HaRav terrorist victim Yehonadav Hirschfeld. The synagogue had been destroyed just the day before, as well as the week before, by security forces, and was rebuilt each time. The hundreds of singing and dancing celebrants were joined by Rabbi Dov Lior, the Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Arba-Hevron, and MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari (National Union). Rabbi Lior blessed the participants, saying, "Thank G-d, you are healthy in soul and spirit, and are not affected by the weaknesses around us". Ben-Ari said, "We can see here yet another healthy expression of the Jewish People's return to our Land, and we are not planning to leave. We have no other land; the Arabs have 22 countries, and it's too bad that Obama did not mention that in his speech. Giving them another country means an attempt to destroy the Jewish People in Israel, and we have no intention of being destroyed. The Jewish People are holding on tight to their Land". Obama Hilltop Near Kokhav Yaakov, between Jerusalem and Beit El, a new outpost was formed on Friday morning, tentatively called Givat Obama, or Obama Hilltop. The builders say the name is "in recognition of the president's actions, which have led to a dramatic increase in the number of outposts being built throughout Judea and Samaria". Oz Yehonatan Yet another new outpost was formed on Friday near Kochav HaShachar. The outpost, named Oz Yehonatan, consists, so far, of one wooden building. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
THEY NEVER MENTION JEWS WHO FLED ARAB COUNTRIES
Posted by Avodah, June 5, 2009. |
|
This was written by Daniel Dagan,
the Berlin correspondent of the Israel Broadcasting Authority.
It is archived at
|
|
A few years ago, when I covered a visit to Cairo by former German president Johannes Rau, I stood in the reception line to meet Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at his Cairo palace. After a routine handshake and a word of greeting in Arabic, I took him by surprise with the comment that I used to play on the property as a child. He didn't believe me, so I showed him my birth certificate — in Arabic: "Born at 1 Ibrahim Street, Heliopolis, Cairo." The headquarters of his regime used to be called the Heliopolis Palace Hotel and was considered the most beautiful residence in Africa. When I was a child living in the neighborhood, I played there often, as the manager was a friend of our family. To Rau standing next to him, Mubarak said: "Thank you for bringing an Egyptian brother with you." When Mubarak and other Arab and Muslim leaders address the problem of refugees forced to leave their homes as a consequence of the Arab-Israeli conflict, they fail to mention the one million Jews who fled Arab countries and sought a new home in Israel. Israel has been portrayed as a project of Western immigrants who seized a foreign country in the Orient. Yet I am an Israeli, I come from the Orient, and they never mention me. Considering the plight of nearly half the Jewish population in Israel who are refugees from Arab or Muslim countries and their descendants is an indispensable part of any debate on promoting accommodation between Muslims and Jews or Arabs and Israelis. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL WARNS AGAINST JIHADI INTERNET; OBAMA WORKING WITH SAUDI PLAN; OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 5, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL WARNS AGAINST JIHADI INTERNET Radical Muslim terrorists have brought the Internet to a new phase of jihad. They study active Israeli sites, to gain information about Israelis, especially ones from military units having classified information. The terrorists use the Internet to try to recruit operatives and spies. They may tempt unwary Israelis with offers of generous payments for information abroad of offers of well-paying jobs abroad, only to kidnap them (sorry, lost source).
For more on jihad's menace being international:
Last year, the number of foreign workers in Israel rose 16.3%!. Most overstay their visas, and become illegal. There is no limit on nurses, but there are limits on workers in other fields; they enter anyway. Thousands pour in as refugees from sub-Sahara Africa
A Knesset Committee headed by the National Union Party suggested
that the government vet them in their home countries, before they
enter Israel, both for terrorist contacts and for employment
qualifications
The refugees would evade vetting.
For a discussion of demographics:
PRESIDENT-PM PRESS CONFERENCES RIGGED
Barry Chamish attended the joint press conferences of PM Begin with U.S. V.P. Mondale and of PM Rabin with U.S. Pres. Carter. He found them rigged, as was Netanyahu's meeting with Obama.
Part of rigging them is to avoid the appearance of U.S. interference and of opposition to PM Rabin's Olso betray of Israel, for which his people hated him. No reporter mentioned Rabin's swaying legs and slurred words. Members of the press are picked who applaud as requested and ask easy or trivial questions. Flacks rush in front of the open microphones, to freeze out genuine questions. Chamish's friend brushed past a flack and asked a serious question that turned Carter's face red. The master of ceremonies immediately called the meeting adjourned, so Carter would not have to answer. That question was not reported, though many Israeli bystanders congratulated the one who raised it.
In all these conferences and afterwards, the President puts pressure on Israel (Barry Chamish, 5/19).
Combine that manipulative policy with this:
OBAMA WORKING WITH SAUDI PLAN
Reports indicate that Pres. Obama is working to enhance the Saudi plan's public relations image, so it won't be seen so plainly as a scheme for Israeli admission of guilt for the Arab-Israel conflict and for suicidal surrender to the jihadists. [I usually don't report speculation, but this is consistent with Obama's methods and goals and seems to be one of the more credible leaks.]
Instead of demanding complete admission into Israel of all applicants who claim to be Palestinian Arab refugees [and their descendants], Obama proposes "restricted" admission. [That implies Israeli guilt for what the Arabs did.]
The amended plan proposes demilitarization of the P.A.. If you
believe that it would be carried out, at least know the critical fact
that Obama, the State Dept., and other supporters of
"demilitarization" act as if they don't know. Once the new Arab state
were to be formed, it becomes sovereign. Sovereign states have the
legal right to arm themselves, regardless of pre-state promises not
to. They also may bring in foreign armies, adjoining Israel's border.
Therefore, the proposed demilitarization is a fraud to cover likely
war and genocide. That is what our esteemed President Obama is
planning for the Jewish people who, at least in the U.S., were
enthusiastic for his candidacy.
Eastern Jerusalem would be transferred from Israel to the new Arab state, except for the Old City, which would be internationalized (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/20).
The nearest or strongest neighbors absorbed the other former or proposed independent or international cities: Danzig, Trieste, Tangiers, and, yes, Jerusalem. It is a naïve and debunked proposition. Offered after this experience, all in my lifetime, those who propose it either are ignorant, foolish, or fraudulent. I bet that the media does not bring this up. It isn't likely that the major media would expose the scam of "demilitarization," either. We don't need a President to polish up a tarnished old scam.
Now that this plan is taken seriously, and Israel would be pressed to commit to it and national suicide, what do you think of those Israeli leaders who said the plan is a good basis for negotiation? They thought they were clever. They didn't say no. They sounded constructive. They imagined they could put off confrontation forever. But they let the plan seem to have some reasonable aspects. That incorrect impression adds to the pressure on them not to resist the plan now.
Those Israelis would have been wiser to denounce the plan as jihadist surrender terms for ethnic cleansing. They would have unmasked the plan's deceit and inequity. People would know what is wrong with it. That would have left Obama with less room to maneuver. You can see that Obama is working hand in glove with Israel's unrepentant Arab enemies to bring Israel down.
For an earlier piece on Obama and the Saudi Plan:
OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH
President Obama criticized some Muslims who "measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith." [I agree.] He described the jihadists as a "small minority."
[Not small, if it is the estimated10-20% of the billion Muslims,
controlling some states and growing, without much vocal opposition. We
can hope that the majority becomes disgusted with the constant
jihadist violence against them.]
Pres. Obama "...reserved some of his bluntest words for Israel, as he expressed sympathy for the Palestinians and what he called the 'daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation." He depicted those Arabs' situation as "intolerable." He said "...it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people— Muslims and Christians— have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years, they endured the pain of dislocation. "...Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." "...the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Jerusalem should be "a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims." "The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security." "And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society." The U.S. bond with Israel unbreakable and unshakeable.
President Obama does not evince knowledge of the situation. He accepts false and stereotyped versions of history. Calling the Palestinian Authority "occupied," implies that the area belongs to them, when it doesn't. So they aren't under occupation. He claims they suffered for 60 years "in pursuit of a homeland." Actually, most of them left their homelands, tried to drive the Jews out of theirs, lost, suffered as a result of their genocidal aggression, corruption, and jihadist leaders. They aren't much humiliated by Israel, but they constantly insult Israel and Jews and try to kill them. Why doesn't Obama sympathize with the Jewish Israelis, of whom the Palestinian Arabs murdered thousands and maimed many more thousands? Those Arabs don't want a country so much as to deny the Jews a country. As for Christian Arabs, the Muslims are driving them out of the whole Mideast. The Muslim Palestinian Arabs deserve no sympathy. Nor have they a right to a state, though they do have one, called Jordan.
Israel tries to let the Palestinian Arabs under its jurisdiction develop, but those Arabs try to destroy Israel. The blame should go to the Arabs. As for Jewish towns in Judea, of course they are legitimate— read the Palestine Mandate!
In demanding that Israel give up the core of its homeland and secure borders and water to its unrepentant enemy, Pres. Obama, like his predecessors, is shaking U.S. bonds with Israel and fostering anti-American jihadist terrorism.
For what Obama diplomacy really means:
For how Obama is undermining Israel's existence:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PRO-PEACE MUSLIM THREATENED THE DAY PRESIDENT OBAMA SPEAKS TO THE MUSLIM WORLD OF PEACE
Posted by Dr. Richard L. Benkin, June 4, 2009. |
|
Dhaka, Bangladesh — The Bangladeshi government resumed its harassment of pro-peace journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, despite repeated promises not to. Intelligence agents have been staking out his house "past few days," according to neighbors; and the family cornered a man insisting that he was from Bangladesh's DGFI intelligence service. "Sergeant Rafiq" was ask when Choudhury left and returned home, his license plate, and so forth. Choudhury called numerous government agencies, but only one replied, denying it had sent anyone. With crimes by persons claiming to be from the government increasing daily in Bangladesh, the family was concerned. Ultimately, however, the agent admitted being charged with investigating five dissidents, including Choudhury. Bangladeshi's Washington Embassy agreed that our concern was especially justified Choudhury's tenuous position. Such visits often are meant as threats in Bangladesh. As of tonight, the police refuse to take any action in the matter or even accept Choudhury's complaint. The Muslim world's only self-proclaimed Zionist, Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents and Islamist forces after advocating relations with Israel, religious equality, and exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). The government then charged Choudhury with the capital offenses of sedition, treason, and blasphemy "for praising Christians and Jews," regularly admitting that the charges are baseless and maintained to appease radical Islamists. Though the government has not produce a single piece of evidence for the charges, and its sole witness keeps refusing to appear, the government continues the case in an effort to intimidate him into Choudhury and to drain his financial resources. As one DC insider put it, "They've made the process the punishment." The life of this courageous dissident journalist is in danger unless the world renews the protests it lodged during previous governments. For further information, contact me by email at drrbenkin@comcast.net or call 1 847 922 6426. Contact Richard Benkin by email at drrbenkin@comcast.net |
|
THE FOX IS IN THE HEN HOUSE
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 4, 2009. |
|
This was written by Walid Shoebat
of the Walid Shoebat Foundation. An ex-terrorist, he has become a
Christian and a strong advocate of Jewish rights.
This article is at
|
|
Even the fawning mainstream media are starting to crack open the agenda of Barack Hussein Obama. On an ABC web site the question of Barack Hussein Obama's Muslim background was a taboo subject in the campaign and its contrast of the President's now willingness to openly be proud of that background. This should automatically be seen as a red flag, especially if you are a supporter of Israel as an ally, and its right to live in its own land free from threat. Do you honestly know any Muslim that is "pro Israel"? You can count on your hand how many Muslims are pro Israel, so the fact that President Obama is now proud of his Muslim heritage should be a major wake up call to all who voted for him; who also believe in the safety of America and Israel. The evidence of his anti Israel position was hidden by the mainstream media and the twenty years of attendance at Rev Wright's church as well as being the Presidents spiritual mentor should suggest this position. Further, Obama stated that his friendship with Rashid Khalidi the PLO operative helped in molding his views regarding Israel. The LA Times withheld a video tape a few days prior to the election that exposed Presidents Obama's true virulent anti Israel position. Many might argue that the appointment of many Jews to President Obama's administration including Rahm Emanuel would preclude him from being anti Israel. History shows that many Jews have acted against the interests of their own people. An example of this was Sir Herbert Samuel, a British secular Jew, appointed to be the first High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate. Sir Herbert Samuel himself appointed the known Islamist, Haj Amin Husseini, who later became an ally of Hitler in the Holocaust and was the root cause of the Arab Israeli conflict. Pressuring Israel not to expand existing settlements at the same time trying to tie Israel's actions to America's actions on stopping Iran from getting the bomb is criminal both to the safety of Israel and America. He has bowed to the Saudi King and twisted Europe's arm to allow another Islamist fox (Turkey) into the E.U, especially since Europeans have made their views clear — statistics show that 70% of Europeans do not want Turkey's entry into the EU. The fox has entered the henhouse working diligently to free chicken-killers. Obama wants the closure of Gitmo or bringing Muslim terrorists into the American prison system to help recruit American born inmates. Obama stopped the trials of terrorists that attacked the USS Cole. Obama initiated a policy of appeasement with Muslim nations including the now acceptance that "Iran has legitimate energy concerns regarding nuclear power." Obama proved what I have been saying for years, that American liberal mediocre minds are no match to fourteen centuries of Islamic deception. Obama knows well how to have Americans major on the minors (Water Boarding) while ignoring the majors — Iran's nuclear buildup and the nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He has alienated the CIA, undermining their morale as well as their ability to defend America. The water boarding PR campaign was initiated not because it might be undermining American values as anybody with common sense who knows the facts is aware that water boarding was only used three times on terrorists who we knew had information we needed in order to save thousands of lives. Even the media and the American people did not buy the Presidents arguments, so Nancy Pelosi became Obama's sacrificial lamb and was set up to take the bate and she conveniently took the fall while Obama the fox got off the hook. His spiritual actions are also striking as he ignores the tradition of all previous Presidents by not attending the National Day of Prayer breakfast. He specifically requests a picture of Jesus on the cross be removed from the wall that would be behind him when speaking at an event in Georgetown University. The President found time to condemn the murder of the abortionist doctor but not a word on the murder by an Islamist who opened fire and killed a soldier in Arkansas. Both murders happened within hours of each other. 'America is not a Christian nation' says Obama, but 'the largest Muslim country.' We are actually number 38 on the list. Anyone who dared to expose prior to his inauguration was instantly labeled a nut case or racist bigot, but outlined above are the policies, words and the actions of a President that could be argued is an accurate description of a President doing as much as he can to do the bidding for the Islamist agenda. We will see the future with more of Obama's lunatic policies when it comes to our defense but when his stardom wanes, enough Americans will finally get it and the danger this man poses to the safety of this nation and the free world will limit him to one term and maybe in 2010 if the Republicans can get their act together retake control the House of Representative to blunt some of this insanity. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
THE ISRAEL LOBBY: MISSING IN ACTION
Posted by Mr La, June 4, 2009. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Rosenblum, founder of Jewish Media Resources, a columnist for Jerusalem Post's and for the Hebrew daily Maariv. His articles appear regularly in numerous Jewish periodicals in the United States and Israel. Rosenblum is the author of seven biographies of major modern Jewish figures. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Yale Law School. Rosenblum lives in Jerusalem with his wife and eight children. |
|
For Israeli Jews survival remains the primary desideratum. For American Jews the simulacrum of peace in the form of a treaty is primary.
The sad truth, however, is that if an Israeli Lobby exists, American Jews have failed to enlist. American Jews are demonstrably innocent of putting Israel's interests first, or even high, on their list of concerns — at least if Israel's interests have anything to do with how they are defined by the overwhelming consensus of Jews living in Israel. A vast majority of Israeli Jews would be prepared to cede a good deal of the West Bank in return for peace. But the experience of the last 15 years has convinced them that peace cannot be obtained without a dramatic reformation of Palestinian society. From the standpoint of the Israeli consensus, the Obama administration's mantra about the necessity of Israel declaring its support for the "two-state solution" is misguided, for it sends the wrong messages to both Israelis and Palestinians. By focusing on what Israel must do, that mantra ignores what it has already done, and the lessons learned from its past actions. Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Gaza, resulted in their becoming launching pads for suicide bombers and rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Those withdrawals did not even improve Israel's international standing. The focus on Israel's next step ignores those never taken by the Palestinians — i.e., moving one iota from any of their positions as of the outset of Oslo. And it conveys the message that nothing is expected of the Palestinians in the future, unlike the Road Map, which made the Palestinians oft-promised end to incitement and terrorism preconditions for further negotiations. Palestinian statehood, not peace, has become the watchword of American policy. And to that end, the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to impose a solution. National Security Advisor James Jones recently conveyed to a senior European official that "an endgame solution" would be formulated by the U.S., EU, and moderate Arab states, with Israel and the Palestinians relegated to the role of bystanders. On a happy note, he allowed that Israel would "not be thrown under the bus." That same week the chief U.S. arms negotiator called for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — a clear break with a 40-year understanding between the U.S. and Israel on the issue, and an equally clear indication of how nasty the pressure on Israel might get. The theory of an imposed solution is that the final contours of a settlement are already well known so it might as well be now. Even if the former proposition were true, the intention of the parties and their ability to perform would still be relevant. The Palestinians cannot run a state — certainly not one that Hamas would not quickly take over — nor do they seek to. Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid declared after the Hamas-Fatah civil war in Gaza, "We do not deserve a state." Fatah prefers the present kleptocracy to a state. Statelessness allows Palestinians to attack Israel without being held responsible, as would a state, and to remain the world's favorite mendicants. Meanwhile the contrast between the Obama administration's urgency with respect to the Palestinian-Israel tract and its lackadaisical approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions could not be starker. The linkage of Iran to progress on the former is backwards. No more than a year likely remains to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Peace will not come in that period to a region in which there is still no Palestinian leader who can even recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state. The Sunni states fear a nuclear Iran much more than Israel, and they are saying so. They will support an alliance against Iran because it is their interests to do so, as long as they believe America will act decisively and not leave them to Iran's tender mercies. What has been the response of American Jewry and the vaunted Israel Lobby to the mounting threats to Israel abetted by Washington? Silence. President Obama"s popularity among American Jews remains sky high and rising. Delegates at the recent AIPAC convention dutifully lobbied Congress for the two-state solution. Whom, one wonders, was this feared group lobbying against? The overwhelming American Jewish support for President Obama demonstrates how far the perspectives of Israeli and American Jews have diverged. For Israeli Jews survival remains the primary desideratum. For American Jews the simulacrum of peace, in the form of a treaty, any treaty, is primary. For many American Jews, an Israel without peace is misbegotten, not worth the scorn it engenders in The New York Times and on Ivy League campuses. Daniel Gordis records, in his important new book How Israel Can Win a War That May Never End, being asked by an American Jewish friend: "Why has Israel given up hope?" And with no genuine chance for peace, why forge on?" It is left to Gordis's teenage daughter Talia to set their visitor straight: The purpose of Israel is not to achieve peace with the Arabs, however devoutly such peace might be wished for. Israelis have not given up hope, just hope for peace in the near future. American Jews remained largely quiescent during the Holocaust, in part because of their adulation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who could do no wrong in their eyes. Stephen Wise, the most influential voice in American Jewry, could not overcome his worship of FDR to challenge the latter's position that nothing could be done to save Jews other than win the War. (David Wyman's The Abandonment of the Jews details how much could have been done.) To avoid embarrassing or pressuring the President, Wise sat on a telegram from Gerhard Riegner of the World Jewish Congress in August 1942, detailing plans to exterminate three to four million Jews in German-controlled Europe, until pressured by the Orthodox and Revisionist Zionists to do something. American Jews are besotted again and the Israel Lobby of Walt and Mearsheimer's febrile imaginations never existed. Never has that been so obvious as today.
Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com
|
|
A RAPID AND HARSH TURN AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 4, 2009. |
|
This was written by Daniel Pipes and it appeared today in the
Jerusalem Post. It is archived at
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/6389/rapid-and-harsh-turn-against-israel |
|
The much-anticipated meeting between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu on May 18 went off smoothly, if a bit tensely, as predicted. Everyone was on best behavior and the event excited so little attention that the New York Times reported it on page 12. As expected, however, the gloves came off immediately thereafter, with a series of tough American demands, especially U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's insistence on May 27 that the Netanyahu government end residential building for Israelis in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. This prompted a defiant response. The Israeli governing coalition chairman pointed out the mistake of prior "American dictates," a minister compared Obama to pharaoh, and the government press office director cheekily mock-admired "the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem." If the specifics of who-lives-where have little strategic import, the Obama administration's rapid and harsh turn against Israel has potentially great significance. Not only did the administration end George W. Bush's focus on changes on the Palestinian side but it even disregarded oral understandings Bush had reached with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. 
An article by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post captures this shift most vividly. Diehl notes, based on an interview with Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, that by publicly and repeatedly stressing the need for a without-exception freeze of Israeli building on the West Bank, Obama has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders of the world. ... They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions'." Of course, telling the Israelis is one thing and getting their compliance quite another. To this, Abbas also has an answer. Expecting that Netanyahu's agreeing to a complete freeze on building would bring down his coalition, Diehl explains that Abbas plans "to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office." One Palestinian Authority official predicted this would happen within "a couple of years"— exactly when Obama is said to expect a Palestinian state in place. Meanwhile, Abbas plans to sit tight. Diehl explains his thinking: Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession — such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees. Instead, he says, he will remain passive. ... "I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." Abbas's idea of "normal life," one should add, is also largely provided by Washington and its allies; West Bank Palestinians enjoy by far the highest per-capita foreign aid of any group in the world; at just one "donors' conference" in December 2007, for example, Abbas won pledges for over US$1,800 per West Banker per year. As Diehl tersely concludes, "In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian." Even if one ignores the folly of focusing on Jerusalemites adding recreation rooms to their houses rather than Iranians adding centrifuges to their nuclear infrastructure and even if one overlooks the obvious counter productivity of letting Abbas off the hook— the new U.S. approach is doomed. First, Netanyahu's governing coalition should prove impervious to U.S. pressure. When he formed the government in March 2009, it included 69 parliamentarians out of the Knesset's 120 members, well over the 61 minimum. Even if the U.S. government succeeded in splitting off the two parties least committed to Netanyahu's goals, Labor and Shas, he could replace them with right-wing and religious parties to retain a solid majority. Second, the record shows that Jerusalem takes "risks for peace" only when trusting its American ally. An administration that undermines this fragile trust will likely confront a wary and reluctant Israeli leadership. If Washington continues on its present course, the result may well be
spectacular policy failure that manages both to weaken America's only
strategic ally in the Middle East even as it worsens Arab-Israeli
tensions.
Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com
|
|
THE NAIVETÉ OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Posted by Dastych, David M., June 4, 2009. |
|
This is by Arthur Weinreb and Judi Mcleod
and it is archived at
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck. Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Men’s News Daily, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Arthur can be reached at: aweinreb@rogers.com |
|
President Barack Obama is now in the Muslim Middle East, so now like him we can use his middle name [Hussein]. What was interesting about his speech at Cairo University today is not so much what he said but the applause of the audience. It wasn't just the applause that was significant — but the deadly silence at other statements that the president made. Obama was cheered loudly when he said, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It's time for these settlements to stop." But the silence was deafening when the president called on the Palestinians to renounce violence. The references to rockets being fired into Israel and old women being blown up on buses was met with absolutely no reaction from the audience. Of course, if the two-state solution will ever be achieved, the Palestinians will have to not only renounce violence but agree to Israel's right to exist. The audience was clearly not impressed with any suggestion that Muslims need to give up violence against Israel. They did applaud the suggestion that there be a two-state solution, no doubt because after one is created, the Palestinian state will proceed to attempt to rid the world of the Jewish state. If Obama truly believes that his speech did anything to bring about peace in the Middle East, he is clearly delusional. Ditto for Hussein's solution for nuclear material that is weapons capable in the Middle East. According to the president, no state should have nuclear weapons so he'll just get all the countries in the world to give up their weapons and the world, even Israel, will be saved from nuclear annihilation. What an easy solution; it's surprising that no other American administration has ever come up with that one before! It's hard to believe that that the United States of America could have elected a president who thinks that Muslims in the Middle East want to end attacks against Israel in order to achieve a two-state solution. Even the fact that his speech loudly criticized Israel did nothing to make his audience applaud the notion of ending Palestinian violence. It's hard to believe that the United States of America could have elected a president, who thinks that the solution to Iran's nuclear threat is to have all countries voluntarily surrender their nukes. After all as Obama said, no country really has the right to tell another country that they can't have nuclear material. Then again, it is hard to believe that Americans have elected a president to run General Motors and Chrysler. It would be nice to have been a fly on the wall while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was watching the speech. He must be shaking in his sandals at the thought of how he will be dealt with by the United States. What is really hard to believe is how someone who has reached the pinnacle that Barack Hussein Obama has reached could still be and so naïve. It's a naiveté fed by an ego that Barack Obama alone can change the world; a naivete that the Islamic world gives a damn about what he thinks. The cult that is Barack Hussein Obama is alive in the Muslim world. Twice the cult cry of "Barack, I love you!" was shouted from the crowd. Obama must truly envision himself as The Messiah. With his message of Peace and Goodwill to all men, he seemed to step right off the face of a traditional Christmas card in the final points of his 55-minute speech. "We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written." In his finale, he mentioned the Holy Koran first..."The Holy Koran tells us, 'O mankind! We have created you male and female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.' "The Talmud tells us: `The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.' "The Holy Bible tells us, `Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God'. "The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you." So has The Messiah spoken. Contact David M. Dastych at david.dastych@aster.pl |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE SPEECH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 4, 2009. |
|
I write this almost immediately following the completion of Barack Hussein Obama's speech in Cairo. What I provide here is in great measure my take; undoubtedly I will share other analyses in days ahead. I will start with other aspects of his talk and save the very worst, regarding Israel, for last. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama began with his "suck up to Muslims" approach, which is precisely what we expected. It becomes a bit sickening at times: Talking about how the US has had a solid Muslim connection since its founding, for example. As one TV commentator observed, this man is making up history. Talking about the Muslims in the US and all that they contribute. Informing his audience that there are mosques in every state in the union. Speaking not about the Koran, but the "holy Koran," which he cited some four or five times. Enumerating the great contributions in math and poetry made by Islamic society — which is true enough, but ancient history now, and hardly relevant to the struggles we face as large parts of the Muslim world are caught in resistance to and resentment of modernization. (According to the dean of Arabists, Bernard Lewis, Islam is now functioning in the 15th century.) ~~~~~~~~~~ When he referred to his own history, and his own connection with Islam across three continents, he misrepresented. "I am a Christian," he intoned, before tracking his father from Kenya — whose family "includes generations of Muslims" (which isn't quite saying his father was actually Muslim, though he was). And then the years he spent in Indonesia, where he heard the call to prayer of the Azaan. And I say, just a second! He may be a practicing Christian now, but in Indonesia he did more than hear the call to prayer: he was registered in school as a Muslim, was given Muslim teachings, and sometimes was taken to the mosque for prayers, which he is reported to have recited. By birth, and by the practice of his step-father, he is a Muslim. At least he might have said, "I come from Muslim roots." But better for his political fortunes at home not to mention this. ~~~~~~~~~~ The vision that he then presented for a better world was — almost across the board — pie-in-the-sky, which I had also anticipated. What he offers far exceeds the real possibilities and sets him up for failure down the road. As another commentator said, "And unicorns won't poop in our streets any more." He prefers to pontificate on what "must" happen, without grappling with the painful realities of how we get there. For example, fault lines within Islam — between Sunni and Shiia — must be closed. Must be? I doubt that he has the remotest idea how deep these divisions are or how long the history of these tensions. His saying this achieves absolutely nothing. Were he serious, he would offer a halting start, for example, saying that he has spoken with this Sunni leader and that Shiite leader, and he is encouraging them to start a dialogue, which will be a beginning. ~~~~~~~~~~ Nowhere was the tendency to avoid confronting the realities more blatant than with regard to Iran. The "rights and responsibilities" of nations with regard to nuclear weapons has been a source of tension, he said, by way of lead-in. It has been a source of tension between the US and Iran. In fact, there has been a tumultuous history between the two countries. But rather than be trapped in the past, he has made it known to the leaders of Iran that he and the American people are prepared to move forward. There will be much to discuss. "But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path." And that's it. I had the feeling as he moved to his next sentence (which I'll get to) that there had been a glitch in transmission and something had been lost. With Iran, you see, he didn't use the "must" word. He's too busy offering them sweetness and light (isn't that lovely?), so that he just "suggests." No "If Iran wants to join the community of nations it must abandon plans to build nuclear weapons and must stop threatening Israel." In fact, while at least he mentioned the nuclear issue, he didn't even touch on Iranian threats to Israel. And there was not even a hint of a threat to Iran regarding what will happen if they don't abandon nuclear ambitions. His next thought? Well, some people might think it's unfair, that some nations have nuclear weapons and some don't. But he has the solution: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." I am not making this up. This is what passes for policy with Obama. He's dreaming, of course. Because nuclear nations are not going to surrender their weapons, nor should they, necessarily. Our capacity to wage war is the edge that keeps us from being destroyed here in Israel. And assured mutual destruction has likely prevented what would have been WWIII between the US and the USSR — instead we had the Cold War. But never mind, if surrender of weapons would make Iran happy, so that it would not be left out of the club, then it's a good thing to do. Right? ~~~~~~~~~~ In summary, to this point, this is a vacuous speech. Obama is a politician, not a diplomat. I hear a lot about how smart he is, but he sure sounds stupid here. This is a worthless speech on many counts. And it's particularly important to note how foolish and simplistic it is to address "the Muslim world," as if it's a monolith, which it most certainly isn't. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now as to the clincher: the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. He began nicely enough, recognizing our suffering in the Holocaust, the unbreakable bond the US has with Israel. Etc. Etc. Setting us up for the one-two punch, POW! Obama's take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that adopts in toto the Palestinian narrative. Ignoring history. Ignoring painful realities that he doesn't confront — in spite of his talk of how it's time to be honest. "...it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own." ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me here interject a brief response in terms of history and reality. "They've suffered in pursuit of a homeland." Hell, they could have had a homeland several times over. It's been offered and they always find a reason to refuse it. (Most recently when Abbas refused a shockingly generous offer made by Olmert.) How about telling the PA to get real, and face the fact that they cannot have everything, such as "return of refugees," and that if they are really serious about wanting a state it's time to make compromises? And about those refugees: "For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands..." (This is the nakba vision.) The "pain of dislocation," he needs to know (DOES he know?), was the result of a war that the Arabs imposed on our brand new nation in order to destroy us. If they had not been the aggressors there would have been no dislocation of Arabs. Time to tell it like it is. And those refugee camps? Hey, all the other refugees in the world are settled as quickly as is possible — in many cases re-settled in a third country. Only the Palestinians are kept in those UNRWA camps for generations because it has been decided that they must return to Israel (in order to destroy Israel). How about telling the Arab nations that the way to contribute to peace is to absorb these refugees? "The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable"? "Occupation"? How about facing the fact that the Palestinians have made their own bed, via violence and incitement, and corruption and turning international donations to weapons instead of genuine national development? How about holding them responsible for themselves instead of making eternal victims of them? How about acknowledging that per capita the Palestinians get more international money than any other people on earth, but that this hasn't been used by them as an opportunity for self-development? ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama does address the issue of violence. "The Palestinians must abandon violence," he said. Good. But then he talks about Hamas and how it must abandon violence, recognize past agreements, etc. This is also pie-in-the-sky. Hamas will not do this. (Does he know nothing of their radical ideology?) But the way in which he has spoken about Hamas — as having a responsibility to the people, and a role in unifying the people and fulfilling their aspirations — gives troublesome credibility to Hamas as a recognized player. There's a red light on here with regard to where he's going with this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then there's the "must" for Israel: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." There's a certain ambiguity in this. What is not accepted by the US — building in the settlements, or the "legitimacy of continued settlements"? In the short term he's demanding a settlement freeze. And here he sets himself most publicly on a road to conflict with Israel. May Bibi and our government stay strong!!! But it sounds to me as if he's also laying out a policy of Israeli pullback to the Green Line, which in my book marks him as our enemy. It must be said unequivocally: There is NO agreement we've participated in that obligates us to remove major settlement blocs. There is no document anywhere that requires us to pull back to the Green Line. This is merely widely-touted Palestinian mythology. And Obama is right in line. I cannot here do justice to the issue of our rights on the land, but I will return to this. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are other things he said that disturbed me as well: "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when...Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together." Uh oh! He doesn't know that under Israeli sovereignty there IS room now in Jerusalem for all of the children of Abraham? And that ONLY under Israeli rule has this been the case? Doesn't he know, or doesn't he care? He should mark this well — Jerusalem will not be divided again. ~~~~~~~~~~ It galls me without end that he has decided what is best for us. This is what he says — the two-state solution is in "Israel's interest." He hasn't noticed that we're a sovereign state, capable of deciding on our own what's best for us? The bottom line is that a "two-state solution" is not viable and is not going to happen. It is not remotely the solution to the region's problems that Obama likes to imagine it is. ~~~~~~~~~~ It irks me enormously, by the way, that he's make the analogy between Palestinians and blacks in America who suffered humiliation. Condoleezza redux. ~~~~~~~~~~ You can read the full speech here:
~~~~~~~~~~ There are difficult days in front of us. May the Almighty grant us wisdom and strength, and may Barack Hussein Obama fall on his face soon. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Posted by Jake Levi, June 4, 2009. |
|
Straight talk from a Muslim scholar, no B.S., no mirrors, no smokescreen. Obama will not make a difference, especially with the Muslims in the ME. There is NO reason to capitulate to him and destroy the Land of Israel in suicidal actions on our part. There is every reason to strengthen Israel, and to make her grow. This below was written by Professor Sami Alrabaa and it
appeared today in Arutz-7
Sami Alrabaa is a sociology professor in Germany. Previously, he taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University and Michigan State University. He has written numerous articles on Arab issues and Islam. His latest book, about life in Saudi Arabia, will soon be published by Prometheus Books. Yaacov Levi |
|
Rhetoric and charm are not enough. Barack Obama is undoubtedly a good orator and a charismatic figure. These two traits have certainly helped him get elected as president of the United States of America. Islamic terrorism and a severe global economic crisis added impetus to his success. Rhetorically talented and charismatic figures usually flourish in crises. But will rhetoric and charisma help Mr. Obama succeed at home and in the Middle East? I doubt it. Unless Obama calls a spade a spade, he will fail. Unless he calls things by their real name with regard to the Middle East, he will fail. Unless he uses the language of Ronald Reagan, Obama will never succeed — especially as far as Islamic terror is concerned. Instead of highlighting the root causes of Islamic terrorism and lack of democracy in the Middle East, Obama repeats himself ad nauseum. He advocates that America become partners and dialogue with Muslims. America no longer wants to impose its values on the rest of the world. He also uses aphorisms like, "Democracy brings peace and prosperity to all of us." Had Western leaders during the Cold War confined themselves to general rhetoric with regard to Communism, the Berlin Wall would have stayed and the Soviet Union would have survived until now. Obama must address the root causes of Islamic terror and the lack of freedom and human rights in the Middle East and Islamic societies if he wants to make a difference. Obama must speak loudly and specifically. He should tell his audience in Cairo and elsewhere: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: Stop preaching hatred, violence. Stop practicing oppression, and discrimination against women. Introduce democracy and freedom of expression. Close down those mosques and madrassas that preach fanaticism. Stop exporting Wahhabism and fanaticism. Scrap those school books which incite to hatred and violence against non-Muslims. Allow religious freedom, and let Christians, Jews and followers of other faiths build their own temples and practice their own religion, as you are allowed to do so in other countries. Introduce democracy and freedom of expression. Stop oppressing women. We are not living in the Middle Ages. Mr. Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, release all those political prisoners who demand democracy and human rights. Stop prosecuting them. Establish real democracy and free media. Stop confining freedom of expression. Stop prosecuting bloggers who criticize your regime. Stop prosecuting religious reformers. Fight for power through democracy and fair play. King Abdullah of Jordan: Stop cementing your police state. Release all those political prisoners. Stop squandering our aid of billions of dollars on your palaces, luxury yachts and motorcycles. Invest the money in development projects and create jobs for the poor. Hamas leaders: Scrap your charter in which you call for wiping out Israel. This is barbaric and there is no place for barbaric people on this Earth. Arab and Muslim leaders: protect those scholars who call for religious freedom and modern interpretation of Islam. Stop those fanatic chaplains from preaching fanaticism. That is the kind of specific language and content which Mr. Obama should use in his speech in Cairo. Had Mr. Obama spoken clearly and straightforwardly he would encourage people to demand political and religious freedom and isolate radical Muslims. Radical Muslims are emboldened because they are tolerated by Arab and Muslim regimes, and the West is unspecific and inactive. Mr. Obama, and for that matter most Western leaders, are hypocritical. While they incessantly demand the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, they never demand the release of political prisoners in the Arab world. They never criticize "friendly:" Arab regimes for lack of democracy and abuse of human rights. Obama avoids being specific in relation to Arab regimes. As a matter of fact, he contradicts himself. While he always repeats that he wants to help Muslims build democratic societies, he defended totalitarian regimes like the Saudi and the Egyptian ones in interviews with BBC (June 1, 2009) and French media (June 2, 2009). When Justin Webb from BBC asked Obama what he thought of the authoritarian regime of Egyptian President Mubarak, Obama said that he did not like to use such "labels". Then he defended Mubarak and argued that the man is a "force of stability". In other words, democracy and freedom must be sacrificed for the sake of "stability". Webb also asked President Obama about human rights abuse in Egypt. According to Amnesty International, there are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt. "Oh, well, there are thousands of political prisoners around the world." Obama said, and added, "It is not our job to lecture on human rights." Later in the interview with BBC, Obama said, "Action is required, not words." But obviously this does not apply to the Arab world. He wants "to open a dialogue with Muslims to remove misapprehensions on both sides." Obama added, after 9/11, the level of misapprehension has increased. Oh, 9/11 is simply a "misapprehension"! To add insult to injury, Obama added, "There are cultural differences between us and the Muslim world, and we must understand these differences." Besides, "There are many Muslims who live among us, and that makes us part of the Muslim world." So 9/11 and all the terror launched by Islamic jihadists is due to "cultural differences" and misunderstanding of these differences? The free world "misunderstands" the Islamic culture of hatred and violence? The question is, Mr. President, who is rejecting whom? Who is inciting to hatred and violence? Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais? It is Muslims, their Koran and their Hadith. In his recent interview with French media, Obama also defended Saudi Arabia, the worst despotic and fanatic regime in modern history. He commended Saudi Arabia for being a loyal strategic ally of pivotal importance for the West. My Saudi friends tell me that the totalitarian regimes in Burma and elsewhere are actually paradise compared to life in Saudi Arabia, which lacks all kinds of basic human rights. Obama's defense of Saudi Arabia is music to the ears of King Abdullah and his clan. They can relax and carry on their totalitarian rule. The most important power in the world approves. 
Bowing to the Saudi king, the way Obama did in London, and talking about Saudi Arabia like that is suspicious. I suspect that he received millions of dollars, directly or indirectly, during his presidential campaign. The Saudis are very good at that. They bribe influential people to keep them quiet. On the other hand, how come Obama was so specific as far as Israel is concerned? He urged the Israeli government to stop building settlements in the West Bank, but failed to urge Hamas to stop its terrorist attacks and its denial of Israel's right to exist. Obama's address at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, I am sure, will be rhetoric-filled speech that is void and unspecific. Obama is maybe a good orator, but as a politician he will fail — in particular, in the Middle East.
Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com
|
|
OBAMA IN JIHADLAND
Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 4, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Fresno Zionism website and is archived at
|
|
Barack Obama in Saudi Arabia: I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began and to seek his majesty's counsel and to discuss with him many of the issues that we confront here in the Middle East. — NY Times Pardon me while I experience another "this is why he is President and I'm not" moment, because I would probably have said something like this: I thought it was very important to come to the place which has used its huge oil wealth, made possible by the West and particularly the US, to promulgate its hateful jihadist form of Islam throughout the world, a version of Islam which killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, and to seek the counsel of the hereditary despot of its corrupt royal family, the ruler of one of the most racist, antisemitic and misogynist states in the world and to discuss with him how to force the only democratic state in the region to make still more concessions to its enemies, who — as you know, since you financed them for years — cynically pretend to want a peaceful state, but really want to drive the Jews out of the Mideast. The Times article continues, On his Middle East tour, Mr. Obama is expected to press the Arab nations to offer a gesture to the Israelis to entice them to accelerate the peace process. The Arabs' "best offer" of course is the so-called Arab (or Saudi) Initiative, a plan which suggests that if Israel will take full responsibility for the conflict, retreat to pre-1967 borders including all of East Jerusalem and its holy sites, allow millions of hostile descendants of Arab refugees into what's left, and acquiesce in the creation of a Jew-free Palestinian state — then and only then the Arabs might think about something called 'normal relations'. Earth to racist, antisemitic and misogynist hereditary despot: unconditional surrender is a non-starter. Speaking of gestures Israel could make, does the withdrawal from Gaza count? And how did that work out? One more point about "committing to a two-state solution" and then I'll go away. The Arabs are making a big deal about the fact that PM Netanyahu will not say the magic formula "I accept a two-state solution". In my opinion, here is what he should say (or what I would say if I were Prime Minister of Israel): Someday there could be a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel — if the day comes when Palestinians can live alongside Israelis in peace. But today and in the foreseeable future, with these Palestinians, with the explicitly genocidal Hamas and the less out-front but equally genocidal Fatah, this can't happen. So let's try to find a way for the peoples to live in nonviolent proximity with economic prosperity and maybe someday there can be a sovereign state. Actually, I"ll go away after you look at the following image from the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan. It sort of puts the Saudi point of view into perspective: 
Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
SOUND WAVES
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 4, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
HOW CAN OBAMA DISSUADE IRAN?; SOMALIAN RELIGIOUS WAR; EU HELPS NGOS WREST JERUSALEM FROM ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 4, 2009. |
|
HOW CAN OBAMA DISSUADE IRAN? How can Pres. Obama dissuade Iran from completing the last stage of its nuclear weapons program, when that program has brought Iran close to regional hegemony? Hegemony would bolster the very regime that Obama thinks he can dissuade. [Few countries can overcome the temptation of national pride in just having the bomb, but the Iranian regime threatens to use it.] Administration officials oppose any Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear facilities [without much explanation]. This blames Israel when Iran completes development of a-bombs. Those officials make support for such a raid depend on Israel granting sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority, an existential enemy of Israel and in a way that would render Israel non-viable]. Israel must not grant sovereignty. Since the U.S. will blame Israel unless it commits national suicide, it may as well do what would save it, without regard to the prejudiced Obama administration. Arab sovereignty in an area where Hamas controls half the people and is rising to control the other half, would build Iran's power for jihadist expansion. [Iran could give credit to its nuclear program for that.] Iranian control over this second Palestinian Arab state would not be a "two-state solution" but a boost for war. Just as Iran is about to produce nuclear weapons, the US demands that Israel relinquish its own. Let the fanatical aggressor get the ultimate weapon of mass-destruction, and its identified first victim relinquish any deterrent effect of having its own? (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/18 from Caroline Glick). How rational is that demand? The US rationale is that Israel needs Arab support for raiding Iran, and it would get that support by giving in to Fatah and Hamas, terrorist organizations linked to Iran. The Administration further contends that if Israel did what the U.S. demands, then the U.S. would gain favor with the Muslim world against jihadists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is a poor thesis, aside from what is stated above. The U.S. helped Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., but still faces jihad. Israel already has Arab support for raiding Iran, though unpublicized. Concrete support would be helpful, but the US could give Israel much help. Most Arab states worry about Iranian influence against them. These regimes fear Iranian influence in the proposed new Palestinian Arab state. The U.S. proposal to set up such a state would get their lip-service, but they would prefer that Israel defeat the Iranian backed terrorist proxies that endanger them. Judging by Obama's advisers, who are not just naifs but also anti-Israel, I think his policy is both naïve and a rationalization for destroying Israel. It fails to recognize that the Palestinian Arabs and Iran are enemies of the U.S.. More on this subject:
ISRAELI SPY NETWORK INFURIATES LEBANESE Lebanon initiated a state of war with Israel long ago [from the time its forces invaded Israel unprovoked]. Lebanon arrested 21 suspected spies; two others escaped into Israel. Lebanon claims to be rolling up an Israeli spy network. "The arrests appear to reflect a newly energized and coordinate effort by the Lebanese security agencies, which now cooperate far more effectively among themselves and with Hizbullah..." The extent of the network "infuriates officials" of Lebanon (Robert F. Worth, NY Times, 5/23, A4). The report failed to provide balance by stating that Lebanon spies on Israel. Sometimes Hizbullah pays drug smugglers to spy. Hizbullah recruits Israeli Arabs to commit terrorism. Considering that Lebanon and Hizbullah are repeat aggressors, their spying is worse than Israel's defensive spying. The NY Times often refers to Arab officials as "outraged" over Israel doing to them what they customarily do to Israel. Same for Pollard's have spied on the U.S. for Israel. This "outrage" by people who do the same thing, is hypocritical. It is disturbing that Hizbullah, a subversive element, works closely with the Lebanese forces, forces that the U.S. assists. How much U.S. aid, meant for defense against aggression, is diverted to aggression, terrorist aggression, at that? I recommend eliminating or better controlling foreign aid. Often U.S. aid is stolen, otherwise wasted, or turned against the U.S. and its allies. For the bare facts on this:
RELIGIOUS WAR IN SOMALIA The NY Times reports that after a Radical Muslim militia murdered Sufi Muslim imams and destroyed their shrines in Somalia. Ordinarily peaceable, Sufis organized their own militia. The militia was helped by clans. The Sufis drove the Radicals out of their main area, while the Radicals won military victories in other parts of the country. The report headline is, "Chaos Breeds New Agony For Somalia: Religious War." The journalist refers to all the Muslims involved as "Islamists" (Jeffrey Gettleman, 5/24, A4). That confuses the issue. The term, "Islamist," has been used as a synonym for Radical Muslims, but Mr. Gettleman is lumping them all together. The other Muslims could be called "Islamic" or non-Radical. Mr. Gettleman mis-characterizes the struggle in Somalia. He calls this religious conflict a "new agony for Somalia." No, once a Radical Muslim militia appeared, a couple of years ago, religious war began. How helpful is NATO in Somalia:
EU HELPS NGOS WREST JERUSALEM FROM ISRAEL NGO Monitor proves that "...highly politicized NGOs" "seek to distort and rewrite 3000 years of Jewish history in Jerusalem. Organizations such as B'tselem, Ir Amim and Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ) who receive funds from the European Union ostensibly in order to promote coexistence, are primarily using their resources to promote an overtly anti-Israel agenda." Ignoring the ancient Jewish presence in the Old City's Jewish Quarter, disrupted only by their eviction (ethnic cleansing) and the Jordanian occupation...948-67, B'tselem and Ir Amim erroneously label residents of the neighborhood as 'settlers', in order to strengthen their political campaign against the return of the Jewish population. Similarly, excavations and archaeological activity in the City of David, a site that is central to Jerusalem's Biblical heritage, is delegitimized by Ir Amim as part of an Israeli settlement plan." "In a further attempt to stigmatize the Israeli presence in Jerusalem, and erase the scars of mass terror attacks, the separation barrier is portrayed by B'tselem and Bimkom (funded by EU and New Israel Fund) as an attempt to annex land, disregarding Israel's legitimate security concerns. Similarly, the Jerusalem Municipality's actions to prevent illegal construction are dismissed as an excuse to ruthlessly destroy Palestinian homes by B'tselem and ARIJ, who falsely describe these policies as Israeli attempts to 'erase all trace of Palestinian existence' in Jerusalem." [A few dozen demolitions = "all trace?"] These NGO political power and publicity campaigns have a significant impact on international policy towards Jerusalem." From the NGO reports, "EU-funded 'reports' were copied directly, totally disregarding Israel's historical and legal rights in Jerusalem. The EU position paper's inference that the building of a synagogue at the Western Wall plaza could adversely impact Muslim sites directly reflects an Ir Amim report. Meanwhile statistics in the same paper claiming that only 12% of East Jerusalem is used for Palestinian residential purposes and that the Palestinian population represents only between 5-10% of the municipal budget are taken directly from B'tselem reports, without any independent confirmation. B'tselem is a highly political organization whose claims have been consistently shown to be based on Palestinian sources and to be inaccurate." NGO Monitor's Executive Director, Prof Gerald Steinberg commented,
"Similarly, these NGOs should not be abusing their moral claims on
human rights and coexistence in order to support efforts to turn back
the clock to the dark days of 1948-1967, when no Jews could live or
even visit the Old City and the Jewish sacred sites."
For more:
OBJECTION TO FOREIGN AID TO ISRAEL Someone asked, on a public web site, why should the U.S. send Israel billions of dollars that American states need. It's a good question but too limited a one. A less restricted and fairer question is why should the U.S. send the Mideast billions of dollars that American states need. Why do critics of foreign aid single out Israel? The U.S. spends more on the Arabs now, than on Israel. The US subsidizes Egypt, Jordan, the P.A., and Lebanese forces. Funding for the P.A. and the Lebanese Army assists terrorists. Funding for Egypt has prepared Egypt to make war on Israel. U.S. arms sales to the Arabs would justify some US aid for Israel, if the U.S. did not fashion that aid to wreck Israel's arms industry and undermine Israeli defense, as it does. (The U.S. withholds arms to blackmail Israel. It denies Israel the right to make certain improvements in what it has bought. The restrictions on military spending of U.S. aid is more a scheme for subsidizing the U.S. arms industry, so that Israel has had to abandon some of its own military assembly lines for superior weapons. I oppose U.S. aid to Israel.) The best question would be, why should the U.S. spend billions of dollars on foreign aid that mostly is stolen or wasted? Why continue such programs until we learn how to accomplish their ostensible goals? For some background on this:
OBAMA, CREDIBILITY, & ISRAEL A President's ability to implement his views depends on popularity and credibility. Americans wanted a more accepted President. They got one. What does he utilize his credibility for? To work against Israel, as earlier articles show. Obama's candidacy was endorsed by the NY Times. The newspaper ignored his daily changes in policy and in what he said he said. That is my polite way of referring to his lying daily to suit the winds of campaigning. Now he still is changing policy or what his campaign said is his policy. The editors are wrestling with how much of his revision is justified and how much is political. Their example is his policy on whether to release photos of torture. The editorial standard is that when the issue is a core one of his campaign, changing his stance betrays voters. The photos were not a core issue. To be fair, he is not experienced. When he drafts a proposal, advisors inform him that the concept is faulty. He backs off. Acceptable to me. My standard is: (1) When he changes his official stance to one that opponents showed he held all along and in concert with his advisors, and they complained that his public stance for just for the campaign, he is betraying voters; and (2) When he bows to lobbyists because they control votes, he forfeits credibility. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
MR. OBAMA AND ISLAM
Posted by Janet Lehr, June 4, 2009. |
|
AS "ONE OF THE LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD" HAHN, Germany June 2, 2009, 7:39 pm — As President Obama prepared to leave Washington to fly to the Middle East, he conducted several television and radio interviews at the White House to frame the goals for a five-day trip, including the highly-anticipated speech Thursday at Cairo University in Egypt. In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims. "Now, I think it's very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East," Mr. Obama said. "And so I think expectations should be somewhat modest." He previewed several themes and objectives for the speech, which aides said the president intended to tinker with — and rewrite — aboard Air Force One during his 12-hour flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. "What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States, but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians," Mr. Obama said. The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world "have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam." "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world," Mr. Obama said. "And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples." The speech on Thursday has many intended audiences, but among them
are the young people in Cairo and beyond. "I think the most important
thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith,
those who build as opposed to those who destroy I think leave a
lasting legacy, not only for themselves but also for their nations,"
Mr. Obama said. "And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how
can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible
scientific and knowledge — the output that came about during centuries
of Islamic culture." The president is flying Air Force One directly
from Washington to Riyadh. The White House press corps — traveling on
a chartered United 767 — is refueling in Hahn, Germany. (Jeff Zeleny)
"If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. 'E pluribus unum.' Out of many, one." Http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction= vids.individual&VideoID=5397254 Barack Obama's Keynote Address at Democratic Convention Listening to that speech three thoughts tumbled over one another: the speaker could deliver a rousing speech; odd reference to the Arab American family; and third — danger. I had heard a demagogue speaking a language that was clearly unAmerican. — I'd been writing Israel Lives for two years and my fear antennae twanged. I saved a copy of that fateful speech way back in 2004. Are we to ultimately believe that our President Obama who so dentifies with Muslims is a Christian? Publication date October 17, 2006 BARACK OBAMA from "The Audacity Of Hope" "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds change in an ugly direction". The book is titled in Indonesia "Jihad: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse"? Are we to ultimately believe that our President Obama who so
identifies with Muslims is a Christian? On March 6, 2007
Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth," repeating the thought he had expressed in Dream of My Father. In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, published in The New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent." The opening lines of the Adhan (Azaan) is the Shahada: "Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
According to Islamic scholars, reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, makes one a Muslim. This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. Are we to ultimately believe that our President Obama who so identifies with Muslims is a Christian? May 9, 2008 At a campaign event in Beaverton, OR, Obama claimed to have visited 57 US states during the campaign. The exact quote: "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states. I think one left to go." Muslims often refer to Palestine as being the 58th Muslim nation. American school children learn that there are 50 States. Muslim school children learn that there are 57 Muslim countries. For those readers who find this too troubling not to have been fabricated, It checks out.. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp So now my friends, the chickens have come home to roost. The big conjecture of the day is: what gifts did our President and the Saudi King exchange? One acerbic reader suggested that Obama gifted the Saudi King a map of Israel. CONCLUSION: the United States also could be considered as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." By what metric could The United State of America be considered one of the largest Muslim countries in the world? Is it perhaps that nations are deemed Muslim when their leader is Muslim? If that were the decisive point, the USA is indeed one of the largest Muslim nation by acreage. Another answer might be, that in whatever nation Muslims reside, Muslims deem that nation to be Muslim and the USA is one of the largest nations on earth. Regardless of which option you chose, Obama has put the USA one very large step closer to subjugation under Shaaria Law. Are you antennae twitching, mine are. Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@israellives.com |
|
THE INTERVIEW THAT NETANYAU DID NOT GIVE
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 4, 2009. |
| Interviewer: |
|
While in the U.S. last month, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a number of interviews. The following is one he did not give, though I wish he would have. Interviewer:: In your recent talks in Washington, Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, repeatedly stressed their view that only a "two-state solution," one in which a Palestinian state is erected alongside Israel, can create a lasting peace in the Middle East. What is your position and that of your government on the idea of a two-state solution? Netanyahu: We prefer a solution based on time travel in a time machine at speeds faster than light. Interviewer:: What does that mean? There are no time machines or anything that can produce speeds faster than that of light. Netanyahu: Yes, exactly like the two-state solution. No two-state solution exists or is possible, just like time machines are not possible. One can perhaps imagine a situation in which two states, Israel and "Palestine," exist, just like you can imagine a time machine, but this represents no solution at all. People can sit around and concoct fictional imaginary worlds in which there do exist two-state solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But no such solution exists in our galaxy. I have never much liked science fiction and prefer to restrict my thinking about political solutions to the realm of non-fiction. Interviewer:: So if the two-state solution is out, what is the alternative? Netanyahu: I call it the 23-state solution. The Arabs get to keep the 22 states they already have and the Jews keep the one state they have. The Palestinians get no state. They are welcome to move to any of the 22 Arabs states if they are unhappy with that idea. Interviewer:: Well, you still must have some thoughts on the overall parameters within which any resolution of the conflict must be pursued. Netanyahu: Yes. The right way to begin to think about resolving the conflict is to start from the end and first rule out what will not and cannot happen — ideas and proposals with which there will be no compromise and no negotiations. We are willing to take under consideration any program or proposal for peace that is formulated within those structural parameters, and there are quite a few conceivable such ones. Interviewer:: So what are those ironclad parameters? Netanyahu: There are two, and no negotiations of any sort and no solution will ever be possible unless everyone understands that these must serve as the starting points for any resolution of the Middle East conflict: There will be no new independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan river, and the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza will not be granted citizenship in Israel. Any idea or plan that accepts those two axioms as its points of departure is one we are willing to take under consideration. Interviewer:: Explain. Netanyahu: A Palestinian state is out because its raison d'etre would be aggression and terror against Israel, and we are not willing to grant the Palestinians a new base from which to launch war. No Palestinian state in any form, no matter its borders or the group serving as its leadership or ruling class, will coexist with Israel. Any Palestinian state will seek war. Anyone with any doubts that "Palestine" would be nothing more than a rocket-launching base and terrorist dispatch point need only look at what happened in Gaza after Israel foolishly abandoned it. There is no doubt or question about what such a "state" would pursue. Therefore there will be no such state. Interviewer:: That still leaves Israel's own Arab minority. What do you propose for those Israeli Arabs who are unwilling to live peacefully as an ethnic minority within a Jewish state with a dominant Jewish majority? Netanyahu: A one-way plane ticket, coach, to the destination of their choice outside of Israel. Interviewer:: What about the problem of all the Jewish settlers and settlements? Netanyahu: I do not see any problem. In any resolution of the conflict, Jews will have to be as free to move and live among Arabs as Arabs already are free to move and live among Jews. A "peace plan" that requires that Jews be ethnically cleansed out of areas with Arab majorities is no peace plan at all. I have already ruled out a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. We are willing to consider alternative plans that satisfy the two axioms I discussed above. But I expect we would refuse to agree to any scenario in which Jews are prevented from living among Arabs the same way Arabs live among Jews. The Arab states may remain apartheid regimes, but we will not have ethnic cleansing of Jews in a Palestinian apartheid state in our own back yards. Interviewer:: So what exactly do you propose doing about the Jewish settlements? Netanyahu: Build lots more of them. The settlers are Israel's mine canaries. The attitude of the Arabs toward Jewish settlers is a litmus test and a warning sign of Arab attitudes toward Jews in general. Until the Arabs are willing to make their peace with the idea of Jewish settlers living in their midst, there is no reason to believe they are willing to come to terms with Israel existing as a state within their midst. And until the Arabs come to terms with the existence of a Jewish state in their midst, the search for "peace solutions" is a complete waste of everyone's time. Interviewer:: Many people think Jerusalem is the hardest issue of all to solve. Do you agree? Netanyahu: No. Jerusalem is the easiest. We have a very simple, flexible and clear position on Jerusalem. It is this: They can't have it. That is our solution. We offer them nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. Muslims who wish to pray in the Jerusalem mosques can do so, same as members of other religions are free to attend their houses of worship. In terms of sovereignty and political or administrative control, we agree to grant them nothing at all. Interviewer:: Do you think the Arabs will agree to that? Netanyahu: No. In fact, let me be even more blunt. If the Arabs offer us a choice between 1,000 years of war, bloodshed and strife or immediate peace in exchange for Israel giving up Jerusalem, we choose the 1,000 years of war. Interviewer:: But a lot of people around the world will be unhappy with that approach and denounce you for it. Netanyahu: Tough. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
TAKING THE SLAVERY OUT OF THE JEWS
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 4, 2009. |
|
"We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free" (From this week's Torah portion, B'ha'alotcha, Numbers 11:5)
That is simply the nature of a slave. In his book Night Flight, Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry describes the lifestyle of Arab tribes in the Sahara desert. When a slave would become old, he would be freed. But the slave would beg to continue to serve his master. When his supplications would be refused, he would not seek out a new life as a free man. He would simply lie on the sand in the desert and dehydrate for a few days until death would release him from bondage. Through the spectrum of their slave mentality, the fish that the Israelites received from the Egyptians was a gift. The horrific price that they paid as slaves was not part of the equation. It was just the way the world turned. It was only natural that the Israelites were tortured and murdered; it was only natural that their baby sons were thrown into the Nile. After all, they were not actually human beings. All that they remembered was the un-natural: the fact that their masters were 'kind' enough to give them a piece of fish. When Obama makes dealing with the Iranian threat contingent on the destruction of Jewish settlements, what he is actually saying is that we do not have the right to live. But if we would like to continue to breathe this world's air nevertheless, we have to pay. For Jews, life is not a right — it is a gift. When Netanyahu explains in the Likud Knesset meeting that "We may have to take down illegal outposts as the US demands in order to focus attention on the Iranian threat," he accepts Obama's warped logic. It makes no difference that objectively, our economic and security situation is excellent. Israel's economy is much stronger than America's. The shekel is stronger than the dollar. We have a modern and well-equipped army. We have "manna" that is delicious beyond belief. But he who is enslaved to the American master, sees none of the above. He thinks that he cannot get by without "American aid" — the modern day version of "free" Egyptian fish. Nothing will happen if Netanyahu simply tells Obama no. All that he has to do is to step out of his slave mentality. In the meantime, though, the opposite is taking place. Netanyahu thinks that if he destroys the outposts, he will buy approval to act on other fronts. He doesn't understand that he who surrenders his right to free settlement also surrenders his right to defend himself. He who destroys Mitzpeh Yitzhar can no longer attack in Bushehr. 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)
|
|
OBAMA TO SAUDIS: OH, WHAT THE HELL; WHAT'S 3000+ DEAD AMERICANS AMONG FRIENDS
Posted by Cpocerl, June 3, 2009. |
|
Obama Administration Enables Saudi Princes to Escape Accountability for Material Support for 9/11 Terror Attacks, Families Charge This is archived at
|
|
Allegations Released of Saudi Royal Culpability WASHINGTON, June 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration would enable five of the king's closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In response to the administration's action, the 9/11 families released allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family's sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration. On May 29, the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, filed a brief arguing that it would be "unwarranted" for the Supreme Court to even hear cases brought by the 9/11 families charging that five Saudi princes knowingly and intentionally provided financial support to al Qaeda waging war on America. By urging the high court to not review lower court decisions dismissing these cases, the Obama Administration took the side of the Saudi princes over thousands of family members and survivors of the 9/11 attacks seeking justice and accountability in U.S. courts. "This is a betrayal of our fundamentally American right to have our day in court," said Mike Low of Batesville, Ark., father of Sara Low, an American Airlines flight attendant who died on board Flight 11. "It sacrifices the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, in order to accommodate the political pleadings of a foreign government on behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy." "With this filing, the Obama Administration has constructed a convoluted legal rationale to justify a political decision to curry favor with the Saudi royal family," said Ron Motley, counsel for the 9/11 families. "However, the legal straw house they built collapses with the faintest breeze of logic, legal analysis, or common sense." "We trust that the Supreme Court, after it has reviewed the law, the facts and the evidence, will reject the Obama Administration's wrongheaded opinion and agree to give the 9/11 family members the day in court they deserve," Motley said. To illustrate both the injustice of the Obama Administration's Supreme Court filing and the many holes in its legal reasoning, the family members released the specific allegations they originally made on what the princes did to provide financial and material support to Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in the years and months leading up to September 11, 2001. Specifically, the families' lawsuit alleges that:
(More detailed allegations are contained in the attached chart.) In the face of these allegations, Motley charged that the legal flaws in the Obama Administration's filing are all the more egregious. For example, the solicitor general concedes that the Saudi princes as individual officials are not entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). But even though the government has never previously expressed any notion of offering the Saudi princes any immunity for their alleged terrorist involvement, the administration urges that the Supreme Court should nonetheless treat the Princes as though they are immune anyway because of vague "non-statutory principles articulated by the Executive." This makes clear the Obama Administration is more concerned with the foreign relations consequences of making the Saudi princes answer for their donations to al Qaeda than with allowing the 9/11 families their fair day in court to address the princes' accountability for their conduct. Moreover, even if the Saudi princes knowingly and intentionally gave money to al Qaeda waging war on America, the solicitor general argued that does not qualify for the "domestic tort exception" to sovereign immunity because the Saudi Princes did not give their money "within the United States." The solicitor general says it is not enough if the Saudis gave money to al Qaeda only from abroad. According to the solicitor general's argument, in order to strip immunity from the Saudi princes, "the foreign state's act or omission — not that of any third party — must occur in the United States." The solicitor general further argues that U.S. courts cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the Saudi Princes who gave money to al Qaeda because they were not "primary wrongdoer[s]" — according to the solicitor general — as they engaged in only "indirect funding of al Qaeda." But excusing the princes as not "primary wrongdoers" is in direct conflict with a recent Seventh Circuit ruling in the terror litigation context.(6) In this case, known as Boim v. Holy Land Foundation, the Seventh Circuit held that all those who donate money to known terrorist groups are themselves engaging in terrorism — and thus "primary violators" subject to "primary liability" under the Anti-Terrorism Act section 2333. Boim further cautioned: "Nor should donors to terrorism be able to escape liability because terrorists and their supporters launder donations through a chain of intermediate organizations. Donor A gives to innocent-appearing organization B which gives to innocent-appearing organization C which gives to Hamas. As long as A either knows or is reckless in failing to discover that donations to B end up with Hamas, A is liable."(7) The administration filing's bottom line, according to Motley, is that an official of any foreign country not "designated as a state sponsor of terrorism" is immune from suit as long as that official gave money "outside the United States" to terrorists — even where those terrorists are waging a declared war causing massive death and destruction inside the United States. "This is an absurd misinterpretation of the law that, if carried to its logical extreme, could let all of al Qaeda's bankrollers off the hook," Motley charged. "If allowed to stand as the Obama administration's brief urges, the lower court's decision would allow terrorist financiers to stand at the borders of our nation providing all means of terrorist support, while snubbing their noses at our time honored judicial system of accountability." The plaintiffs further allege that "Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have publicly and proudly proclaimed direct responsibility for [prior] multiple atrocities in furtherance of international terrorism. Direct attacks on Americans intensified in 1998 after Osama bin Laden issued this 'fatwa,' stating: 'We — with God's help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.'"(8) Motley said he was especially shocked that the solicitor general justified not holding foreign officials who give money to the 9/11 terrorists to account in an American court by repeating the same error made by the late District Judge Richard Conway Casey and the Second Circuit when they ruled plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations were "inadequa[te]" and "conclusory" to show the Princes knew that they were funneling money to al Qaeda. "This is utter nonsense," Motley said, noting the specific detail of the allegations made, all of which allegedly show that the princes gave money to al Qaeda waging declared jihad on America, knowing that al Qaeda was targeting death and destruction on America.(9) "What the solicitor general and the lower courts ignore is that the plaintiffs brought this suit to hold the defendants — a handful of royals, other financiers, bin Laden, al Qaeda, and certain charities, banks and other organizations they own and control — responsible for this insidious form of terrorism which cloaks itself behind the face of royal state titles and legitimacy," Motley said. Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network do not exist in a vacuum, he explained. They could not plan, train and act on such a massive scale without significant financial power, coordination and backing.(10)
Select sources reporting Saudi Arabia is an important funding source for Islamic Extremism:
Allegations that the Saudi Princes Named as Defendants Provided Financial and Material Support to al Qaeda Source: Third Amended Complaint, Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. vs. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corporation, et al, Case No. 03-CV-9849 (GBD) as consolidated in In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Case No. 03-MDL-1570 (GBD), paragraphs 340, 344-346, 348-350. This can be viewed at www.motleyrice.com/terrorism/relevant_documents.asp. TAC Paragraph, Specific Allegation Page 97-99, pp. Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud was the CEO of the 244-245; 342, Islamic bank Dar al Maal al Islami ("DMI") which p. 309; 364, provided financing and financial services to al Qaeda p. 315 340, p. 309 Prince Turki al Faisal al Saud had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden from the time that they first met in Islamabad, Pakistan at the Saudi embassy, during the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. 342, p. 309-310 Prince Abdullah al Faisal bin Abdulaziz al Saud, Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al Saud and Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud have provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. They also aided, abetted and materially sponsored OBL and al Qaeda 344, p. 310 Prince Turki, who headed the Royal Families intelligence service for 25 years and met personally with Osama bin Laden at least 5 times, guided the Saudi intelligence service to provide substantial financial and material support to the Taliban in or about 1995. 345, p. 310 Al Qaeda financier Mohammed Zouaydi had close financial ties to Prince Turki and Prince Mohammed al Faisal. 346, pp. 310-311 According to a senior Taliban official, Prince Turki was the facilitator of money transfers to the Taliban and al Qaeda. 347. p. 311 In 1996, a group of Saudi princes met with prominent Saudi businessmen in Paris and agreed to continue financially contributing and otherwise supporting Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. 348, p. 311 In July of 1998, a meeting occurred in Kandahar, Afghanistan that led to an agreement between certain Saudis and the Taliban. The participants were Prince Turki, the Taliban leaders, and senior Pakistani intelligence officers of the ISI and representatives of Osama bin Laden. The agreement reached stipulated that Osama bin Laden and his followers would not use the infrastructure in Afghanistan to subvert the royal families' control of Saudi government. In return, the Saudis would make sure that no demands for the extradition of terrorist individuals, such as Osama bin Laden, and/or for the closure of terrorist facilities and camps. Prince Turki also promised to provide oil and generous financial assistance to both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After the meeting, 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing Dubai license plates. 349, p. 311 Prince Turki was instrumental in arranging a meeting in Kandahar between Iraqi senior intelligence operative, the Ambassador to Turkey Faruq al-Hijazi, and Osama bin Laden, in December of 1998. 350, p. 311 Saudi Intelligence, directed by Prince Turki until August 2001, served as a facilitator of Osama bin Laden's network of charities, foundations, and other funding sources. 354, p. 312 Prince Sultan has been involved in the sponsorship of international terrorism through the IIRO and other Saudi-funded charities. 357-358. p. 313 King Fahd set up a Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, headed by his brother Prince Sultan to centralize, supervise and review aid requests from Islamic groups. This council was established to control the charity financing and look into ways of distributing donations to eligible Muslim groups. Consequently, as Chairman of the Supreme Council, Prince Sultan could not have ignored the ultimate destinations of charitable funding, and could not have overlooked the role of the Saudi charitable entities identified herein in financing the al Qaeda terrorist organization. 359, pp. 313-314 Despite that responsibility and knowledge, Prince Sultan personally funded several Islamic charities over the years that sponsor, aid, abet or materially support Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda: the International Islamic Relief Organization (and its financial fund Sanabel el-Khair), al-Haramain, Muslim World League, and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. Despite that responsibility and knowledge, Prince Sultan personally funded several Islamic charities over the years that sponsor, aid, abet or materially support Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda: the International Islamic Relief Organization (and its financial fund Sanabel el-Khair), al-Haramain, Muslim World League, and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. 360, p. 314 Prince Sultan's role in the IIRO's financing is of significance. Since the IIRO's creation in 1978, Prince Sultan participated by donations and various gifts to the charity. In 1994 alone, he donated $266,652 to the Islamic International Relief Organization. Since 1994, the amount funneled by Prince Sultan into IIRO is reported to be $2,399,868. Prince Sultan's role in directly contributing to and in the oversight of IIRO evidences his material sponsorship, aiding and abetting of international terrorism. Prince Sultan maintains close relations with the IIRO organization headquarters and knew or should have known these assets were being diverted to al Qaeda. 361-362, p. 314 Prince Sultan is also a regular donator to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth ("WAMY"). WAMY was founded in 1972 in a Saudi effort to prevent the "corrupting" ideas of the western world influencing young Muslims. With official backing it grew to embrace 450 youth and student organizations with 34 offices worldwide. WAMY has been officially identified as a "suspected terrorist organization" by the FBI since 1996 and has been the subject of numerous governmental investigations for terrorist activities. 370-371, p. 317; Prince Abdullah al Faisal is the majority owner of 372-373, p. 317 Alfaisaliah Group, also known as al Faisal Group Holding Co. According to FBI records 9/11 hijacker Hani Saleh H. Hanjour, his brother Abdulrahman Saleh Hanjour, living in Tucson, Arizona, and 9/11 suspect Abdal Monem Zelitny had registered addresses in Taif, Saudi Arabia that correspond with an Alfaisaliah Group branch office. 374-375, p. 317 Prince Abdullah al Faisal's accountant in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia was Defendant Muhammed Galeb Kalaje Zouaydi, convicted in Spain for financing al Qaeda operations in Europe. Zouaydi set up Spanish companies established during the time he was staying in Saudi Arabia and working for Prince Abdullah al Faisal, between 1996 and 2000. Zouaydi laundered Saudi money through Spain to an al Qaeda cell in Germany. Eye witnesses place Zouaydi in Prince Abdullah al Faisal's office in Jeddah. 381, p. 319 Prince Naif, who has a long history of supported for Palestinian suicide martyrs and Palestinian terrorist organizations, has provided material support to al Qaeda, including providing monetary payoffs to al Qaeda. 382, p. 319 Prince Naif, who is the Saudi Minister of Interior and heads the Saudi Committee for Relief to Afghans, supervised the activities of Defendant charity Al Haramain Foundation, which materially supported al Qaeda and the Taliban. 392-399, pp. In 1993, Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud founded 321-323 Saudi High Commission charity. The charity's Bosnian offices were found to have sponsored al Qaeda members and materially supported al Qaeda. 400, pp. 323-324 Prince Salman has a history of funding Islamic extremism. In 1980, Prince Salman was named Chairman of the General Donation Committee for Afghanistan. 401, p. 324 In 1999, Prince Salman made a donation of $400,000 during a fund-raising event organized for Bosnia Herzegovina and Chechnya by Defendants International Islamic Relief Organization, World Assembly of Muslim Youths, and Al-Haramain Foundation. 404-407, Despite evidence of misappropriation of charitable pp.324-325 funds by directors of the Saudi High Commissions Bosnian chapter, Prince Salman knowingly failed to take appropriate action regarding the management and distribution of funds. (1)Third Amended Complaint, Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al vs. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corporation, et al, Case No. 03-CV-9849 (GBD) as consolidated in In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Case No. 03-MDL-1570 (GBD), paragraphs 340, 344-346, 348-350. This can be viewed at www.motleyrice.com/terrorism/relevant_documents.asp.
SOURCE 9/11 Families/Burnett vs. Al Barak
Contact C Pocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
12 WAYS TO PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHOUT WAR
Posted by Susana K-M, June 3, 2009. |
|
Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles— a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas— carrots and sticks— that can be used to persuade Iran's leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and support of terror— without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons. 1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran's dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs— almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran. 2. Ban investments in Iran's energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran's energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran's oil industry. 3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran's leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran's people and leaders. 4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran's energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England's HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran. 5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU's 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran's nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened. 6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran's industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands. 7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran's nuclear program. 8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran's missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran's acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East. 9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran's proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran's questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran. 10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran's nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world's intelligence organizations. 11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating "terror-free" investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran's leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies. 12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
MURDERED BRIT'S HOSTAGE ORDEAL
Posted by Cpocerl, June 3, 2009. | |
|
AL-QAEDA claimed today it has executed British hostage Edwin Dyer — and blamed the British Government for his death. The terrorist group accused Britain of not responding to its demands to release the extremist cleric Abu Qatada from a maximum security cell. In a statement posted on a well-known jihadi website, al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb said it had: "Killed Dyer on May 31, finding that Britain is unresponsive and does not seem to care for its citizens. "The British captive was killed so that he, and with him the British state, may taste a tiny portion of what innocent Muslims taste every day at the hands of the Crusader and Jewish coalition to the east and to the west." Tragedy PM Gordon Brown today condemned the murder and today warned the terrorists would be "hunted down and brought to justice". He said the Government had "strong reason to believe" that the terrorist cell had carried out its threat to kill Mr Dyer. "This tragedy reinforces our commitment to confront terrorism," Mr Brown said in a statement. "It strengthens our determination never to concede to the demands of terrorists, nor to pay ransoms. "I want those who would use terror against British citizens to know beyond doubt that we and our allies will pursue them relentlessly, and that they will meet the justice they deserve." Mr Brown sent his condolences to the family of Mr Dyer, and said they would be offered "every possible support". He said UK officials had worked "strenuously to avoid this outcome", and he had regularly discussed the situation with the president of Mali. He added: "I utterly condemn this appalling and barbaric act of terrorism." Later, Mr Brown told the House of Commons the terrorists who killed him would be "hunted down and brought to justice". Al-Qaeda had demanded the release of the Palestinian preacher on April 27 and threatened to kill Mr Dyer within 20 days unless Abu Qatada was freed. Abu Qatada has been named by Spanish judges as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe and is regarded as the most dangerous fanatic to have operated from Britain. He is being held in isolation at Long Lartin high-security jail in Worcs while he fights deportation to Jordan. The radical cleric, who has been in prison since 2005, was first arrested in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks and has been described as "Al-Qaeda's spiritual leader in Europe". Mr Dyer is thought to be one of a group of European tourists who were kidnapped in January on the border between Mali and Niger after attending the African music "Festival in the Desert" near Timbuktu. In its April statement al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb said: "We demand that Britain release Sheikh Abu Qatada, who is unjustly held, for the release of its British citizen. "We give it 20 days as of the issuance of this statement." Last month, Algerian media reported AQIM was demanding 10million euros in exchange for Mr Dyer and another hostage, a Swiss national, being held in the Sahara. On May 21 the group extended its deadline to kill Mr Dyer.
Contact C Pocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: A CORE ISSUE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 3, 2009. |
|
It's called an Executive Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding. This is an exchange between two heads of state in which there is a quid pro quo — each promises to deliver something. There is precedent within the courts for such agreements to be binding. They are serious matters. During the course of the American administrations of Clinton and Bush Jr. there were a number of such agreements with Israeli governments, somehow involving the issue of settlements. Generally speaking, there was an understanding on the American side that we would retain major settlement blocs in any future agreement with the Palestinians, but in the interim, while we could build inside the parameters of those settlements, we would not build beyond their borders or start new settlements. ~~~~~~~~~~ The most famous (or is it now infamous?) of these exchanges involves the letters between PM Sharon and President Bush on April 14, 2004. Sharon, for his part, described his plan for withdrawal ("disengagement."). And Bush wrote in his letter that: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities." It was on the basis of this that Sharon moved ahead with his plans for leaving Gaza. We may leave there, he told the nation, but look, we will never be expected to leave Judea and Samaria and pull out our people. In the same vein, it was because of earlier understandings that the Israeli government accepted, albeit tentatively, the Road Map. ~~~~~~~~~~ But now along comes the arrogant Barack Obama, who declares that he is not bound by these prior agreements. He is above it all and can do things according to his own rules, you see. A couple of day ago he made a speech in which he said, essentially, that former administrations lied to us, but now he's going to be tough and tell us the truth. This is a serious problem, not just for us, but for all nations who deal with the US. When the president declares himself not bound by prior agreements, it is deeply troubling and renders both the president and the government he heads untrustworthy. This is not how a democracy is supposed to operate. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please, see the transcript of a State Department press conference from two days ago, and the way in which spokesman Robert Wood absolutely refuses to answer a journalist's straight question regarding US obligations inherent in the Bush letter to Sharon. (Towards the end of the conference.)
~~~~~~~~~~ This is at the core of the battle now, regarding Obama's demand that we stop all building, even for natural growth, in the settlements. We've had the American rug pulled out from under us. What makes it doubly an affront, however, is that Obama is trying to claim that WE have obligations according to prior agreements. Bibi is holding fast with regard to not freezing settlements, and the government is angered. There is a feeling, at least in certain parts of the Likud and the nationalist parties, that Obama has simply gone too far. ~~~~~~~~~~ Very briefly, I want to return to the issue of outposts. I've described a number of legal complications with regard to what makes an outpost illegal — in terms of what land it's built on, what permits it received, etc. But here's another factor. The understanding between us and America, broadly, was that we would keep the major settlement blocs and had a right to build inside of them, but we would not build new settlements beyond a certain time period. But the outposts, at least in some instances, represent an attempt to do just that. Ideologically, this may be great. But there must be a recognition regarding what our commitments may have been in this regard. This does not apply across the board. Some outposts are several years old, some can be incorporated as part of existing settlements. In some instances, as with the synagogue on the road to Hebron, referring to what is on the ground as an outpost is a bit of a stretch. At any rate, a very strong case can be made now for simply saying the deal is off. Maybe we did have a commitment regarding no outposts. But if the other party no longer honors the understanding that we keep major settlements? I would say a better case can be made now for not dismantling those outposts. Barak has been holding meetings in Washington, and the word is that they are tense. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tomorrow Obama steps to the mike in Cairo. I won't speculate unduly regarding what I expect. In the briefest of terms, I would predict a broad outline of an approach, with effort to ingratiate himself with the Muslim world that we will find mind-blowing. Some incredible stuff is coming into my mailbox, indicating just how Obama is playing it. A NY Times blog yesterday describes an interview that Obama gave in preparation for his trip with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station: The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world "have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam." "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." One of the largest Muslim countries in the world? He's getting a bit carried away, isn't he? ~~~~~~~~~~ From ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper: "The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots." During the campaign, writes Tapper, Obama emphasized his Christian identity. But now there's a different tune. "During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo...deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said 'the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.'" Muslim Americans are a key part of Chicago (whence hails Obama)? I don't know about you, but this sort of makes me gag. It's terribly transparent. It's stretching. I suspect (is this wishful thinking?) that he's going to stretch so hard he loses balance and ultimately falls on his face. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA: US "ONE OF THE LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD" AND IT HAS 57 STATES*
Posted by Cpocerl, June 3, 2009. |
|
This is by Toby Harnden and it appeared today in the Telegraph (UK)
|
|
It is important to note that "if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world". So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama. That's right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president's attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday. Petrified of the potential political fallout of being branded a Muslim, Candidate Obama — a practicing Christian — never used the name "Hussein" and its use was frowned upon as a forbidden code for the nutty accusation that he was some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate. No more. To say Barack Hussein Obama — BHO for short — now appears to be the height of political correctness. As I argue in this analysis for the Telegraph dead tree edition, Obama is seeking to return to a Middle East policy based on realism — buttressed by the bona fides of his own multi-cultural (including Muslim) background. In Strasbourg two months ago, the president tried out his full name. Days later in Ankara, he was introduced to the Turkish parliament by his full name. As ABC's Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller astutely outline here, the Obama administration is embracing the new president's inner Muslim, as it were. Deputy national security adviser stated that Obama had "experienced Islam on three continents...growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans [are] a key part of Illinois and Chicago". So that's once, twice, three times a Muslim? Just in case the Arab world hasn't yet got this message of inbuilt tolerance, Mr Obama himself has gone a step further. In an interview with France's Canal Plus released on Tuesday evening, he suggested that the United States might be a Muslim country. Obama said he wanted to "create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians". So far, so blah — President George W. Bush often expressed much the same sentiments. But then, as is his habit, Obama turned the concept around. "Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples." Obama said in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation". John McCain was criticised in 2007 for saying the US was "a Christian nation", later amending this to "a Judeo-Christian valued nation". Of course, the concept of separation of church and state, which derived from the First Amendment to the Constitution, means that the US is not officially a Christian nation or a nation of any other particular religion. Which means, I suppose, that the US is as much a Muslim nation as a Christian one. It's a bold — some might say audacious — turnaround by the president. It's also a classically Obamaesque move. During the 2008 campaign, he skillfully made himself, through his life story, the personification of change. Now, implicitly contrasting himself with the born-again, evangelical Bush who pursued a post-9/11 "crusade" against terrorism, Obama is presenting himself to the Islamic world as the personification of a new, tolerant — and, yes, partly Muslim — America. [*] During the campaign, Obama claimed in one speech that there were 57 states in the U.S.A. There aren't but there are 57 Muslim states. UPDATE: The excellent Don Surber crunches the numbers and points out that Obama's claim is highly dubious. According to Surber, the US has an estimated three to eight million Muslims, less than one per cent of the world's total and less than at least 23 other countries. The average claim for the US Muslim population is about six million. The precise figure is difficult to get because it's not included in US census data and many put the figure at much, much less. But even if we assume there are six million Muslims in the US, that makes it only the 34th biggest Muslim country in the world — behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Tanzania, Syria, Malaysia, Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia, Somalia, Guinea, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso and Tajikistan. UPDATE 2: Debbie Schlussel cites a reputable survey by Pew that puts the number of Muslims in the US at 1.8 million. This would make it the 48th biggest Muslim country, after the above list plus France, Libya, Jordan, Israel, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Germany, Kuwait, Oman, Eritrea, Lebanon and Serbia and Montenegro — and just above Britain, which would be the 50th. Contact C Pocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
OBAMA'S (LACK OF US) CITIZENSHIP (?) — A TRAVESTY THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY!
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 3, 2009. |
|
We've all seen the emails about Obama's citizenship. This is a new twist WE hadn't known. Interesting. More questions, and this time some good questions. It can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi? So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A: Yes, by his own admission. Q: What passport did he travel under? A: There are only three possibilities. 1. He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. Count me in as one of those inquiring minds who'd at least like to know the answers to these easily answered (by Obama) questions. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
ABC NEWS DISCOVERS...THE MUSLIM PRESIDENT!
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, June 3, 2009. |
|
Obama: "The United States is One of the Largest Muslim Countries on the Planet" This was written by Pamela Geller and it comes from Atlas
Shrugs and is archived at
|
|
The United States and the Western world must learn about Islam, and indeed if we count the number of American Muslims, we see that the United States is one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet," he said. — Interview with French LaMonde. (hat tip Boquisucio): As Obama embarks on his much lauded (compliments of a dhimmi press) trip to address the Muslim world from Egypt (where 95% of the women/girls have had their clitorises cut off), select members of the mainstream media are surprised by Obama's pre-election deceit about his Muslim background and family. When I started posting about Obama's religious Muslim background in January of 2007, every epithet was hurled at me from the left and mainstream circles. Islamophobe! Right wing nut! Racist? What race? He is really more Arab American than African American, but the racist charge was for his religion (Islam is a race?). I continued to post through 2007 and 2008 evidence of his Islamic religious birth, his extremist Muslim family and his Islamic schooling. Terrorists supported him. There were the phone banks in Gaza. Oodles of jihad money from a Hamas controlled refugee camp in Gaza. Mosques in the US were preaching for Obama. Khalid Al Mansour sponsored Obama for Harvard. December 2007: Obama, the Muslim Thing and why it Matters (www.Israel National News.com) That said, Barack Obama went to a madrassa in Jakarta. A madrassa in a Muslim country. Whether he was devout or secular, he knows what was taught. He knows what is in the Koran. Even if he is ambiguous, he knows the stakes involved. His father was a Muslim who took three wives (without divorcing). His stepfather and close members of his family are devout Muslims. Not an unimportant influence. Every Muslim who left Islam is very definitive about leaving and why. They are quite vocal — Wafa Sultan Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Elijah Abraham, etc. If he left Islam, Obama must have very definite thoughts about it. He has to, he practiced Islam. That is not benign; it's big. And even if, as inferred by big media, it was not big to him, then he can still appreciate how important it is knowing what he knows about Islam and apostasy. March 2008: Obama and Islam: The Third Rail in American Politics I am not a racist. Tough to prove a negative. But I refuse to dhimmi down and STFU. Too much is wrong. Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts. The web is being scrubbed of Obama's ties to Islam. But America will know the truth, even if the mainstream media refuses to touch the third rail. The media is already in full spin mode. The racist charge is fallacious — Islam is not a race, but why split hairs, right? It was taboo. I was "fear mongering". When Obama's Islam was discussed, it was romanticized. When he told Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times "the prettiest sound he [Obama] ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer at sunset," it was the epitome of multicultural tolerance, despite the barbaric intolerance of Islam. When his anti-semitic, anti-American pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright was exposed as a member of the haters, the Nation of Islam, prior to his leadership of his Black Liberation church, the mainstream media yawned. Obama was never vetted, his lies never exposed. And so we have our first Muslim presidency, fresh on the heels of 911. The motor of this presidency is submission to Islam and the conversion to a communist economy. Today Jake Tapper over at ABC News broke the mainstream media taboo and actually stated the obvious. "The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots" by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller Who can forget his bold faced lies to the Jews? For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo and association. Is it any wonder that Obama will not stop in Israel as he bounces around the Middle East? |
|
OBAMA'S OUT OF THE CLOSET. HE IS NOT A FRIEND OF ISRAEL
Posted by Mr La, June 3, 2009. |
|
PRESSURE!!! — Obama's Piles on the Settlement Nastiness The headline in Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv is one word, PRESSURE. 
During the election campaign people like Marty Peretz, Congressman Gary Ackerman and Senator Chuck Schumer PROMISED us that Barack Obama is a "friend" of Israel. There were those of us who were unconvinced but sadly 78% of American Jewry chose to ignore the evidence to believed those who chose political power over the truth. It took awhile but over the past few weeks President Obama's true feelings about Israel have come out and its not very pretty. His words have been "friendly enough" but his deeds have are beginning to give life to our worst fears, that Barack Obama will try sacrifice Israel solely to befriend the Muslim world. Look at the facts, Obama is pressuring Israel despite the fact that Mahmoud Abbas declared in the Washington Post that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that he would not lift a finger to peacemaking. Abbas basically said that Bibi would capitulate or he would wait until a Bibi/Obama split brings down the Netanyahu government. Obama is putting the entire burden on Israel and the settlements. No reciprocal demand was made of the Palestinians.The freeze requires a prohibition on construction inside the footprint of communities that today are de facto Israeli territory. These are the city-settlements that have long been slated for inclusion into Israel in any final-status agreement, with equivalent Israeli territory awarded to the future Palestinian state through land swaps. Obama has chosen to ignore previous agreements between Israel and the United States. Agreements that were used to sell Israel on agreeing to the "road map." The President talks a lot about the importance of dialogue, diplomacy, and humility. His actions are very much at odds with his words. By all accounts Obama is ramping up the pressure. Haaretz is reporting that the President has given Bibi six weeks to come come around to his point of view.That is a most ironic demand as the President will not consent to a cut off date for his "out reach" to the Iran. All this leads up to the fact that the Jewish State is in a vise and that vise is being tightened by her "closest ally." This below was written by Naomi Chazan and is entitled "Obama joins Barak meeting as settlement row gets worse." It appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post. |
|
With the public spat between Jerusalem and Washington over construction in the settlements intensifying daily, US President Barack Obama dropped in unannounced on Defense Minister Ehud Barak while he was meeting National Security Adviser James Jones in the White House on Tuesday. No details of the 15-minute conversation were provided, but it came following Obama's call Monday for a halt to all settlement construction, including for "natural growth." That was the first time Obama himself, and not an adviser or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had included "natural growth" in the settlement freeze. Obama joined Barak's meeting with Jones at the very end. While former president George W. Bush would often drop by in White House meetings that top Israeli officials were conducting with figures such as the vice president or national security adviser, Obama's visit was seen as particularly meaningful, as it came just a few hours before he was to set off for Saudi Arabia and then Egypt, and following several statements criticizing Israel for its settlement policy. It was seen as an effort to show a balanced approach and give Israel a boost amid the US administration's outreach to the Muslim world, which will include a visit to Riyadh on Wednesday and a major speech in Cairo on Thursday, but no stop in Israel. At the same time, the two countries have serious issues to discuss, including the settlement policy. In that context, Barak's role is particularly key, as he represents the left flank of Netanyahu's government and has a warmer following in Washington than some of his fellow coalition members, even as he has articulated a position supporting the prime minister's assertion that natural growth must continue. The settlement issue was believed to have been one of the focuses of Barak's discussion with Jones. Following the meeting, Barak issued a statement saying that "the intimacy, openness and joint interests of Israel and the US are a foundation of Israeli policy, both in facing threats and making peace." Barak's statement, however, could not camouflage deep differences that have been emerging over the settlement issue. Officials in the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday said that understandings on settlement construction with the US had formed the basis of Israel's acceptance of the road map in 2003 and the adoption of the disengagement plan in 2005, firing back at Washington for its demand for a settlement freeze that would include natural growth. The implication of the officials' comments were clear: that if the US was changing its understandings on the settlements, it was undermining the foundations of the road map and was in essence reneging on understandings that were an essential part of Israel's decision to leave the Gaza Strip. According to the officials in the Prime Minister's Office, "over the past decade, important understandings were reached on the issues of settlements, understandings that Israel abided by. While Israel committed itself not to build new settlements and to address the unauthorized outposts, there was an effort to allow for normal life in existing communities, especially those in the large settlement blocs that will definitely stay part of Israel in any final-status agreement." According to those officials, the "overall concept was that neither Israel nor the Palestinians would take unilateral steps that would prejudge a final peace agreement. Those understandings reached between Washington and Jerusalem provided a crucial foundation for US-Israeli cooperation in the peace process. "On the basis of these understandings, the government accepted the road map in 2003, and adopted the disengagement plan in 2005," the officials continued. "Israel will continue to abide by these bilateral understandings and seeks to strengthen them with the new US administration." Dov Weisglass, who was intimately involved in reaching these understandings with the US, wrote in Yediot Aharonot on Tuesday that there was "no doubt" that the Bush administration recognized Israel's right to build within the construction lines of the settlements, on condition that no new settlements would be established, that there would be no expropriation of Palestinian land for the settlements and that no budgets would be allocated for encouraging settlement. Officials in the Prime Minister's Office said there was concern that the US was now attempting to roll back those agreements. That impression was strengthened by Obama's interview Monday with National Public Radio, in which he claimed to have "said very clearly to the Israelis, both privately and publicly, that a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, is part of those obligations [that Israel must fulfill]." Although the US needed to maintain its "strong support" for Israel, Washington also had to be "honest" with Israel regarding the direction in which the region was heading, Obama added, three days before his address to the Arab world in Egypt. "I don't think we have to change strong support for Israel," Obama said in the interview. "We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that's going to require, from my view, a two-state solution." Asked how he would reply to those in the Muslim world who felt the US blindly supported Israel, Obama replied, "Well, what I'd say is, there's no doubt that the United States has a special relationship with Israel. There are a lot of Israelis who used to be Americans. There [are] huge cross-cultural ties between the two countries. I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously we're deeply sympathetic to Israel." And, he added, "I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel; the notion that they should be driven into the sea, that they should be annihilated, that they should be obliterated — the armed aggression that's been directed toward them in the past — you can understand why not only Israelis would feel concerned, but the United States would feel it was important to back this stalwart ally." However, Obama said, "Part of being a good friend is being honest, and I think there have been times where we were not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also US interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region." Obama told NPR that "the United States has to follow through on what it says. It is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace — and that there's not equivocation, and there's not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side. It's going to have to be two-sided, and I don't think anybody would deny that in theory." In the interview, Obama also intimated that if Hizbullah were to win the elections later this week in Lebanon, the US would possibly have to reconsider its policy toward the organization. The US has placed Hizbullah on its terrorist list, and has no contacts with the organization.
Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
STATE DEPT. FOULS UP MUSLIM OUT-REACH; NYT EDITORIAL AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM; BENNY MORRIS' LATEST BOOK
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 3, 2009. |
|
STATE DEPT. FOULS UP MUSLIM OUT-REACH Continuing the prior Administration's attempt to persuade the Muslim world that U.S. Muslims are prosperous, not repressed, the Obama administration has produced a 60-page pamphlet. The pamphlet praises the very Islamist groups, such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that defame the US, instead of anti-jihad Muslim groups such as AIFD and Muslims Against Sharia. The booklet implies that all Muslims work constructively together, instead of the Radicals working against the other Muslims and against the U.S.. Some Islamist leaders mentioned favorably have accused Israel of masterminding 9/11, quashed a college debate on the Danish cartoons, opposed Israeli self-defense against terrorism, suggested that the major terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizbullah be removed from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, and exonerate Hamas from its full responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza The book blunders in other ways, too. It emphasized an initial and limited anti-Muslim reaction to 9/11, instead of the general tolerance. It omitted the numerous convictions of terrorists here, indications that Radical Islam does pose a problem and law enforcement is justified in surveillance. Indeed, CAIR and ISNA were listed by the Justice Dept. as co-conspirators in supporting terrorism. CAIR is depicted positively, whereas it is a front for Hamas. The booklet's bibliography cites Islamist and pro-Islamist literature. The booklet supports America's enemies (/http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/18 from Steven Emerson. Obama's strategy on jihad is flawed:
POPE DEFENDING CHRISTIANS FROM RADICAL ISLAM Pope Benedict XVI has continued admonishing the persecution of
Mideastern Christians by politically motivated or religious elements
The Vatican usually employs diplomatic language that doesn't antagonize culprits or rally countervailing forces. Stronger leadership is needed. There must be a way to be specific enough without blaming the whole Muslim world. U.S. IMAM URGES MORE PALESTINIAN ARAB "STRUGGLE" Imam Muhammad Al-Asi, the Imam who formerly led prayers at the Islamic Center of Washington, encouraged people from all over the world to go to the Palestinian Authority, to boost its struggle against Israel. They should cooperate with Hizbullah, in this (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/12). That means he favors war and terrorism in its conduct. NY TIMES EDITORIAL AGAINST PM NETANYAHU The editorial continues from the news story of a few days earlier, about PM Netanyahu's meeting with Pres. Obama, that pits the two against each other, and sides against Netanyahu without explanation deeper than assertion. Thus, Obama "said that Israel must stop settlement activity and embrace a two-state solution, the only rational basis for a peace deal." The "only" deal? The Times doesn't discuss a Zionist solution. Why would it be a deal, when the Arabs want Israel, too? Then it isn't "rational." How would ordinary readers know it is rational, when the Times hardly gives any space to critics? Why is Obama directing Israel? It's not his country. Why doesn't he at least suggest that Arab settlement activity cease, too? "Mr. Obama has concluded that to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S. must repair its relations with the Muslim world. Working credibly and even-handedly on a Middle East peace deal is central to that." Obama has concluded that from his coterie of anti-Zionist advisers. Has he heard contrary advice? He seems uninformed about jihad, which cannot repair relations with the U.S., whom it wishes to conquer along with the rest of the world. Even-handedly? The U.S. makes no demands upon the Arabs except by lip service. It ignores Israeli security needs except for lip service. The State Dept. never was even-handed toward Zionism but hostile. Seeking to transfer territory from the Israelis to the Arabs, bent on conquering Israel if not exterminating the Jews, hardly is even-handed. Don't be surprised if Iran takes credit with the Arabs for Obama's stance. "If Mr. Netanyahu stonewalls, Mr. Obama will have to apply a lot more public pressure..." Pressure diplomacy is what the NY Times objected to by Pres. Bush. What experience does Obama have to warrant pressuring another country to risk survival on the basis of a contested theory? It sounds more to me like the appeasing the enemy, as when Britain forced Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland province to Nazi Germany, enabling Germany to seize the rest of it. Further editorial advice to Obama is to persuade Hamas to stop its rocket attacks. He can't persuade Hamas to end jihad, because Hamas is fanatical about that. It might suspend such attacks. During truce, it develops more and better rockets. Such truces are ruses. I am sure that the NY Times knows this, and is not just naïve. Do they suppose that Obama would accept its advice on the basis of malevolence toward Israel or naivete? The Times recommends U.S. negotiations with Iran. The West has been negotiating with Iran for years, as with N. Korea. The West gets nowhere, the rogue states get closer to nuclear weapons (5/23). Times proposals on jihad make no sense. Jews get killed by some, such as removal of checkpoints. For some insight into the NY Times:
RESOLVING THE ISRAEL/PALESTINE CONFLICT Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict is Benny Morris' latest book. NY Times book reviewer is Jeffrey Goldberg. He starts with Morris' evidence that there is neither a two-state nor a one-state solution. Why? The Muslim Arabs do not accept the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over any area, however truncated. Bringing masses of Arab antagonists into Israel is just another way of eliminating Israel. The evidence puts the lie to State Dept. and NY Times claims that Israel can deal with Abbas, because he recognizes Israel. He doesn't. Insinuating Zionist wrongdoing, Mr. Goldberg slips in a notion that the "settlement movement" "colonized the West Bank." Jews lived and moved there before and during the Mandate. However, Jordanian troops expelled those whom it didn't execute. Arabs moved in, too, but Goldberg does not call them a colonial settler movement. This double standard makes Israel seem guilty, when it was just following the Mandate, adopted into international law, that requires "close settlement of the land by the Jews." Believing that the answer is to evacuate Jews from Judea-Samaria, the Times denigrates Jewish residency there. Benny Morris is like many Israeli leftists, abandoning illusions about the Muslim Arabs. Goldberg describes: "He is a onetime debunker of Zionist mythology, the father of Israel's 'new historians,' who have dismantled the romantic narrative of Israel's founding and replaced it with more complicated truths, such as that during Israel's War of Independence, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, essentially ordered the forcible 'transfer' of many thousands of Arabs from territory that would become Israel." (incidentally, it already was Israel.) They didn't debunk, they produced bunkum. Half the "new historians" were Communists; you know that Communists have no scruples in their anti-Zionism. They set out to overturn even before they found evidence. That is not how genuine historians proceed. Morris and others were exposed by genuine historians for taking statements out of context intentionally to mislead. They also ignored Arabic sources. Ben-Gurion's statements actually opposed ethnic cleansing. He ordered very few Arabs expelled — hostile ones in militarily sensitive areas, such as borders and the hilltops from which they had dominated the roads below and fired on Jewish-owned vehicles. In leaving the number of alleged expulsions vague, "many thousands," Goldberg fails to differentiate himself from Arab propagandists, who pretend that most of the Arab refugees were expelled. Actually, most fled. Goldberg asserts that Morris was found too radical to be allowed employment in an Israeli college. I think that a falsifier of history doesn't belong at the head of history classes. But contrary to the impression of censorship of Israeli leftist academicians, most Israeli university social studies departments are dominated by leftists without qualifying academic credentials. Patriotic Jews need not apply. Now comes Goldberg's disagreement with Morris. He asserts that Palestinian Arabs might be ready for compromise. This compromise might have been negotiated if Israel didn't evacuate from Gaza unilaterally, but as part of an agreement with the P.A., which by taking credit for the withdrawal, would have gained over Hamas. (But Abbas makes the same demands of Israel as Hamas.) I condemn the evacuation, especially from areas alongside Israel, as anti-Zionist, inhumane, and foolish. It was foolish, among other reasons, for: (1) Leaving it in Arab hands to become a terrorist base; and (2) Not getting something in return. To hope it would have turned the Palestinian Arabs into moderates fails to understand what jihad is. It is holy war, not a negotiable territorial dispute. Note that as usual, the NY Times does not identify reasonable Palestinian Arabs. That is because they have no influence, having to keep quiet or be killed. Lacking influence, they have nothing to offer. Morris reaches "inflammatory conclusions," such as that Ben-Gurion should have expelled all the Arabs, to stabilize Israel. If people were realistic instead of ideological in a counter-productive way, such notions would not seem inflammatory. There wouldn't be an Arab fifth column in Israel. In evidence of the two ethnic groups' incompatibilities, Morris cites the much higher Arab crime rate. Goldberg suggests the cause is higher Arab poverty. Does Goldberg not know that the Ultra-Orthodox have just as much poverty, but almost no crime? Muslim Arab culture encourages violence and disregard for laws in a state not run by Muslims. The Arabs have successfully used the threat of riots to intimidate law enforcement, thereby encouraging further illegality. What does Goldberg call the Muslim Arab jihad to expel or exterminate the Jews? "National liberation movement!" Why not, "national murder movement?" But why "national," when the conflict is religious? "But there are many Palestinians on the W. Bank and even in Gaza, who reject the Hamas way and seek dignity and quiet within the framework of an independent state that coexists with Israel." (5/12, Book Review, p.12.) Hasn't Goldberg read the polls? The Arabs tell pollsters they want jihad. Most don't accept Israel. The rest can't make or keep an agreement with Israel, so why confuse the issue by citing them? As for Fatah, it has the same goals and terrorist means as Hamas. The Times pretends Fatah is decent. If not that pretense, the Times could not find anybody in charge for Israel to negotiate with. More on how neurotically biased and undemocratic are Israeli social science intellectuals: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d15-Academic-indoctrination-in-Israel Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL TO OBAMA: "NO YOU CAN'T!"
Posted by Sultan Knish, June 3, 2009. |
|
North Korea is launching missiles, Iran is building nukes, Saudi Arabia is sponsoring hate that translates into worldwide terrorism, Sudan is still massacring and raping, China is busy ethnic cleansing Tibet into a Chinese province... but the Obama Administration is furious, yes "furious" at only one country, Israel. What did Israel do? Well it's building a hotel in Jerusalem. Washington is furious over the Interior Ministry's anticipated approval of a plan to build a new hotel in East Jerusalem, just 100 meters from the Old City's walls. In conversations with Israeli officials, senior American officials have made it clear that they want Israel to freeze all plans for expanding the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem, and especially in the Holy Basin — the area adjacent to the Old City. What right does Israel have building a hotel in its own capital anyway? So far we've had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demand an end to Jewish babies being born, as if she were Pharaoh dressed up in a power suit. The administration has demanded an absolute freeze on settlements, with Jerusalem to be viewed as a "settlement" too, in exchange for Abbas and Hamas, maybe sorta stepping up their security cooperation. The double standard here isn't exactly hard to find. The Muslim world can build nukes (Iran), commit genocide (Sudan), occupy anyplace they want including the territory of a NATO ally (Turkey), and Obama will come hat in hand to them, bearing apologies and huge aid packages. Israel however had better not even think of building a hotel in its capital city. Or having babies. Or the Obama Administration will be furious and leak supposed plans to "punish" Israel for having the temerity to keep on living, building and growing. In only six months, the Obama Administration has already become the most Anti-Israel administration since the reign of "Apartheid" Jimmy Carter. In an NPR interview Obama described his administration's Anti-Israel trajectory as "Being Honest", which apparently makes Israel-Bashing, the New Honesty. Obama expects Netanyahu to rush forward and begin the ethnic cleansing of 475,000 Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all to create a Palestinian state out of the Fatah and Hamas terrorist gangs. Now why exactly wouldn't Israel want to do that? Especially when Hamas and Fatah's main goals remain the destruction of Israel, and that most of their budgets go to training terrorists and trying to kill Israelis with bombs, shelling and rocket attacks. Sure let's create a Palestinian state out of two mini-states that have no economy of their own, are entirely funded by foreign money, and over 17 years have shown no sign that they can A.) Run their own affairs B.) Stop the terrorism. While the proposed Palestinian State has no economy, no plans for the future that don't involve blowing up Israel, and already plays host to a branch of Al Queda... it does have its own anthem. With lines like "With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my revenge", or "Palestine is my revenge and the land of endurance", the theme here is none too subtle. Revenge. Death. Killing. Not peace. "Palestine" is nothing more than an instrument for destroying Israel. It's what the PLO was created for. It's what Iran keeps funding Hamas for. The mythical Palestinian nationalism has as much to do with it, as Afghani nationalism has to do with the Taliban. They are both projections of a much larger Islamist agenda. And Netanyahu agreeing to a Palestinian state based out of Israel's own capital, would be as lunatic as an American President agreeing to a Taliban state in Mexico, and parts of Texas, Arizona and Washington D.C. Nevertheless the Obama Administration which has already stated that it has no intention of honoring the Bush Administration's guarantees to Israel, expects Israel to rush off and create a terrorist state so Obama's Cairo speech will win a better Muslim reception. That too is part of the pattern. Every one of Obama's attempts to appease Muslims have been stupid, misguided and dangerous. And usually have come at someone else's expense. Obama muscled Turkey into a leading role in NATO over European objections, despite Turkey's slide into Islamic radicalism. Obama risked the lives of US soldiers with a proposed release of detainee photos that was only halted when Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki forcefully pointed out to him that the release would stir up terrible violence and sabotage Obama's own plans for a timely pullout. 
Now Obama is going three for nothing, trying to muscle Israel into putting its survival on the line so he can get some applause when he does his Islamic Apology Tour. And to his furious consternation, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel told him, "No". No, isn't a word that egotists like Obama are used to hearing. But Obama didn't win any elections in Israel, and his administration can't come to terms with the man who did. That of course is diplomacy, which Barry Hussein isn't very good at. The Obama Administration has two diplomatic modes, the naif and the thug. Russia, the Muslim world and America's enemies are getting the naif who's willing to give away the whole store for a kind word and a handshake. America's allies are getting the cheap trashy thug who brings the Queen of England an iPod with his own speeches on it, tells the head of the Greek Orthodox Church that he had better come to terms with Islam, shakes down an apology for his country's freedom of speech from the Danish Prime Minister and berates the Prime Minister of Israel for not agreeing to destroy his country, so Obama can get another round of applause in Cairo. But while Obama is busy picking his fight with Israel, Israelis from the Prime Minister, down to ordinary citizens are telling Obama, "No you can't." Israelis understand that the issue really isn't about settlements, as Hugh Fitzgerald puts it, Opposition to what are so tendentiously called "the settlements" is not about the "settlements" at all. It is about whether Israel is going to be allowed to decide for itself the minimum conditions of its own survival, or whether others — apparently to include an Administration so deeply unlearned in the history of the area, and in the claims, and rights, of the Jews to build these "settlements" (simply Jewish villages and towns) on land that was always intended for Jewish settlement by the League of Nations in its Mandate for Palestine. After 17 years of terror, Israelis went to the polls and voted for security. They did not vote for a two state solution. They did not vote to be Obama's pinata, or to be thrown under the bus whenever Obama tries to play up to the Muslim world. Brick by brick, Obama has built up an administration that is hostile to Israel. He is sabotaging Israel at a military and political level. By voting for security, Israelis chose their own security, over Obama's foreign policy ambitions in the Muslim world. Now Obama is punishing them for it. Fueled by a longstanding bias toward Israel, with a worldview fed to him by a racist church where Israel was accused of creating genetic bombs and genocide, the last thing Obama cares about is Israel's survival. And in response, Israel has told Obama, "No you can't."
This is archived at
|
|
HITLER AS MANAGEMENT GURU IN INDIA SPARKS ROW
Posted by Michael Travis, June 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by George Joseph and appeared on
|
|
Spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar joined the Jews to oppose the widespread marketing in India of Adolf Hitler's [ Images ] autobiography, Mein Kampf. An article in London's Daily Telegraph last month reported that sales of Mein Kampf 'are soaring in India where business students regard the genocidal dictator (Hitler) as a management guru' and consider the book to be a 'management guide.' "Anyone seeking to teach tomorrow's business leaders of India should reject globalisation of hate and racism, not facilitating it," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a leading Jewish NGO at the United Nations. "Using Mein Kampf as a self-improvement and strategy guide for India's young is an outrage that dishonours six million Jews murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust and millions of other victims of Adolf Hitler's murderous Third Reich. Honouring and promoting Hitler's white racist ideology mocks the values of the world's largest democracy, and flies in the face of India's noble history of protecting minority peoples, Jews among them" he added. "India has always been a haven to people of all religious identities and has had a legacy of protecting them. We should be happy to promote lessons from the lives of people who have helped unite mankind. There are many available books that would serve as inspirational management guides for India's youth," Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said. "We request that publishing companies, bookstores and educators across India immediately cease marketing Mein Kampf as a management guide. This book ought only to be studied in the context of the tragedy of the Holocaust," Cooper and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar concluded. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organisations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. The Wiesenthal Centre and the Art Of Living Foundation have collaborated on a multi-faith anti-terrorism conference in Bali, Indonesia and in the presentation of an exhibition on the Nazi Holocaust, Courage To Remember at the Gandhi Cultural Centre in New Delhi and in Bangalore. An article in Jewish Chronicle published from London said that 'sales of Mein Kampf topped 10,000 in New Delhi alone in the past six months and are expected to rise further. A spokesman for Embassy Books in Mumbai, who publish Mein Kampf, said people are looking at it from a business angle, especially as Hitler had such a strong influence on the world.' 'Students are told to use Mein Kampf and draw parallels with India to learn business strategies. Even for non-students Hitler's books are popular texts and are clearly displayed in most book stores around India.' 'A business student living in Mumbai said that many people in India see Hitler as a good role model for directing a company and cite him as an inspiration in people management,' the article said. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com |
|
PLEASE FIGURE OUT HOW TO FOCUS OBAMA ON NORTH KOREA, SOMALIA,
ANYWHERE BUT ISRAEL
Posted by Ruvain Boruch, June 2, 2009. |
|
I continue to see message after message regarding President Obama & the way he has decided that he wants his Administration to handle the United States and its relationship with Israel... Venting & sharing information may be a good way to let out our pent up anger & frustrations, but it accomplishes little in the way of bringing about a change of philosophy within the President's Administration. And lets put our cards on the table... According to almost all public opinion polls, the American public gives him high marks for the way he's running the Country.... I don't disagree, but with one glaring difference... He is 150% wrong on Israel, and he is setting the stage for problems which the American Jewish Community may not be able to reverse... I have read commentary which openly warns that he might cause a chain of events to take place, where the final result is that Israel is so weakened, that it will be left vulnerable and its very survival may be at stake... Yes, that assessment may sound dire.. but it should not be dismissed out of hand. I am asking the subscribers here to do the following: reach out to Senators & Congress people you may know. And ask them to present a united front to the White House... and ask the President to change his direction... President Obama is no different then any other President of the United States.... Whether we like it or not, there is a certain amount of wheeling & dealing that takes place in Washington DC.... If a collation of Senators & Congresspeople brainstorm, I'm sure they can come up with an issue which they will compromise on.. if it will mean the President Obama leaves Israel alone & concentrates on other areas of the World where the situation is just as tense, if not worse... Ex: The Border between Afghanistan & Pakistan
Ruvain Boruch
Contact Ruvain Boruch by email at ruvainboruch@aol.com |
|
URGENT ACTION ALERT TO OBAMA: THE REAL OBSTACLES TO PEACE
Posted by UCI, June 2, 2009. |
|
US President Obama will reach out to the Muslim world in a landmark speech scheduled to be delivered in Egypt on June 4th, 2009. You can tell him what we consider to be the "Real Obstacles to Peace" as opposed to the advertised refrain of mainstream world press which blames the so-called "Settlements" and "Occupation" by Israel.
We hope you are in full agreement with this. If not, you may change the wording as you wish. Simply add your own comments. Unchanged, your letter will be sent as follows and will go to President Barack Obama with copies to the President`s Cabinet. We will also be sending a summary of your cumulative results to Prime Minister Netanyahu and other key leaders in the US Senate and Israeli Knesset.
Click here to complete your letter and send it to President Obama immediately. |
|
Dear President Obama, In preparation for your speech to the Arab world on Thursday, June 4th, I urgently request that you incorporate the following basic tenants for two peoples, Jews and Palestinian Arabs, to live side by side in a sustainable peace. There can be no progress toward peace unless we first understand the underlying motivation for the current impasse. Looking for a solution is only lip service if facts on the ground are not conducive to amiable relations. There can be no peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict unless... 1 ...President Ahmadinejad no longer calls for the annihilation of neighboring Israel, threatening to "wipe it off the map," and stops acquiring nuclear capacity to do so. The latest reports indicate that Iran will be capable of delivering a nuclear device before the end of 2009. 2 ...The Palestinian Authority stops using international money for arms, terrorist training and deadly attacks while neglecting the living conditions and social infrastructure of its people. 3 ...The United Nations` UNRWA resettles the refugees instead of keeping them impoverished in camps which serve as breeding grounds for terrorism. 4 ...The Palestinians and the Arab League actually change their textbooks which show maps without reference to Israel and are filled with hate-mongering that inspires genocide. For as long as young children are trained to hate the other society — enough to surrender their lives as human bombs, there can be no peaceful solution! 5 ...The Palestinians and the Arab League change their legal documents such as the PLO (Fatah) and Hamas Charters that call for the extermination of Israel. 6 ...The Palestinians and the Arab League change their media to embrace a peaceful perspective and cease hateful distortions depicting their neighbor as "the enemy." 7 ...The Palestinians and the Arab League recall all maps, flags and uniform patches displaying a State of Palestine erasing the State of Israel. 8 ...The Palestinians and the Arab League officially recognize Israel as a sovereign Jewish democratic State — in both English and in Arabic. There can be no peace when the Palestinians and the Arab League demonize their partner in peace. These most basic changes must actually be implemented before we hear more platitudes blaming Israel. The Arab League must work with the Palestinians to remove these true obstacles. Mr. President, I submit that these 8 points are the "real obstacles to peace." Respectfully, Click here to complete your letter and send it to President Obama immediately. UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" |
|
WALKING THE TALK BACK TO ARABIA
Posted by LEL, June 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The
Washington Times. It is archived at
|
|
Barack Obama is off to see the Arab world, taking carefully polished apologies and regrets and an assortment of grovels, but probably all unavailing. The Muslims want deeds, not words. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no Arab but he suggests that if Americans convert to Islam further apologies might not be necessary. Mr. Obama has given no hint that he wants to go that far. The president is mixing remembrances of wars old and new on this trip, first apologizing in Cairo to anyone who thinks America is at war with Islam, and then going on to Buchenwald to pay homage to the memory of those who died at the hands of the Nazis and finally to Omaha Beach to honor the boys of the summer of '44. In homage to the spirit of the moment he shouldn't say anything in Cairo about his later stops, since our Muslim friends were ambivalent at best in that earlier war. The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent most of the war years taking the waters in Berlin, trying to persuade der fuehrer to extend the final solution to the Middle East. Mr. Obama is expected to reprise his earlier regrets and amends, but with new ruffles and flourishes on his famous teleprompter. He gave the first television interview of his presidency to Al Arabiya, sounding properly chastened by regrets for whatever America had done to offend Muslims. He sent a special greeting to Iranians on their new year, and the last time he went abroad he repeated the obvious, telling the Turkish National Assembly that America never had been at war with Islam and never would be. Mr. Obama's remarks echoed the assurance by George W. Bush, given while rescuers were still pulling bodies out of the smoking rubble of the World Trade Center, that Islam is "a religion of peace." It's scary to imagine what else Mr. Obama might say to make Muslims feel good. "He will face a nation hardened in its negative view of the United States and its role in the region, and unconvinced that this or any other American president can or will change policy," says James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. He cites a poll by his brother, John Zogby, that 75 percent of the Egyptians think Mr. Obama isn't a very good president. But why would they? The Egyptians have been feeding for years on propaganda that children here wouldn't swallow. The Egyptians can't get enough of grim fairy tales. The more the Cairo media peddles the tales, the more voracious the appetite. A decade ago Cairenes rioted over a rumor that Christians were spray-painting crosses in invisible ink on the dresses of young women. Egyptians were told that if you hold a bottle of Coca-Cola to a mirror the iconic Coke script would reveal the threat, printed backwards, "No Muhammad, No Mecca." The grand mufti of Egypt finally issued an official opinion that the Coca-Cola icon was designed in Atlanta "in the state of Georgia" more than a century earlier in English, not Arabic. He could have added that soda pop originated in a sweeter time when few Americans had even heard of either Muhammad or Mecca. Owners of Cairo taxicabs had to begin refitting their cabs when a rumor erupted that seat belts manufactured in Israel contained an embedded chemical to render Arab men sterile. James F.X. O'Gara, writing in the Weekly Standard, notes that not even the exploding Egyptian birth rate could calm the hysteria. Egypt has so far not counted its first case of swine flu — that's the swine flu we're not supposed to call swine flu — but the government nevertheless ordered the slaughter of 350,000 pigs. (Thus neither barbecue nor burgoo for the visiting president.) The president's speech at Cairo University will be dissected throughout the Islamic world, carefully measured to see whether he "walks the walk and not just the talk," in the words of Marina Mahathir, a "community organizer" in Malaysia, where her father was once the prime minister. The president could actually do several things to make the Muslims like us. In addition to converting to Islam, the Americans could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, ease sanctions on Iran, abandon Israel, and prevent the imposition of Western values — e.g., democracy, freedom of speech and worship — and knock off embarrassing Western demands that Muslims quit beating up women. A tall order, but not so tall for a messiah. Or he could tell the Islamic world that respect, like friendship, is earned, not conferred, and civilizing man's base instincts is hard work. But even cave men can do it.
Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com
|
|
PAKISTANI MADRASAS ARE THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS
Posted by Olivier Guitta, June 2, 2009. |
|
WASHINGTON — The situation on the ground in Pakistan is worsening. While it is true that the short-term is very bleak, the long-term is not looking much better. The sheer existence of numerous extremist madrasas (Koranic schools) in Pakistan, manufacturing scores of suicide bombers and fighters, is a grave concern. Interestingly after 9/11, the West had pressured the Pakistani regime to close down the madrasas and former President Pervez Musharraf had promised to do so. But as of today, madrasas are thriving more than ever. With the economic crisis, more and more children are enrolled in madrasas? an estimated 50,000 are operating today — because they are free of charge. Numerous youngsters are recruited to go fight the Jihad in Afghanistan in these schools. For instance in Quetta, local youth are still very much drawn by the networks of jihadists. A 12-year-old boy recently told a French journalist how his cousin was killed in Afghanistan under U.S. bombs. He was sent there by a neighborhood mullah who manages a madrasa. This mullah gives money to youngsters to go and fight. I would also like to wage Jihad against the Americans, to avenge my cousin and also because it is our religious duty. In the whole region, mullahs are urging young men to take up arms. A student at the University of Quetta cited by the French daily Libération said, 'They say we have to liberate Afghanistan from the occupation of the infidels, who want to exterminate all Muslims in the world. About ten boys from my village went over there to fight. They were made believe that they would go to heaven if they were killed in combat.? The youngest students in these Koranic schools are ideal candidates to be suicide bombers because they can be easily manipulated — as shown by the example of the young 15-year-old Mohammed, currently jailed in Khost (Afghanistan) for having tried to blow himself up next to the governor of Khost. Mohammed attended public school until a mullah came to his school to find new recruits and offered the kids to come and study in his madrasa. But after a quick stay at the madrasa, Mohammed was sent to a suicide training camp where he spent three months. Over there, about 15 young boys were attending the suicide bombers classes where they learn how to wear and handle an explosive belt and how to pick the right moment to detonate it. The director of the center promised the young boys a place in heaven. He told them time and time again that the people they were going to kill were not Muslims but infidels. He specifically told Mohammed that the governor of Khost must be killed because he was an evil man who worked with foreigners. And that he was not a good Muslim, and lived like an American. The madrasas are not only educating young Pakistanis but have also become a magnet for young Muslims from Europe. Recently, French Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie revealed that French services have indeed established that Frenchmen are traveling nowadays to the Pakistani-Afghan border area to receive education and training. Alliot-Marie also confirmed that young French people are then sent to theological education in madrasas in Pakistan among others. For many Western governments, the main worry is the return of these hardcore experienced terrorists in their home country where they could perpetrate terror attacks. Indeed, the dark example of the 7/7 bombings in London proves the danger of the Pakistani connection. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband recently provided a very terrifying statistic: 70 percent of the terrorist plots being investigated in Britain can be traced back to Pakistan. The extent and the sheer number of this pool of jihadist recruits is probably the most worrisome element for the future. And Pakistan is the key to close this door. Olivier Guitta is an Adjunct Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant. You can read his latest work at www.thecroissant.com/about.html |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THIS IS OUR FIGHT!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 2, 2009. |
|
As President Barack Obama makes demands of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as he challenges him and plans to weaken him, he is at the same time challenging all Israeli citizens. And so, ultimately, it is not just Netanyahu — Bibi — who must stand strong against Obama, but all of us, who must rise to this challenge and stand with Bibi. ~~~~~~~~~~ It was Obama's fierce desire to go to Cairo on Thursday and say that he is moving along with "peace," having secured a commitment to a "two state solution" from the Israeli prime minister. But the Israeli prime minister wouldn't say those words. Obama then made it absolutely clear that he considered a total freeze on settlements in Judea and Samaria — including for natural growth — to be essential for progress in achieving peace. But then Bibi said it was not a reasonable demand and that he wouldn't do this — for we have a right to provide for natural growth in our communities. What Bibi did was for the nation, and for each of us who cares about our nation. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama must be considerably enraged about these stumbling blocks to his plans. And he doesn't take no lightly — not from presumptive allies anyway, from Iran it's OK. So what do we read? That Obama's policy has shifted from that of his predecessors, and now the onus for making concessions toward peace is on Israel and not the PA. This is from Jackson Diehl (no great lover of Israel) in the Washington Post. In fact, Abbas told Diehl that he expects it to take about two years for Obama to weaken Netanyahu's government, perhaps enough to bring it down. Abbas didn't make this up; it is exceedingly likely that he picked up some message, some hint, from Obama. Here is the link to the article again, in case you hadn't seen it:
~~~~~~~~~~ Put the onus on us? Weaken our democratically elected government? Do we sit still for this? Or do we stand on our feet and allow ourselves to be counted? ~~~~~~~~~~ And we're not done. There's the NY Times piece that cites the fact that the Obama administration is thinking of backing us less in the Security Council because we haven't agreed to freeze settlements. There's even a quote that indicates that an American official thinks the US gov't can go over Bibi's head, and appeal to the Israeli people. The people, they reason, don't want tension between Israel and the US, and so they'll weaken Bibi because of his stance. "'There are things that could get the attention of the Israeli public,' a senior administration official said, touching on the widespread belief within the administration that any Israeli prime minister risks political peril if the Israeli electorate views him as endangering the country's relationship with the United States." The fact that this has since been played down does not change the reality of what was said.
Can we let such a ploy stand, in any terms? Do we allow ourselves to be used against our own prime minister? Or are we prepared to move beyond our national adolescence and stand up for ourselves? ~~~~~~~~~~ Please! I want to strongly urge that each Israeli reading this send a message to Bibi. He's under enormous pressure and deserves to know that we're with him, appreciate him, and will not permit ourselves to be used by the Americans to weaken his government. If there are prices to pay, we will pay them with our heads up, standing together for our nation. He, and all of us, are doing what must be done to keep our nation whole and strong.
I then ask, please, that this be broadly circulated to other Israelis who will also let Bibi know they are behind him. If you're American, by all means, send a message of encouragement to Bibi and let him know the American president does not speak for you. ~~~~~~~~~~ Messages should also be sent to Obama. Israelis need to tell him that we're with our prime minister. That we deeply resent "demands," as we are a sovereign nation. And that we are infuriated by attempts to manipulate our nation. It won't work. Americans, of course, let your president know what you think of his policies. And, please, send this on to others who will send similar messages.
~~~~~~~~~~ There are those of you reading this who will ask about the outposts that Bibi says will be taken down. This is my answer: No, I'm not pleased about the prospect of their being taken down, but I am struggling with the big picture, and concerned about how best to save our country. Making Bibi weaker now would be counterproductive to our goals. It would, in fact, serve Obama's goals. I think about the prospect of Livni coming in, should — G-d forbid — this gov't be brought down, and I shudder. That would finish us, as she would jump to please Obama, and would brag that she has good relations with the Americans. ~~~~~~~~~~ As I write, nothing additional has been taken down. We don't know yet how this will play out. In spite of the hesitation, the questions, there remains an intuitive sense that there may be some sort of trade, some way in which Bibi will use this issue for larger purposes. We simply don't know. What I do know, with certainty, is that there is more going on than meets the eye. I also know that Bibi has the support of nationalist members of the government right now. I will entertain no further private discussion about how turning a blind eye to dismantling of some outposts means an abandonment of Zionist principles. The issues right now are bigger than those outposts. If the time comes to make noise about the outposts, we will know it. For now, I appeal for a "wait and see" approach because we're in the vortex of a swiftly changing situation. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to recommend this very excellent analysis regarding the importance of settlements. (With thanks to Doris M.) Many of you will find this enlightening and useful.
~~~~~~~~~~ And see this article as well, which makes clear that when Washington talks about a "building freeze in the settlements," it also means a total building freeze in eastern Jerusalem, part of the unified Jerusalem that is governed under Israeli sovereignty. This does not sit well with a large majority of Israelis.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
PATRIOT HUMOR EXPLAINS DERIVATIVE MARKETS SO EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND
Posted by Cpocerl, June 2, 2009. |
|
The Patriot Post website is at |
|
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans). Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit. By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral. At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses. One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi. Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs. Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community. The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers. Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from the Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers. Now, do you understand? Contact C Pocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
THE REAL GENUFLECTION TO THE SAUDIS
Posted by CPocerl, June 2, 2009. |
|
This is by Dick Morris & Eileen Mcgann and it was published today on www.DickMorris.com. |
|
When President Obama first met the Saudi royals, he seemed to bow at the waist. Either that or he doubled over in pain. Did he bow? Or didn't he bow? That was the topic du jour at the press briefing that day. But now we have the answer: Obama is, indeed, really bowing to the Saudis as he visits the Middle East this week. First, he is bypassing Israel. Visiting the Middle East and not going to Israel would be like touring North America and omitted a stop in the United States. It only makes sense if you interpret it as a deliberate slap in the f ace of Jerusalem and a statement to the Arab world that America's pro-Israeli policy is changing. But as he goes to Saudi Arabia, the United States State Department, head by Mrs. Hillary Clinton, has announced that it has accepted the ground rules for media coverage of the Obama visit to the royal family and its domain. Reporters will only be allowed to cover the actual meetings between the Saudis and Obama and will not be permitted to visit the rest of the country or report on anything else they see during the trip. Those reporters who violate these terms are subject to arrest and imprisonment by the Saudi government!!! Hillary and Obama accepted these terms. Since when does the U.S. government act as the assistant to the Saudi monarchy in charge of controlling the media? And since when would an American president permit this shackling of the media and still proceed with the diplomatic visit without a murmur of protest? Since when? Since Obama became president determined to appease Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and all of the extremists while slighting Israel and turning his back on democracy. Obama is outraged at those horrible Israeli settlements. They have to go! They are the major threat to Mid-East peace! Not the Iranian development of nuclear weapons or its subsidization of Hamas and Hezbollah or the Saudi royal subsidies for these terror organizations or welfare payments to the families of suicide bombers. No, it's those damn settlements. It isn't enough if Israel promises not to build new ones. It can't be allowed to build new homes for family members who already live there! If junior gets married and has a family, he'd better move out back to Israel. He can't be allowed to build his own home in the settlements. The threat to world peace is just too grave to permit it. The Obama Mideast policy is turning our priorities on their head. It is painful to watch and it is likely to bet worse until Americans get a fundamental point: Obama is determined to end sixty years of support for Israel and this trip to the Middle East is the start of it.
Contact C Pocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com
|
|
GOVERNMENT ALLOWING ILLEGAL ARAB SETTLEMENTS IN JORDAN VALLEY
Posted by Shaul Ceder, June 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared May 27, 2009 in Arutz-7 (www.israelnationalnews.com). |
|
The chairman of the Jordan Valley Regional Council has charged the government with intentionally allowing Arabs from Shechem and Hevron to build illegal homes in the area. "The Civil Lands Administration is setting a precedent, and it is not coincidental that at the same time, the government is destroying [Jewish] outposts," said council chairman David Elkhyani. Several hours after he accused authorities of permitting the Palestinian Authority to build a false image of Arab growth in the Jordan Valley, Israel Police tore down two new outposts near Kiryat Arba-Hevron. The sites are not included in the list of more than two dozen communities that Defense Minister Ehud Barak said will be destroyed in the coming weeks. Backed by soldiers and bulldozers, police raided two sites at 3 a.m. and torn down two temporary buildings that housed six youth at Mitzpeh Avichai. They also wrecked a tent at the site of the destroyed home of Kiryat Arba-Hevron activist Noam Federman. No incidents were reported, but nationalist activists said they would rebuild Mitzpeh Avichai within several hours. They noted that residents at the demolished Shvut Ami outposts rebuilt temporary structures on Tuesday one day after police destroyed buildings and confiscated holy religious items, beds and blankets. "We will not surrender to policies of concessions," activists told the Hebrew-language Arutz Sheva. Government May Legalize Arab Outposts Jordan Valley Regional Council chairman Elkhyani said the Arabs moving into the area have criminal backgrounds and are being encouraged by the PA to build alongside Highway 90, which connects the Dead Sea area with Beit Shean and the Kinneret. He revealed that Civil Lands Administration officials recently visited the illegal buildings and plan to present plans to authorize them. Elkhyani added that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has refused to meet with him to discuss the issue but that several Likud Knesset Members support his opposition.. PA moves to show a population growth in the area are aimed at ensuring that the Jordan Valley remains in a new PA state that it intends to establish on all of land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza — including several modern neighborhoods in the capital and the Old City of Jerusalem. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
OU PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, NATHEN DIEMENT, BACKS PALESTINIAN STATE!
Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Aaron Kinsberg. |
|
Shocking report re Nathan Diament, Director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Arutz-7 reported the following on 6/1/9: "The OU's Nathan J. Diament wrote last week on the need for— and the opportunity to— unite much of American Jewry on a common stance regarding Israel and the peace process. In an op-ed piece for the June 5 issue of the Jewish Daily Forward, the OU's director of public policy writes, "Many on the Jewish right... do not oppose — in principle — the creation of a Palestinian state in portions of Judea and Samaria." Diement did not tell the truth. Re the polls re the creation of a palestinian state, the study was flawed.... The original Rafi Smith Institute poll which headlined, "58% of the Jewish Public in Israel Supports 2-State Solution." was explained in the story that 58% actually only "agreed that the principle of 'two states for two peoples' is the basis of any peace agreement with the Palestinians." Brain Base Institute telephone survey asked this question: "In light of the experience with Disengagement, the Second Lebanon War and the war against Hamas in Gaza, do you support or oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?" 51% Oppose Palestinian State, 32% Support... It should be noted that the Smith poll showing 58% Jewish support for a PA state asked only some 500 people, while the latter poll surveyed nearly four times that many — 1,894 Israelis." I have no doubt that the highly salaried Director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Nathen Diment, has forgotten that he is but a hired employee and was never elected by either the Orthodox population nor selected by the synagogues affiliated with the OU. The question now is how will shuls respond. Shul members must ask their shuls to contact the OU for an explanation and demand the OU repudiate Diement's dangerous comments even to the point of the removal of this individual. If the OU fails to respond in a positive manner, shuls must reconsider their affiliation to the OU. The OU needs shul affiliation more than shuls need the OU. By echoing Pres. Obama's & Sectrary Clinton's one sided demands, Nathen Diement is undermining Israel's ability to defend itself. The more Obama's foreign policy falters, the more the US administration will pressure Israel to establish a palestinian state whose goal is the destruction of Israel. Kol Tuv,
Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
ISLAM: THE WAR THAT WON'T GO AWAY
Posted by Dr. Paul L. Williams, June 2, 2009. |
|
We are engaged in a war. It is a very old war — a war that began when the Prophet Muhammad delivered these final instructions to his followers.: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and that the Muslims are brethren; fighting between them should be avoided, and the bloodshed in pagan times should not be avenged; Muslims should fight all other men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' By 635, three years after the Prophet's death, the Muslim horde had invaded the Byzantine Empire and conquered Damascus, the city where St. Paul was headed when he received a blinding vision of the Resurrected Christ. Antioch, the ancient Greek city where the followers of Christ were first called Christians, fell next. In 636, the Muslims conquered the Christian city of Jerusalem. The caliph Umar stood in triumph over the site of Solomon's Temple, where the Prophet Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, once ascended into Paradise. By 642, the Muslims had swept through the Fertile Crescent, including Syria and Persia (modern day Iraq), slaughtered the Egyptian armies, and spread throughout North Africa. Over 250 Christian churches were destroyed in Egypt. The blood-lust of the Muslims remained unabated even when they encountered little or no resistance. The conquered Christians and Jews became reduced to the status of dhimmitude. As dhimmis, Christians and Jews were required the pay the obligatory jizyah— suppression tax— which was often so exacting that many converted to Islam rather than pay it. Dhimmis also were compelled to submit to the following disabilities: Dhimmis are not to build any new places of worship. By 732, the Islamic horde had conquered Crete, Cyprus and Rhodes; pushed on to overrun Spain; and crossed the Pyrenees into France, where Charles Martel, "the Hammer of the Franks," managed to force them into retreat at the Battle of Tours. Regarding this battle, Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, wrote at the end of the 18th Century: A victorious line of march had been prolonged by the Muslim invaders above a thousand miles from the Rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire: the repetition of equal space would have carried the Muslims to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or the Euphrates and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qu'ran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammad. The Muslims continued to dominate the Iberian Peninsula for the next seven hundred and fifty years. Held in check by the West, the Muslim army continued to sweep east, conquering Syria, northwest India, the Sindh and Punjab regions of modern Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkistan, Java, Borneo, and eventually the Philippines. Because the Muslims considered Hindus pagans who were not entitled to the rights of the dhimmis, they treated them with a brutality that remains unmatched in the annals of human history. The historian Sita Ram Goel records that the Muslim invaders of India paid no respect to the codes of warfare that had been established for centuries: Islamic invaders came with a different code— the tradition of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civilian population after a decisive victory had been won the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murder of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead was a measure of the success of the military mission. And they did all this as mujahids and ghazis in the service of Allah and the Last Prophet. The long Islamic march was stayed when the Seljuk Turks began to invade Muslim lands at the time of the millennium. The Turks eventually converted to Islam, transformed almost overnight from a barbarian horde to righteous Shiite warriors, and pressed forward through Asia Minor to Constantinople, the eastern capitol of the Holy Roman Empire and sacred center of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy. In 1092, Pope Urban II summoned the French nobles to a Church council in a field at Clermont in an effort to ward off the Islamic conquest of Asia Minor and Eastern Europe — the effort became known as the Crusades. The Crusades, which lasted for nearly four hundred years, came to an end on Tuesday, May 29, 1453 when the Ottoman Turks conquered the Byzantium capital of Constantinople. The Muslim soldiers slew everyone they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. When the slaughter and the pillaging was over, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II ordered an Islamic scholar to mount the high pulpit of Hagia Sophia, the great cathedral of Eastern Christianity, and declare that there was no God but Allah and that Muhammad was his prophet. The magnificent cathedral was transformed into a mosque; hundreds of other churches within Constantinople suffered the same fate. Thousands of Christians were murdered or suppressed to the status of dhimmis; 50,000 women and children were hauled off as slaves. Throughout the subsequent centuries, the Muslim expansion continued as the Ottoman hordes swept through much of the Ukraine. The Turks were at the gates of Vienna when they were stopped by the great Polish king John Sobieski and thirty thousand Polish hussars on a day that marked the high point of the Islamic expansion in Europe: September 11, 1684. It was a date that became embedded in the psyche of radical Islam — a day of infamy that could only be offset by a day of triumph. That day would come exactly 318 years later on September 11, 2001. What was the goal of this seemingly endless warfare? The answer can be found in the words of the Prophet, who commanded his followers "to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." The large scale jihads came to end after 1683, not because the people of Islam had rejected or reformed their doctrine of universal submission, but rather because the Muslim world had grown too weak and too poor to continue the struggle. Commenting on the history of Islam, Teddy Roosevelt wrote the following in 1916: Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves NOT to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight. Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Moslems who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Muslim and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Moslem aggressor. The situation within Islam underwent a dramatic change with the discovery of oil in the Arabian Peninsula and the infusion of billions of petro dollars into impoverished Muslim lands. Everywhere on planet earth, Muslims were on the march to establish a new world order under the dictates of shariah. Violence in the name of Allah erupted in such diverse places as Medea. Algeria; Karachi, Pakistan; Yala, Thailand; Bresje, Kosovo; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Beirut, Lebanon; Mombassa, Kenya; Kashmir, India; Casablanca, Morocco; Numan, Nigeria; Grozny, Chechnya; Antwerp, Belgium; Toulouse, France; Amsterdam, Netherlands; Makhachkala, Dagestan; Moscow, Russia; Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Cairo, Egypt; Montreal, Canada; Manila, the Philippines; Natore, Bangladesh; Limgheti, Mauritania; Baku, Azerbaijan; Nagele, Ethiopia; Ruesselsheim, Germany; Amman, Jordan; Jala-Abad, Kyrgyzstan; Malmo, Sweden; Gaza, Palestinian Authority; Inchkhe, Dagestan; Doha, Qatar; Shanghai, China; Karabulak, Ingushetia; and Dafur, Sudan. In addition to the events of 9/11, some of the more significant incidents of Islamic barbarity are as follows: March 2002, Israel Three bombs, independently planned but all timed to coincide with the Passover festival. One hits a Passover dinner at a hotel in Netanya, killing 20 people. Another in Tel Aviv kills 29 and a suicide bomber attacks an Arab-owned restaurant in Haifa and kills 14. October 12 2002, Bali, Indonesia Car bombs outside nightclubs popular with foreign tourists kill 202 people, 91 of them Australians. An Indonesian Islamist group with Al-Qaida links is blamed. October 23 2002, Moscow, Russia Chechen gunmen and women take over a theatre and hold everyone inside hostage. They later shoot dead several of the hostages. Russian troops use gas to subdue the hostage takers, and kill 50 of them. However, the gas also kills 179 of the hostages. May 12 2003, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Suicide bomber attacks on residential compounds inhabited by westerners kills 34 people. Al-Qaida blamed. May 16 2003, Casablanca, Morocco Five bombs targeted at Jewish and western people in the city kill 41, mostly Moroccans. Six Europeans also die. November 20 2003, Istanbul, Turkey Truck bomb attacks on the British Consulate and the HSBC bank kill over 60 people, including the British consul general in the city. March 11 2004, Madrid Explosions aboard four commuter trains arriving at Atocha station during the morning rush hour. Bombs were in backpacks, and detonated using a mobile phone, killing 191 people and injuring 1,800. Spanish government of Jose Maria Aznar at first suggests the Basque separatist group Eta is to blame, but later concedes the attacks were the work of Islamists. September 1 — 3 2004, Beslan, Russia Islamist gunmen take over 1,000 hostages, mostly children, at a school in North Ossetia. After a three-day siege many of the hostages are killed in an explosion in the school gym, after which Russian troops storm the building. The final death toll is over 330, many of them children. 800 more are injured. July 7, 2005, London, England Four suicide bombers struck in central London on Thursday 7 July, killing 52 people and injuring more than 770. The coordinated attacks hit the transport system as the morning rush hour drew to a close. Three bombs went off at or around 0850 BST on underground trains just outside Liverpool Street and Edgware Road stations, and on another traveling between King's Cross and Russell Square. The final explosion was around an hour later on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, not far from King's Cross. November 26, 2008, Mumbai, India A group of Islamic fanatics launch 10 coordinated attacks in India's financial capital, killing 173 people and injuring 308. In the wake of 9/11, scores of jihadi attacks against American civilians have been thwarted. The list includes plans to set off a radiological device in midtown Manhattan; to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge with blow-torches; to bomb the New York Stock Exchange; to detonate explosives near Madison Square Garden on the eve of the Republican National Convention; to launch attacks on hospitals, medical facilities, and food chains throughout the country; to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago; to kill U.S. troops at Fort Dix; and to incite the jet-fuel artery that runs through the JFK International Airport. Other attacks were brought to fruition. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo— better known as "the Beltway Snipers"— became two of most successful homegrown jihadis by launching15 sniper attacks, which killed ten people and critically wounded three others in the Washington, D.C. area. Their arrests did little to end the murders in the name of Allah as horrific incidents continued to mount, including the slaughter at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. The war on terror— a misnomer from the start— is being lost. Since 9/11, 13,270 Islamic terror attacks have been launched from China to Seattle, Washington, leaving 80,000 people dead and over 120,000 injured. Yet government officials, including Barack Obama, continue to speak of Islam as the religion of peace, Protestant ministers (including Robert Schuller and Rick Warren) insist that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and Roman Catholic pontiffs continue to kiss the Qu'ran. It's time for all good men and women to take a firm stand against Islam and the forces of evil. It's time to take part in the last crusade. This was in New Media Journal
|
|
TZOFIA'S DREAM — A LETTER TO JONATHAN POLLARD
Posted by Justice 4 Jonathan Pollard, June 2, 2009. |
|
J4JP believes that part of the miracle of Jonathan's survival, against all odds, has been the love, appreciation and prayers of an entire generation of youngsters like Tzofia (whose letter appears below) who were not even born when Jonathan was active on behalf of Israel. Tzofia's letter was originally written in Hebrew immediately after George W. Bush left office on 20 January 2009, disappointing everyone when he failed to act upon Jonathan Pollard's petition for clemency. (Bush did not turn the petition down; he left it unanswered, and it now rests on Obama's desk waiting for a response.) It took a long time for Tzofia to painstakingly translate her letter to English and when it was finally done, her only copy in English was mailed to Jonathan. The letter touched Jonathan's heart and he asked his wife Esther to contact Tzofia to thank her. Tzofia shared with Esther the original Hebrew letter.It has been rendered into English by J4JP and reproduced below with the permission of the author. (Last name omitted to protect her privacy.) The original Hebrew may be viewed at www.jonathanpollard.org |
|
To our dear brother Jonathan, My name is Tzofia and I live in the Holy City of Jerusalem. I am nearly 20 years old and am a student in Jerusalem. I am writing to you out of a deep desire to express my support and my appreciation. For such a long time I have been thinking of writing to you and doing nothing about it, but now I am overwhelmed by emotion and must write. Jonathan, I am writing to you in great pain, with tears of frustration and disappointment, with many unanswered questions, and with a heartfelt prayer to Heaven. I was so hoping to see you here in the Holy Land this week, getting off of the airplane, your proud and smiling face, surrounded by throngs of people, all of the House of Israel coming out to greet our national hero— the most blessed and beloved man. I had promised myself the previous week that if HaSHem would return you to the Land of Israel, I too would stand before you and travel to Ben Gurion Airport to receive you and be a part of this exciting event. So many times I imagined just how it would be. Last week, all week, I prayed so hard. I prayed to HaSHem to watch over you. I pleaded with HaSHem to reveal His might and power to the world, that there should be a great sanctification of Heaven, that all your tormentors should see that HaSHem does not abandon a single one of His children, and certainly not a son such as you, one who sacrificed himself to save Am Yisrael — G-d's own children. I pleaded with HaSHem and I "reminded" Him of all of the kindnesses and the goodness that you have done for Am Yisrael, when you strove to save us — and me too (that is indeed how I feel) from a friendship which in fact posed a great threat, and from all those who rise up to destroy us. You, dear Jonathan, were actually an emissary dispensed by HaSHem, sent in order to watch over Am Yisrael so that no evil befall us. I think about it all the time. "Dearest Father, what have done to our brother, Jonathan? Why must the Tzaddikim suffer so for the continued existence of Am Yisrael?!" Of course, no answers are forthcoming to these questions. But, we know, G-d has the solutions. So many times during the course of this the past week, when I called the White House and left the message for Bush: "President Bush, please free Jonathan Pollard now!", I would fantasize about a formal ceremony where the names of the prisoners and captives who were to be set free would be announced. And in my mind's eye I always heard the announcer declaring, "Jonathan Pollard— FREE!" And in my dream, the enormous crowd at the ceremony all rise to their feet and greet the announcement cheering loudly and clapping wildly! Then we see you, our brother, Jonathan. Like a movie that finally has a happy ending, coming out from behind the stage, heralded by trumpet blasts and escorted by an honor guard, as you head straight to the airplane which will bring you home to Israel— the love of your life and fulfillment of all your dreams. I am sure you too have had dreams like this, lots of times. Alas, you always you wake up to reality, a cold and dark jail cell... But, Jonathan, always remember, your place of honor in the world to come is already assured, right alongside Gedolei Yisrael and the Tzadikei Elyon. You are a model of uncompromising loyalty to those values and principles you believe in, to the goals that you set for yourself and to the ideals upon which you were raised. You are the consummate symbol of devotion to Eretz Yisrael, to Am Yisrael, to Toraht Yisrael, and to Midinat Yisrael. Whenever I see your image in various video clips on the internet, I am amazed and filled with strength when I hear in the calmness of your voice, your deep abiding trust and your faith and belief in HaSHem. You are always so full of emunah and bitachon, in your belief in a better future, with G-d's help. Dear brother, Jonathan, I am learning so many things from you. The most important of which, is to always believe in HaSHem and to never stop trusting in Him. To never give up. And never despair, even when it is very difficult and things are very bad. You have enormous spiritual strength, fortitude, resilience, and courage. If only I might learn from your example... and I will continue to try, even though my best efforts pale in comparison. Sometimes I think that the test that HaSHem is putting you through, and that He is now putting us through, when the President did not respond to the petition for clemency and you remain (temporarily for the moment) in prison, that perhaps this may be in order to prove and to show to all the world, the greatness of HaSHem. So that all might see and know that HaSHem does not require man-made schemes and frameworks to decide when and how to release prisoners. HaSHem shall yet prove and reveal, very soon, His might and power over all of the world, when He implements His plan to release you, and frees you in an unexpected way, and brings you home to Eretz Yisrael, alive and well! The Almighty G-d of Israel has no specific time frame for clemencies. HaSHem is Lord and Master of the World. Everything in this world is at His command. Stay strong and be strengthened, dear brother Jonathan! Redemption and salvation are close at hand; and good tidings for you and for all of Am Yisrael! With great appreciation,
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO
Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Marilyn Penn and it is archived at
Marilyn Penn is a freelance writer living in New York whose personal essays and social commentary have appeared in national magazines such as Newsweek and The American Enterprise. |
|
Earlier this week, two of the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation case were sentenced to 65 years in prison for funneling twelve million dollars to Hamas, listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. which prohibits even humanitarian aid from such support. Although I'm pleased that the men were convicted of breaking the law, I'm confused by the fact that the U.S. government itself is guilty of the same offense. Last year, this country gave 575 million dollars to Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, distributed through USAID (Agency for International Development) and UNRWA (United Nations Relief & Works Agency. UNRWA is the only UN agency dedicated to one group of refugees alone. It employs 23,000 Palestinians and 100 UN professionals and has been in existence for three generations of so-called refugees. Normally, the word is restricted in its definition to the people who are themselves displaced by war or catastrophe; in the Palestinian case, the word refers to children and grandchildren of the original refugees who have been willfully maintained in squalid camps as political pawns in the fight against Israel. UNRWA administers social services including food, medical and educational assistance and employment help. By freeing the Hamas government from the need to pay for these essential amenities, it allows them to use the enormous sums of money donated by the European Union, Arab states and the United States for weapons and military training. UNRWA allowed terrorist groups to use their school facilities as summer camps for 25,000 children to be trained as prospective martyrs and has had its ambulances and warehouses used by terrorists as transport, arsenals and factories for counterfeit currency. The U.S. is one of the largest contributors to this agency which is intricately involved with supporting Hamas. l. David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, made this statement after the sentences were handed down in the Holy Land case: "These sentences should serve as a strong warning to anyone who knowingly provides financial support to terrorists under the guise of humanitarian relief." Since the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993, the U.S. has given more than 1.3 billion dollars to the West Bank and Gaza. When you look at the news photographs of the condition of the Gazan population and read articles about their unemployment, their lack of housing, their medical problems, their dependence on anti-depressant drugs — isn't it obvious that the money hasn't been spent on them? And conversely, when you realize that Hamas has funded a steady barrage of rockets and missiles against Israeli civilians and intensive military training for suicide bombers — it's all too clear where this money has gone instead. Our legislators have created a law to forbid supporting Hamas and our courts have just issued a loud proclamation punishing those who flout the law. Will the U.S. government heed this ruling? Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
JORDANIAN MPS PRESENT BILL TO SCRAP PEACE TREATY WITH ISRAEL
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, June 2, 2009. |
|
They know this is a very good time with O-Jello at the helm. Looks like "Jordan" (aka Eastern Palestine) knows this would happen too. The last thing they would want is for the general public to know this, because support for the "Palestinian" cause for two state solution would evaporate quickly. Actually,it REALLY is Eastern Palestine,aka Jordan, formerly Trans-Jordan. Population;60%-80% "Palestinian' Arab and 20%-40% Hashemite Bedouin Arabs (Exiled From the Arabian Peninsula.) West Bank Arabs ARE Jordanian Citizens & Jordan's Queen, Rania, is "Palestinian". Jordan, Not Israel, is the Real Address the "Palestinians" should go to for 'resolution '. Trans-Jordan Occupied the West Bank in 1948-49,assuming the role of "The Palestinian State" Jordan, (British created), is the STATE that is ILLEGITIMATE... Funny how fast the King of Jordan wants a peace deal with Israel and having the Arab refugees "stay" in the "territories" ASAP, since then you can encourage them ALL to go to this area since it would be called Palestine. One way to get rid of the trash, since Jordanians look down at Palestinians as second class citizens. Hence, why the local Arab countries refuse these people citizenship. The reason the Arabs have been using the Palestinians as pawns to punish Israel the last 60 years. They don't want peace. They don't want a two state solution. They only want to push the Israeli's into the sea. Total elimination. But of course the first person to PUSH this deal is also the person that could loose "his" power if the attention of the World was to just rename Jordan back to it's Roman/British Mandate name of Palestine! Appears most of the people don't know it's history that well on this issue? I do believe that having a pro-Arab, anti-Israel president like OBAMA is emboldening the "moderate" Arab states, like Jordan (which at least had recognized Israel) to move against Israel. Up until OBAMA, these countries KNEW that the USA would back Israel all the way. Now they feel that they have Israel and America on the run. OBAMA is a disaster. The article below is by Robert Spencer and it appeared in Jihad Watch
|
|
Jordanian MPs present bill to scrap peace treaty with Israel ...and resume the jihad. "Jordan: MPs Propose Bill To End Peace With Israel," from ANSAmed, June 1 (ANSAmed) — AMMAN, JUNE 1 — A group of Jordanian MPs presented today in Parliament with proposed legislation to scrap the peace treaty between the kingdom and Israel as diplomatic relations between the neighbours turn sour. Deputy Khalil Atyyeh said in a letter to the 110-member chamber that Israel violated the 1994 Wadi Araba peace agreement when the Israeli kennest [sic] approved to discuss controversial legislation by a right wing MP to adopt a law that refers to Jordan as "The Hashemite kingdom Palestine." In the letter, Jordanian MPs said Israel showed "no respect to the sovereignty of Jordan. "Israel draft law is a violation to the peace agreement and international norms," said Atiyeh, weeks before the start of the parliament session where the proposal could be discussed.... Projection Alert: it is the Arab states that border on Israel that have never respected its sovereignty, not the other way around. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
TOO MANY JEWS
Posted by Gary Bauer, June 2, 2009. |
|
What is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East? Most of us would cite Islamofascism and death worshipping groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. But to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Jewish homes and babies are the real problem. Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in communities of Judea and Samaria, or "the West Bank" as it is often referred to. These are not "outposts" or "settlements," as Big Media and assorted commentators label them. They are Israeli "hometowns." In these communities, young Israelis marry, start households and have babies. Nine thousand six hundred babies were born in Judea and Samaria in the most recent year and these growing families need housing. But when President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, he told the prime minister that the U.S. wanted no more housing built in Judea and Samaria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a few days later made it clear that there were no exceptions— not even for so-called "natural growth"— those pesky new Israeli families and their newborn babies. Of course, the real goal here is even more disgusting. Obama/Clinton intend to browbeat Israel into turning Judea/Samaria over to a new Palestinian state and for that to happen the land has to be "Jew free." Yes, you read that right. Remember Gaza? Every Jew was forced out for the simple reason that any Jew left behind would have been killed almost immediately. Gaza is now one big terror training camp, but that hasn't stopped the anti-Israel crowd from pushing the same idea in Judea and Samaria. Forcing an entire ethnic group to leave a geographic area and denying them housing is called "ethnic cleansing" and it is a war crime. But that is where Obama is headed, while too many "friends" of Israel in Congress and elsewhere stand by in silence. It is way past time for American Jews and pro-Israel Christians to speak up. [Editor's Note: David Bedein points out that "'West Bank maps' issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war. ... One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.] Gary Bauer is the president of American Values. Contact him at gary.bauer@mail.amvalues.org. And visit the website: http://www.ouramericanvalues.org |
|
TERRORISTS ARE INFILTRATING; SAMARIA AND JUDEA NEED MORE SECURITY EQUIPMENT
Posted by Marc M. Prowisor, June 2, 2009. |
|
I would like to give you all an update regarding security in the region. Over the past six months there has been a constant increase in terrorist activity throughout Judea and Samaria. While most of this goes unreported, it still is occurring. The activity may be broken down into two main categories, Infiltrations, IED's (Explosive devices) and Road Incidents. All of the regions have been affected equally. Where Thank Gd, many of these incidents ended with no injured, there have been some dire results. Many are being carried out by individuals rather than teams, making early detection through intelligence more difficult. The security teams (and Gd's help) of the Communities have been the major reason many of these incidents ended in our favor. Incidents such as Bat Ayin, where a thirteen year old was murdered might have been avoided had there been a surveillance system set up. The response team was not enough. Explosive devices that were placed at strategic locations around different communities could also have been detected far earlier had more systems been in place. In Beit Chagai, where a system is in place, the terrorist was spotted and killed by the First Response Team before he could murder anyone. Infiltration Probes, where arabs test the system have been on the increase. "Dry Runs" including theft, entry and exiting houses occurs at many of the smaller communities where equipment lacks. There are a number of recorded incidents weekly, where the terrorists are gathering intelligence in order to plan and execute attacks. There are many projects, all that will enhance the security measures in these communities. This is no coincidence as the presence of "Palestinian Police" has increased 10 fold throughout the areas. The training they are receiving from the international community has greatly increased their efficiency and we are seeing the results on the ground. They continue to better their equipment and training using international funding while funds for security in Yehuda and Shomron decrease. Over the past months I have been in contact with various IDF Commands and the Regional Security Chiefs of Yehuda and Shomron regarding the needs of the communities and efforts to improve the security and first response to terrorism. Many of the communities are lacking vital equipment that enables them to provide a safe atmosphere for their families. Blood grabs the headlines and stimulates our people to get involved, I wish to avoid that path. I feel it is better to avoid bloodshed and tears. As funds continue to come in, thank G-d, to various institutions and projects, it must be remembered that there are those individuals and teams that spend days and nights, Baruch Hashem, to protect these communities. How many of these projects and institutions would go up without the security apparatus surrounding them? I am often told by many of the soldiers and officers who live in these communities and are the leaders of the combat units today and, therefore, are not at home, that they pledge to do the best they can defending Israel, but they ask me to assist with the security of their families' communities throughout Judea and Samaria. I, of course respond in the positive, what else can I say to that? One Israel Fund is working in full coordination and cooperation with the official security apparatus of the region in order to provide the best equipment and training needed to secure our people living in our heartland. It is not a question of politics— it is one of protecting and saving lives— nothing more, nothing less. For example, yesterday I delivered 10 communication units to the South Hevron Hills. These will be used by the first response team. This week 10 portable search lights will be given out in the Shomron and other yishuvim in Binyamin and Har Hevron. Maskiot's (former residents of the Gush Katif community of Shirat Hayam) security vehicle is currently being equipped and should be ready shortly. I met with Shlomo Vaknin, head of security on behalf of the YESHA Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, yesterday and he will help in coordinating projects and endorse One Israel Fund to whomever necessary within the IDF. The local kabatim (Security Chiefs) have stressed the continued need for One Israel Fund assistance and are very appreciative for our assistance. Remember, One Israel Fund works in cooperation and coordination with the security apparatus, not on our own whims. Next week there will be more. I will be in the US during the entire month of July to discuss and promote these projects. It is paramount that we make them into a reality and avoid unnecessary blood shed. Please be in touch with me so that we may achieve this Mitzvah. Marc Prowisor Marc Prowisor is Security Projects Director. Contact him at marcpro@oneisraelfund.org |
|
OBAMA COMPROMISES AGAIN?; NYT BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL; EUROPE VS ISRAEL; GEN. DAYTON ENLARGING ABBAS' ARMY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 2, 2009. |
|
FATAH DISCORD OVER RULE AND ROLE Palestinian Authority Pres. Abbas nominated a new Cabinet. His own, faction-riven Fatah denounced it for not including more of them. He's convening a Fatah convention after about 20 years, so it would appear democratic. However, many foreign-based delegates could not pass through Israeli security checks (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/15), because they really are terrorists. If that is democracy, it is worthless for peace. To foresee results of U.S. build-up of Fatah, see:
OBAMA COMPROMISES AGAIN? The Pentagon has been holding on to a report that concludes that 17% of detainees released from Guantanamo resumed terrorism. Skeptics dispute it. If the Pentagon releases the report, it would embarrass efforts by Pres. Obama to close the prison by releasing many of the prisoners into the US, which many politicians resent, or releasing them to their home countries, which may enable them to resume terrorism. If the Pentagon squelches the report, it would be criticized for continuing Pres. Bush's policy of secrecy (Elisabeth Bumiller, NY Times, 5/21, A1). Pres. Obama's principles keep colliding with politics. I find him preferring political safety and advantage over principles. Every policy presents him with a dilemma. He's a politician, not Messiah. The figure for resumption of terrorism is much higher for released Israeli terrorist convicts. Why is the U.S. figure so low? Too soon for figures to be accurate? Prisoners seized by mistake? Why doesn't the military differentiate between terrorists known as such or captured in the act, and mere suspects? The suspects should be entitled to trial. The captured activists deserve no trial, just a court hearing to make sure they are of their identities. IRANIAN MILITARY ADVANCE Not only has Iran been working on nuclear weapons, it also has been developing the rockets to carry them long distances. Iran's newest launch was of the more advanced solid state fuel, which can travel further than ones with liquid fuel. The new one can reach Western Europe and Israel. Iran is moving faster than is Obama's diplomacy. (David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi, NY Times, 5/21, A6). Iran is proving resourceful. For a critique of view that Iran is harmless, see:
TERRORIST OP-ED IN THE NY TIMES Khalil Shikaki, head of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research discussed election prospects in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). He says elections are important there, to attain unity and democracy, regardless of which faction wins. Fatah would have to reform, to win. Mr. Shikaki credits Abbas' regime with having disarmed nationalist and Islamist groups. He accuses Israel of not meeting its Road Map commitments (5/21), As usual, an Arab commentator misstates or exaggerates Israel's obligations, and ignores or exaggerates' P.A. compliance. The P.A. has not complied with its agreements since it made them in 1993. How long is Israel supposed to comply and fulfill concessions in return for what the P.A. is not fulfilling? The P.A. did not disarm militias much at all. It dismantled some of the popular Hamas civic institutions. The P.A. brought many terrorists into its forces, thereby arming them. Now the P.A. is seeking to combine forces with Hamas— that would be unity in jihad and Islamist rule, with the enemy being Israel. Israel disarmed much of Hamas in raids that the P.A. fails to make and objects when Israel makes them. If either Fatah or Hamas wins a P.A. election, fascist rule would continue. Call that democratic? In the P.A. are no civil institutions, no civil rights, and no basis for democracy. The NY Times is getting to be a regular venue for terrorist writers. It is as if during WWII, the paper had Op-Eds from the Nazi Propaganda Minister. SUBTLE NY TIMES BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL The Times headline is "Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu." The article discussed which leader dominated the agenda of their recent meeting, by putting his demands over on the other (Marc Landler and Helene Cooper, NY Times, 5/21, A14). The article emphasizes the leaders' differences. It seems designed to get people thinking of those leaders and their countries as opponents. The Times does not have such articles about Obama meetings with Arab leaders, though some of those leaders foster bigotry and war, a war on civilization. This article is an example of subtle NY Times bias against Israel. It is as subtle as subliminal advertising, its objective almost completely hidden. I think New York deserves a more objective newspaper than that one. For more on Times' treatment of Israel, see: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d21-Liberal-NY-Times-verges-on-antisemitism GEN. DAYTON'S HINT OF A THREAT TO ISRAEL The U.S. sent Gen. Dayton to train Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces, ostensibly against terrorism and anarchy. He expresses satisfaction with the troops' increased competence. He hinted that if the P.A. doesn't attain statehood within two
years, P.A. forces may revolt against Israel
Before he started training P.A. troops, Jewish nationalists warned that those troops are liable to attack Israel. The warning was based on repeated precedent. Jewish warnings against appeasement of the Arabs, however, rarely deter the State Dept., regardless of repeated failure of its policy. Now the warning has been echoed by Gen. Dayton, himself. It had been obvious to informed people that the Palestinian Arabs' paramount objective is to destroy Israel. On the danger of training P.A. troops:
ISRAEL LOVES EUROPE BUT EUROPE HATES ISRAEL Polls find that Israelis favor Europe, but Europeans think Israel a threat to peace, and hate Jews. Israelis have kept alive a romantic notion of high culture in pre-Holocaust Europe, but Europe is as intolerant as ever. In many European countries, the majority is indifferent to crimes of hatred against Jews by Muslims, shrugging it off as part of the Arab-Israel conflict. [But the Jews whom European Muslims pick on are not Israeli officials.] The problem may get worse, as European politicians cater to the antisemitism of up to half their voters. Europe has been adopting more anti-Israel policies, such as allowing judicial persecution of Israelis for alleged war crimes [and holding better relations hostage to Israeli concessions to the Arabs]. [Israel does not commit such war crimes, but their Muslim opponents do.] Israel's media fails to discuss the motives and implications of European hostility. The people mistakenly think that European hostility is a reaction to Israeli action. Antisemitism, however, is not rational. First the antisemites hate Jews; then they condemn whatever Jews do, even if the same things that they do. Israelis would like to join the European Union, not that the EU
doesn't have its own economic problems. If Israel did, it would come
under EU law. That would give the EU an opportunity to force Israel
to make the suicidal sacrifices to the Arabs that the EU has been
demanding without the power to enforce. It is time for Israel to see
Europe realistically and not become dependent upon it
For discussion about EU-funded NGO activity against Israel:
MUSLIM VIEW OF JEWS & GENETICS According to a Jordanian news website, "...the superintendent of
da'wa affairs at the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowments, Sheikh
Ahmad 'Ali 'Othman, has issued a fatwa stating that all pigs living
today are descended from Jews and must therefore be slaughtered." His
theory is that Allah turned some Jewish foes into swine and apes. He
is disputed by others, who claim that those beasts have no
descendants, did not reproduce
I am relieved to hear that, for there are other Muslims who contend the reverse, that Jews like me are descended from swine and apes, and must be slaughtered. Darwin thought that all humans are ascended from an ape-like ancestor. However, he didn't talk about killing off people. Many debates in the Islamic world are like that. Not admirable. Not enlightening. Not when they are driven by bigotry. Bigotry is what prevents peace. Here is how the Palestinian Authority acts on these views:
CHANGING POPULATIONS WITHIN ISRAEL Jews are moving out from such Israeli cities as Jaffa, Acre, Lod, Ramle, and upper Nazareth. Arabs are moving in, sometimes with foreign funds. It is becoming a regular battle for the country, as in earlier generations. But which Jews are battling. Religious Jews are sending their best
people into Acre, so the [hostile] Arabs don't take it over. Secular
Jews, who demand that Jews be dragged back from the Territories into
Israel, to maintain the State's Jewish character, do not send groups
into those cities
Indeed, when religious Jews buy property in Jerusalem, secular Jewish groups condemn them for it. GEN. DAYTON ENLARGING ABBAS' ARMY Gen. Dayton said that three battalions will be added to the army of
the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) that he is helping to build and
train. He attributed to the existing army the relative lack of
violence during the war in Gaza Israeli patrols, forces on the border, and the security fence surely had much to do with the relative lack of violence. Therefore, Gen. Dayton's bragging for his work indicates biased judgment. The project bolsters Abbas, who threatens war. For whom is the U.S. enlarging the P.A. Army:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: MT TAVOR OAKS IN THE GALILEE
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 2, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: The giant Mt. Tavor Oaks at Horshat Tal (grove of dew) in the Galilee are about as close as I can come in Israel to the towering Redwood trees of my youth in Northern California. As straight and strong as are the Redwoods, the Oaks are wild and gnarled, unpredictable in their growth patterns and a continuous maze of photographic discovery. A friend of mine remarked to me after a recent visit to Muir Woods near San Francisco, that he found the Redwoods, among the most revered trees on the planet, boring in their uniformity, despite their enormity. He told me he prefers Israeli trees like the Olive and these Oaks, each of which seems to possess its own individual character, perhaps like Israelis. The photographer can represent trees in their multitude, such as in
my photo from last week, or as nearly unidentifiable abstractions.
This image appeals to me because the more abstract approach invites
the viewer to let his or her imagination journey into the vast web of
thought and emotion that the natural world evokes. The composition is
built around the thick, curling branches, which bend and twist with a
graceful asymmetry. Because my camera was pointed nearly straight up
at the sky, the trunks curl inward as a result of parallax distortion
and create the feeling of a spiraling funnel pulling the eye into the
depth of the photo and the mind, perhaps, toward some forgotten
memory.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
U.S. WON'T HONOR PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDINGS WITH ISRAEL
Posted by Avodah, June 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Barak Ravid and it appeared in
Ha'aretz
|
|
Israeli political officials expressed disappointment after last week's round of meetings in London with George Mitchell, President Obama's envoy to the Middle East. "All of the understandings reached during the [George W.] Bush administration are worth nothing," said one senior official. Another official said the U.S. administration is refusing every Israeli attempt to reach new agreements on settlement construction. Israel Defense Ministry chief of staff Brig. Gen. Mike Herzog spoke to Mitchell and his staff about understandings reached by former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon with the Bush administration on allowing continued building in the large West Bank settlement blocs, asking that a similar agreement be reached with the Obama government. The Israelis were stunned by the uncompromising U.S. stance, and by statements from Mitchell and his staff that agreements reached with the Bush administration were unacceptable. An Israeli official privy to the talks said that "the Americans took something that had been agreed on for many years and just stopped everything." The Israeli envoys said the demand for a total settlement freeze was not only unworkable, but would not receive Israel Supreme Court sanction. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PERSECUTING THOSE WHO DEFEAT TERRORISTS
Posted by Judity A. Klinghoffer, June 1, 2009. |
|
UN call for Sri Lanka war probe: I knew it. I just knew it is going to happen. There is only one thing more damaging to the reputation of a country than seriously fighting (as opposed to appeasing) terrorists and that is successfully defeating them. The only way such a country can recapture it's good name is by removing, discrediting and even prosecuting the leader who dared to do the "vile" act. Making the world safe for terrorists has become the top priority of the morally bankrupt so called "humanitarians" organized around the UN. Their basic strategy is to make fighting terrorists illegal under "international law" by demanding that it be done without any collateral damage and terrorists be treated as common criminals. Consider the words of UN's Under Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes as reported by the BBC: Mr Holmes said the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) had used civilians as human shields "in the most cynical and brutal way", but that civilians had also been "affected very badly" by being caught up in army shelling. Therefore: The UN's high commissioner for human rights has called for an independent investigation into alleged atrocities by both sides in Sri Lanka's civil war. Drawing a moral, or more appropriately immoral, equivalence between terrorists for whom anything goes and democracies who fight them is no longer a strategy reserved for the "Western imperialist superpowers" such as the US in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel in Lebanon and Gaza but it even encompasses poor Third world democracies. Indeed, if "humanitarians" have their way, Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, would follow in the footsteps of Alberto Fujimori and be tried and sentenced to 25 years: Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori was convicted of human rights crimes and sentenced to 25 years in prison on Tuesday, the first time a democratically elected Latin American president has been found guilty in his own country of such offenses. The people may worship the man who has finally rid the country from the vile Tigers who kidnapped girls and turned them to suicide bombers but, "human rights activists" would work hard to make sure he will be known as a vile murderer. After all, the long suffering peasants once lauded Fujimori as a hero. Many peasants were unhappy with the Shining Path's rule for a variety of reasons, such as its disrespect for indigenous culture and institutions,[34] and the brutality of its "popular trials" that sometimes included "slitting throats, strangulation, stoning, and burning."[35][36] While punishing and even killing cattle thieves was popular in some parts of Peru, the Shining Path also killed peasants and popular leaders for even minor offenses.[37] Peasants were also offended by the rebels' injunction against burying the bodies of Shining Path victims.[38]The Shining Path also became disliked for its policy of closing small and rural markets in order to end small-scale capitalism and to starve Lima.[39][40] As a Maoist organization, it strongly opposed all forms of capitalism, and also followed Mao's dictum that guerrilla warfare should start in the countryside and gradually choke off the cities. Peasants, many of whose livelihoods depended on trade in the markets, rejected such closures. In several areas of Peru, the Shining Path also launched unpopular campaigns, such as a prohibition on parties[41] and the consumption of alcohol.[42] Things have changed. The May/June issue of the National Geographic includes the previously terrorist infested region amongst the 50 appropriate destinations for a tour of a life time. BUT the Magazine makes sure it does not give Fujimori or those who sacrificed their lives fighting the vicious Shining Path any credit for saving the Andes from terrorists. Whom does National Geographic credit for the Shining Path's demise? 29 year old Community organizers like Enrique, Jr., who specialize in "managing expectations." I kid you not: Something extraordinarily positive is happening here in Peru. Little more than a decade ago, these mountains were in the throes of a brutal guerrilla war. Maoist rebels shot first and asked questions later, and foreign visitors were sometimes the targets. Yet, on this trip, not a single armed guard, nor a strand of barbed wire, is anywhere to be seen. "Our security comes from the commitments we made to the community," Enrigue says. If UN "humanitarians" have their way, Mahinda Rajapaksa would be punished just as Alberto Fujimori has been and George W. Bush and leading members of his administration would be (not to mention the vast majority of Israel's leaders) . Those fighting and defeating terror groups must be discredited, indeed, punished. It is a small wonder, the Indian government is doing so little to rid itself of the it's own Maoist insurgents known as Naxalites who are as fond of democracy as Islamists. How else can the world be made safe for terrorists and, hence, for those "humanitarians" whose careers depend on negotiating endlessly, if unsuccessfully, their appeasement and keeping alive most of their helpless captive populations?! Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com |
|
SETTLEMENTS — A REMINDER TO THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 1, 2009. |
|
"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' ['Clean of Jews'] 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. "The right of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel was also recognised in the League of Nations 'Mandate for Palestine' which stressed 'the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and ... the grounds for reconstituting' — I repeat, reconstituting 'their national home in that country'. "The Mandatory Power was also entrusted with the duty to encourage 'close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.'"[1] *** The U.S. Administration decision to rewrite history by labeling the Territories 'Occupied Territories', and the 'Settlements an obstacle to peace' thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. The U.S. Administration' use of these dishonest, loaded terms empowers terrorism and incites Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel. [1] The words of Dr. Yehuda Z. Blum, former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations. June 11, 1979 EDITOR'S NOTE: Google Think-Israel for articles by Howard Grief and also by Yoram Shifftan on Israel's irrevocable right to ALL the land west of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org |
|
SIMPLE RULES FOR CREATING A GIANT WAVE OF ALIYA TO ISRAEL
Posted by Bernard J. Shapiro, June 1, 2009. |
|
1. Crush terrorism and pre-empt all existential threats to the State of Israel. Why move to a country unable to protect its Jewish population? 2. Annex all state lands within the borders of Israel (post 1967). Annex all property stolen from the Jewish People during the last 2000 years, including Church and Waqf property (exceptions, of course for Holy Places. The term Holy Places does not include fraudulent claims of Muslims to Jewish or Christian Holy Places.). Remove all illegal Arab buildings and farms. 3. Require all voting citizens of Israel to do military or community service for 3 years (including Arabs). The right to vote and be a citizen will depend such service + a loyalty oath to the Jewish State. 4. Re-affirm that Israel is a Jewish State and NOT a democratic (one man one vote) state of all its citizens. The loyal citizens of Israel whether Jewish, Christian, Druze, Bedouin or Arab will have equal rights. 5. Adopt Prof. Paul Eidelberg's constitution with constituency elections. 6. Open up Judea & Samaria for massive building, thus creating giant suburbs close to the heavily populated Israeli coastline. A system of toll roads, and light rail will connect these suburbs to the coast from Ashdod to Nahariya. This will solve the over population along Israel's coast and create a better quality of living for all Israelis. 7. Anyone in Israel who raises up a rock to crush Jewish skulls, or a knife, gun or bomb to kill Jews should be expelled from Eretz Yisrael. Those not loyal to the State of Israel as a Jewish State and wish to replace it with an Arab/Muslim country, should lose all citizenship rights and be encouraged to leave. If they incite hatred and anti-Jewish feelings, they should be expelled. A final thought: It took Jews 2000 years to regain Eretz Yisrael. We should most emphatically not allow the world who wished us dead to influence our decisions on how we should LIVE, Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of The Maccabean Online and the Freemanlist. Contact the Center at Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, P.O. Box 35661, Houston, Texas 77235-5661. Phone or Fax at 713-723-6016 |
|
STOP IGNORING ISLAM'S ANTISEMITIC DOCTRINE
Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, June 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Andrew Bostom and it appeared May 27, 2009 in the
New York Daily News.
Andrew Bostom, M.D., (www.andrewbostom.org) is the author of "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism." |
|
"These were people who were eager to bring death to the Jews and the Jewish community." Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Snyder provided this apt characterization of the four converts to Islam whose plans to bomb a Bronx synagogue and a Jewish community center were thwarted. Richard Williams, uncle of the arrested plotter Onta "Hamza" Williams, lamented that his nephew, a Baptist who converted to Islam, "...wasn't raised this way. All this happened when he became a Muslim in prison." Indeed, Warith Deen Umar, a Muslim chaplain who worked for 25 years in the New York State prisons and was considered a highly influential cleric, reportedly boasted that this vast incarceration system was, "...the perfect recruitment and training ground for radicalism and the Islamic religion." During his chaplaincy, Umar also repeatedly gave sermons fomenting Jew hatred, witnessed by prison staff. But beyond all this, the obvious question persists — although dutifully avoided by our learned religious, media and political elites in this sorry age of Islamic correctness: What Islamic teachings might these American Muslim converts have learned, whether in prison, or elsewhere, which caused them to target their American Jewish neighbors, specifically, for mass killing? Simply put, it is impossible to comprehend this ugly phenomenon without understanding the core, mainstream Islamic theology — still unreformed and unrepentant — which has inspired hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam? For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, has served as the academic shrine — much as Mecca is the religious shrine — of the global Muslim community. Al Azhar University and its mosque represent the pinnacle of Islamic religious education. A front page New York Times story published Saturday Jan. 10, 2009, included extracts from the Friday sermon (the day before) at Al Azhar mosque by Egyptian-government appointed cleric Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef. Referencing well-established antisemitic motifs from the Koran (citations provided, below), Sheikh Youssef intoned: "Muslim brothers, God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at [Koran 1:7] and whom he cursed [Koran 5:78] so he made monkeys and pigs [Koran 5:60] out of them. They killed prophets and messengers [Koran 2:61/3:112] and sowed corruption on Earth. [Koran 5:33/5:64] They are the most evil on Earth. [Koran 5:62 /63]" In authoritative classical and modern Koranic interpretations, the Koran's central antisemitic theme — its eternal curse for "prophet killing" and violating Allah's commands — is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78, which describe the Jews' transformation into apes and swine (5:60), or simply apes (i.e. verses 2:65 and 7:166), having been "...cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary's son" (5:78). The Muslim prophet Muhammad himself repeats this Koranic curse in a canonical hadith (sacred collections of Muhammad's words and deeds). Moreover, just before subduing the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza and orchestrating the mass execution of their adult males, Muhammad invoked Koran 2:65/7:166, addressing these Jews, with hateful disparagement, as "You brothers of apes." Finally, Islamic end of times theology teaches that the dawning of the messianic era cannot begin until the Jews are violently exterminated en masse. Both Shiite and Sunni Muslims invoke the infamous hadith attributed to Muhammad: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: 'Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.'" Each Friday this genocidal hadith is quoted in sermons across the Islamic world, including among U.S. Muslim communities. In February 2008, Franco Frattini, the European Union official responsible "for combating racism and antisemitism in Europe," revealed that Muslims — who comprise 4% of the European population — were responsible for fully half (50%) of the documented antisemitic incidents in continental Europe. Thus, on a population percentage basis, Muslims in Western Europe already accounted for roughly 25 times the number of Antisemitic incidents as their non-Muslim European counterparts. When the late 23 year-old Parisian Jew Ilan Halimi was being tortured to death in February 2006, his Muslim captors reportedly phoned his family and made them listen to the recitation of verses from the Koran, interspersed with Ilan's background screams of agony. In the heart of Western Europe, Halimi's torturers-murderers did not invoke any non-Islamic sources of anti-Jewish hate — only the Koran. Unless and until we confront the menace of theologically-motivated Islamic Jew hatred, we are missing the point. Despite continuous interfaith dialogue sessions, Jewish leaders in Europe and America never demand a mea culpa from their Muslim interlocutors for the living legacy of doctrinal Islamic Jew hatred, whose ugly consequences are evident on a daily basis. Their dereliction of duty is shameful. Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors (CJHSLA) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the protection of freedom and actively promotes the right of the State of Israel to not only exist, but to flourish, as a Jewish state." |
|
THE UN RECORD
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 1, 2009. |
|
This is part of a large report that has been distributed by Christian Action for Israel.org
|
|
1. Before 1990, Security Council passed 175 resolutions, 97 were directed against Israel (It is 55% of all resolutions.) 2. Before 1990, UN General Assembly voted on 690 resolutions, 429 were directed against Israel (It is 62% of all resolutions.) 3. The UN was silent when Jordanians destroyed 58 Synagogues in Jerusalem . 4. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives . 5. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 6. The UN was silent while for 18 months Israel was terrorised by indiscriminate suicide bombing campaign unleashed by PA leadership. 7. There are 54 Muslims countries in the UN. As well as many more are others Arab oil dependant states. 8. Israel is the ONLY MEMBER OF THE UN THAT IS NOT PERMITTED MEMBERSHIP ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL? 9. Israel is the only country excluded from the U.N.'s regional group system. Since Israel does not belong to any group, it is the only country of 190 member states that is not eligible to serve on the numerous U.N. commissions. 10. In recent years, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has annually passed five resolutions condemning Israel . This year, they passed seven. By contrast, each of the following countries/regions has been the subject of only one resolution: Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Russia/Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Southeast Europe and Sudan . 11. Nov. 29 is the United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People. No other people has a U.N. Day of Solidarity. 12. Israel is the only state to which a special investigator with 'an open-ended mandate to inspect its human rights record" is assigned by the U.N. 13. It is the only state targeted by two special committees and special units of the U.N. Secretariat ostensibly devoted to the Palestinians but in reality dedicated to Israel-bashing world-wide, costing millions of dollars a year. 14. UNIFIL, the U.N. force stationed on the Israel-Lebanon border, hid a videotape of Israeli soldiers being abducted by Hezbollah in October 2000. After finally admitting to having the tape, the U.N. would only show an edited version (in which Hezbollah faces were hidden) to the Israeli government. 15. UNESCO, in Paris, began passing resolutions about protection of Jerusalem holy sites and access for Muslims in 1968. No resolutions about protection or Jewish access were passed from 1946 to 1967 when Jordan controlled Jerusalem and barred Jews from entering.
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
SETTLEMENTS ISSUE OVERRATED, SAYS TOP ISRAELI ADVISER
Posted by Daily Alert, June 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Jason Koutsoukis and it appeared May 29,
2009 in the Sydney Morning Herald-Australia) |
|
AS THE US hardens its policy of zero growth in West Bank Jewish settlements, the policy circle around the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, continues to reject it as unworkable. In comments made this week before the visit to Washington by the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that President Barack Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions." It is the clearest example yet of the differences emerging between the administration of Mr Obama, who has vowed to vigorously pursue the peace process as part of a changed approach to the region, and Mr Netanyahu, presiding over a hardline government largely opposed to many concessions. Chief among Mr Netanyahu's kitchen cabinet is Dore Gold, a distinguished former Israeli ambassador to the UN and a former foreign policy adviser to Mr Netanyahu when he first became prime minister in 1996. Now the head of a leading Israeli think tank, the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Mr Gold told the Herald the issue of settlements in the West Bank was overrated as an obstacle to peace. "The settlements themselves cover only 1.7 per cent of the actual land in the area we are talking about that could become a Palestinian state. Growth itself is infinitesimal." Because the issue has been on the table for so long, he believes it has become an easy target for US foreign policy makers and something that US presidents feel comfortable talking about. "It's not the key issue affecting peace in the Middle East, and it's never been a big issue for other countries in the Middle East. It's disingenuous." Mr Gold, who has been involved in efforts of six prime ministers, two Palestine Liberation Organisation chairmen, and now a fourth US president to try to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, says it is time for a new approach. Mr Netanyahu's argument to boost the Palestinian economy in the West Bank is important "to strengthen Palestinian Authority infrastructure, to strengthen security, to enable a new political reality." "Whenever we sit down to negotiate over a Palestinian state, we get stuck on the same issues. We can't give Palestinians control of the air space. We can't allow a Palestinian state to make defensive treaties with countries like Iran. Settlement growth? The issue is the security of Israel, not whether someone can build an extension to their home in Efrat." Sharing Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state will not happen — or not under Mr Netanyahu, at least, he said. Mr Gold says preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is as much about securing the future of the other Gulf states as it is about safeguarding 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 |
|
FRANKLIN LITTELL, SCHOLAR OF HOLOCAUST, DIES AT 91
Posted by Daily Alert, June 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Martin Douglas
and it appeared May 30, 2009 in the New York Times
|
|
Franklin H. Littell, a father of Holocaust studies who traced his engagement with the subject to the revulsion he felt as a young Methodist minister while witnessing a big Nazi rally in Nuremberg in 1939, died last Saturday at his home in Merion Station, Pa., outside Philadelphia. He was 91. Franklin H. Littell, left, Methodist minister and supporter of Israel, with Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister, in 1981. His wife, Marcia Sachs Littell, announced the death. Dr. Littell (pronounced lih-TELL), the author of more than two dozen scholarly books and a thousand articles, was among the first intellectuals to delve into the question of how baptized Christians in the heart of Christian Europe could have either killed or ignored the killing of six million Jews. A big part of the answer, as he found it, was that Christians from the time of Jesus on had shown systematic contempt for Jews and their beliefs. Hubert G. Locke, a leading Holocaust scholar and former dean of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, said in an interview on Wednesday that Dr. Littell had had "singular influence" in turning a focus on these ancient prejudices as the basis for the Holocaust. Another Holocaust scholar, John K. Roth, emeritus professor of philosophy at Claremont McKenna College, said Dr. Littell had "helped to turn the tide on the awareness of Christian complicity, shortcoming, indifference in the face of what was happening to Jews under Hitler." For more than a decade after the end of World War II, the Holocaust was studied and publicly discussed sparsely; the common wisdom was that survivors needed time to heal. But by the 1960s, attention to it was starting to grow with the publication of books like Elie Wiesel's "Night," the trial of Adolph Eichmann and other efforts to collect testimony of survivors. It was around then that academic programs on the Holocaust were pioneered by Dr. Littell. At Emory University in 1959, he started the first graduate seminar on the Holocaust, preceding what are believed to have been the first undergraduate courses on it, in 1960 at Brandeis and in 1961 at Brooklyn College. In 1970, with Dr. Locke, he set up one of the first annual scholarly conferences on the Holocaust, a forum that continues today. In 1976, at Temple University, he began the first doctoral program in Holocaust studies. And in 1998, he and his wife established the first interdisciplinary master's degree program in Holocaust studies, at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. "When Franklin Littell started his work, it was almost the case that there was no such thing as Holocaust studies as a field," Dr. Roth said. Now hundreds of colleges offer courses on the Holocaust, and many states require public schools to teach about it. Dr. Littell also became an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, in part because he believed that its very existence refuted theologies that foresaw or favored the withering away of the Jewish people. He rejected the theology of some Christian backers of Israel that Jews must ultimately become Christian, Marcia Littell said. Soon after the Six-Day War, of June 1967, Dr. Littell started an organization called Christians Concerned for Israel, to promote a pro-Israeli spirit in Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. In 1978, he founded the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, which lobbied against arms sales to Arab nations and campaigned against the United Nations resolution, adopted in 1975 and since repealed, that described Zionism as racism. Franklin Hamlin Littell was born on June 20, 1917, in Syracuse, graduated from Cornell College in Iowa and earned a divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary. Afterward he visited Germany on the way to a religion conference for young people in Amsterdam. It was then that he attended the Nuremberg rally, out of curiosity. Later in life, he recalled having been appalled by its open racism and its religious glorification of Aryans. When Hitler made an almost godlike appearance, bathed in a halo of lights, Mr. Littell was so repelled, he remembered, that he had to leave. Mr. Littell later earned a doctorate in theology from Yale and, after teaching at the University of Michigan, joined the United States high commissioner in occupied Germany as the Protestant adviser on de-Nazification. In 1966, he founded the Institute for American Democracy to fight political extremists. It was attacked by far-right groups, and a window of his home was shot out. In 1969, Dr. Littell published a book on political extremism, "Wild Tongues: A Handbook of Social Pathology," in which he accused the prominent conservative author and columnist William F. Buckley Jr. of being a "fellow traveler" of fascism. Mr. Buckley sued for libel and won, though an appeals court held that that comment was nondefamatory, constitutionally protected opinion. Dr. Littell's first wife, the former Harriet Lewis, died in 1978. In addition to Marcia Sachs Littell, he is survived by three daughters from his first marriage, Jeannie Lawrence, Karen Littell and Miriam Littell; a son from that marriage, Stephen; his stepsons, Jonathan Sachs and Robert L. Sachs Jr.; his stepdaughter, Jennifer Sachs Dahnert; 11 grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren. Over his long career, Dr. Littell was also president of Iowa Wesleyan College and a founding board member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in Washington. His best-known book was "The Crucifixion of the Jews" (1975), in which he pressed his view that Christianity is essentially Jewish. Jesus, Paul and Peter, Dr. Littell said, would have been executed at Auschwitz. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
An obituary last Saturday about Franklin H. Littell, a father of academic studies of the Holocaust, misstated the given name of his second wife, who survives him. She is Marcia Sachs Littell, not Maria. The obituary also described incompletely the outcome of a libel suit against Dr. Littell by the political commentator William F. Buckley Jr. A court did decide that Mr. Buckley had been libeled when Dr. Littell described him in a book as a "fellow traveler" of fascism. But an appeals court held that that comment was nondefamatory, constitutionally protected opinion. 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 |
|
ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE GUILT
Posted by Ari Bussel, June 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Norma Zager. |
|
"If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will
claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of
the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a
German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."
Watching the weary state of world affairs from a perch in my quasi-quiet American city, I ponder daily the descent and decline of my people. To whom shall I affix blame for the dwindling numbers and diminishing dedication to an ancient religion, seemingly becoming more irrelevant each day? Can facts explain the plight of the Jewish people? Or is it much more than anti Semitism, hatred and a callous indifference to the struggles of the past? Who are these enemies intent on our destruction? Do they even exist at all? Prior to World War II approximately 16 million Jews populated the earth. That number was cut to 10 million or so after the war, and now there are about 14 million Jews in the world, less than half in Israel. In 61 years the Jewish population of the world has introduced only four million. What is wrong with this picture? I never cease to be fascinated by so much ado about so few. There is always so much talk about our enemies, intent on wiping us out of existence. The insane leader of Iran called Israel a stinking corpse. As crazy and evil as he is, the truth hurts. How can a people who have managed to introduce only four million into its population in the last 61 years look to outsiders for their plight? I am not certain, but we do. Any Jew who looks inward must arrive at the conclusion it is the Jewish people who are destroying Israel and the Jews, no one else can, or ever will. The very military might we possess arguably ensures our existence, but who will save us from ourselves? Although Israel is an amazing country brimming with science, technology and probably the hope of the future in so many areas of research in medicine, the Jewish refusal to repopulate, combined with assimilation and the Jewish propensity for liberal communist and socialist leanings will prove to be the ultimate destroyer. The great irony of the Jewish people is its inherent schizophrenia. Combined with a desperate penchant for appeasement, it leads to serious trouble. Hated for their capitalist money-oriented history, Jews have been despised for an ability to create wealth for themselves and others. Yet, they have displayed a sympathy for communist ideals, not only in some of their most famous offspring like Karl Marx, but even creating kibbutzim, pure communism, even before Israel's birth. How can a people who have been driven to create such enormous wealth, despise the very system at which they excel? Jewish people in America served two masters. The socialism of now infamous union organizers like Saul Alinsky, Rose Schneiderman, socialist and suffragist, and Emma Goldman, deported to Russia during the 1919 Red Scare in America, are but a few. Add to this the other side of the coin, a Schiff, Warburg, Straus, Goldman, Guggenheim or Sachs and you have capitalism at its purist. Why this dichotomy? Some theorize it is guilt at our own success. Guilt and Jews? As closely tied as Hamas and Iran. Perhaps buying into the envy and hatred others felt toward a Jewish talent for banking and discovery in areas of science and medicine, we bought into others' hype about us. On a more positive note, it may be that Jewish people understand well the plight of the down trodden, and so are bound to battle the oppressors wherever they arise. But can you have it both ways? Perhaps the current state of Jewish affairs speaks to that very question. Whatever the reason for this paradox of loyalties to an ideal, it is now beginning to take a serious toll. There is great irony in the fact that Jews have been despised outcasts, yet no people on earth have ever possessed such self-loathing as the Jew. It was Christ who taught forgiveness, perhaps as a Jew realizing how desperately his own people needed to be forgiven. But for what? Do not the words "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" translate to "enough already with the guilt?" Unfortunately, we are now suffering the consequences of our folly. It seems we have at last achieved our great goal as a people, to be irrelevant and good for no more than to serve as an excuse for others insane agendas. Bravo Jewish people. Shall we examine whether this plan has worked in our favor? The only members of the faith populating with any regularity are the orthodox who are quite alienated from the moderate and reform sects. Jewish intelligence has always been praised and envied, but now that very intelligence has led to beliefs that have greatly weakened the religion. Many young, highly educated professionals under the age of forty no longer consider religion positive. They have examined the question from the perspective of a world-view and decided too many innocents have died in the name of God. It is far more beneficial to live a life without interference from ideals that promote hatred and war. How can one argue this logic when the evidence is more apparent today than ever before? At the end of the day, it isn't even about the Jewish people any longer. We have been relegated to the status of a kitchen tool to be used when a soup needs skimming or a chicken liver chopping. Were Israel no longer useful as a weapon in the hands of a crazy manic group of dangerous despots, no one would notice the daily flights of El Al bringing scores of tourists to wander ancient biblical lands coexisting alongside the many modern miracles Israel provides the world. Perhaps the only hope for the Jewish people is to once again embrace a healthy Jewish ego and ignore the desperate need for self-loathing and guilt. We must respect our right, and the right of Israel to thrive, and stop fighting amongst ourselves so viciously and destructively. To once and for all time accept that no amount of land return or concessions will make our enemies want to stop murdering us. Until we as a people can stop blaming ourselves for our talents, intelligence and blessings from God, we are doomed to drive ourselves out of existence. And even the last pathetic remnants of Detroit's finest clunkers will suffice to help us make the trip. In the series "Postcards from Israel— Postcards from Home," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports about Israel, homeland of the Jewish People, as seen by two sets of eyes. This "point — counter-point" presentation has, since 2008, become part of our lives. It can be found in numerous websites around the world as well as in print in the USA. Contact Bussel by email at aribussel@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BRIEFLY ONLY
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 1, 2009. |
|
To discuss all of the hot issues that call for attention, and to do full justice to each, would require more time than is possible for me, and more space than is reasonable for this posting. And so, I will touch upon the major issues, commenting relatively briefly, with intention to return as necessary. At the same time here, I will return to a couple of issues pending from the last few days. The big news here is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has informed the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the US demand that the growth of settlements in Judea and Samaria be halted is "not reasonable," and that our government will not stop building for natural growth. This is major. Especially as the pressure from Obama is intense. (More on this below.) It should be noted that this follows the failure last week of an Israeli delegation to come to terms with US governmental representatives in London on this and related issues. ~~~~~~~~~~ However, Netanyahu also indicated that the government would be taking down "illegal" outposts. This, he said, was a "reasonable demand." And, indeed, I've been picking up reports about preparations for dismantlement of some outposts (outposts with more than a tent and a shack). This is also major, though not as major as building in the settlements, I suspect, with regard to our future in Judea and Samaria. Am I all right with this? No. I am deeply disturbed. In particular because Netanyahu is suggesting that he's responding to "a demand." As to all of his talk about this being the "right thing" to do, because the outposts are illegal and we are a nation of law, etc., etc: I don't buy it. The "illegal" outposts have been there for some time and somehow they managed to remain. Why now? I am reminded of the astute comment by an analyst a couple of weeks ago — that the fact that we're not engaged in "final negotiations" with the Palestinians, which theoretically would bring progress and resolve matters (ha!), puts more pressure on us with regard to our presence in Judea and Samaria, as if moving us out from there will solve matters. It becomes more of a big deal for Obama. The way to prove he's "making progress." And so there remains the feeling, still, that this is somehow a trade-off. Which is where I started some days ago. Trade-off for what? Is the deal that Netanyahu will take down outposts in return for continuing to build in the major settlements? Don't think so, and I'll get to that in a minute. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the Committee meeting today, Netanyahu pounded the table and declared that he was responsible for the security of Israel, even if that made him unpopular. And yes, this feels like a re-run of what he said the other day. The implication, the hint, is that he's taking down the outposts — which will make him unpopular — in return for something with regard to taking on Iran, which involves our security. But I won't go there a second time, because right now I just don't know. Is it pretense, pretext, or something more? ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu described for the Committee the meeting he had with Obama thus: "There was a confirmation of our understandings on strategic matters. There was agreement over the danger of Iran going nuclear and on our right to self defense at all times. Do we take this at face value? Is he saying that Obama acknowledges our right to attack Iran and will refrain from getting in the way? And that whatever support — even passive — Obama gives in this regard is not tied to our progress regarding negotiations with the Palestinians? ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu said even more, but the rest will keep for another day. Suffice it to say here that he reiterated his position that dealing with Iran is first priority. ~~~~~~~~~~ It's likely to get ugly if and when larger outposts are dismantled. There will be violence, of a sort that pains us all enormously. Sort of like being kicked in the solar plexus. Right now information is floating about dangers to Havat Gilad in Samaria, named after Gilad Zar, who was murdered by Palestinians. I remain somewhat dubious as to whether all outposts will come down. Part of what we must see is when (or if) the nationalists in the government kick in with serious rebellion. It's our job to keep the pressure on. ~~~~~~~~~~ Some outposts are potentially more vulnerable than others because of charges of being on private Palestinian land — which, I've indicated, is not a simple matter. The legalities are vastly complex and further discussion on this must be tabled. Suffice it to say that sometimes the far left organizations make fallacious charges in this regard, and produce "the Palestinian owners." Sometimes it happens that Arab land owners from a different time period have been absent longer than the law allows, and land has been re-allocated. Not a simple picture, because Judea and Samaria are not governed by Israeli civil law, and we are in control only 42 years, and before that was Jordanian control, and before that British Mandate control, and before that Ottoman law — with rules overlaid one over the other, all within the span of roughly a century. None of this information contradicts what I wrote the other day with regard to the Road Map, etc. etc. It is simply another layer of information. And at some point I would like to address the actions a few years ago of one Talia Sasson, attorney, who made (infuriating) recommendations regarding what should be considered legal in the way of outposts and what should not. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to the NY Times today, Obama is thinking about weakening support for Israel in the Security Council if we don't freeze settlements. There is no way to contain the rage I feel in this regard. The duplicity of the man. Concern for Israeli security indeed. The UN is among the most anti-Israel of institutions. The article suggests that in doing this Obama is trying to play over Netanyahu's head and reach the people, who will pressure him to do as Obama wishes so that we will not suffer. Said one senior administration official cited: "There are things that could get the attention of the Israeli public." This will not work. Then this same official had the unmitigated gall to say: "Israel is a critical United States ally, and no one in this administration expects that not to continue." With allies like this, who needs enemies? ~~~~~~~~~~ So, please, my American friends — avoid using obscenities, just as I have avoided doing so here — but let Obama know what you think of him with regard to this:
~~~~~~~~~~ Elected representatives should be contacted on this as well: To locate your representatives:
To locate your senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ I alluded in my last discussion to an article by Caroline Glick, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," in which she shared her opinion that nothing Netanyahu does will make Obama change his Iran policy. I return to that article now for another issue of great concern. Wrote Glick: "...last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis. (emphasis added) Is your blood boiling yet? This is so in-your-face awful that it rather defies further comment. There's more of significance in this article as well (make sure you move to page two):
~~~~~~~~~~ Then I want to turn to yet another article that is exceedingly
illuminating: A piece in the Washington Post by Jack Diehl, "Abbas's
Waiting Game," which ran last Friday after Abbas's meeting with Obama.
This was the original article that carried the expectation voiced by
Abbas that it would take about two years for Obama to squeeze
Netanyahu out; it describes a meeting Diehl had with Abbas the day
before his meeting with Obama.
Abbas, writes Diehl, says that he will make no compromises, and will not meet in negotiations with Israel until Netanyahu agrees to his terms: freeze settlement construction and publicly accept a two-state solution. "What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel. "Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud." But Diehl looks at even more than the damage Obama is doing: "In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader [my note: a sneak if ever there was one] refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert 'accepted the principle' of the 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further. "Abbas turned it down. 'The gaps were wide,' he said. But Abbas didn't really turn it down because of wide gaps. He turned it down because he doesn't want a state, he wants the status quo and the pressure on Israel to continue. If ever there was clear evidence of this, it is right here. Diehl quotes Abbas at the end of the article: "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." "A normal life." No huge suffering under "occupation," no great longing for a state. Good people in America, please make sure the president and your elected representatives see this.
(thanks, Judith N.) ~~~~~~~~~~ It must be noted that a good deal of Obama's tough posture with regard to Israel precedes his major speech in Cairo, to be delivered on Thursday (and which I predict will fall flat because he's over-shooting and making tactical errors). What I find astonishing is the degree to which he has Mubarak licking his shoes. This week, the Egyptian president declared that peace in the Middle East is more important than resolving the issue of Iran. Of course, that he is saying this just before Obama comes to talk about his Middle East peace plans is just a coincidence. This is total nonsense, in any event. Egypt, a Sunni country, has hated Shiite Iran forever, and is now quite afraid of the radical Islamic groups supported by Iran encroaching on it and threatening instability. This is far more important to Egypt than whether Abbas gets his state. ~~~~~~~~~~ Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who is in the US and was interviewed by Fox News, said that Iranian long range missiles are capable of hitting the east coast of the US. I hope a lot of people are paying attention. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" A cutting edge brain research center — to be called the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences Israel — is to be built at Hebrew University. The international committee that made the decision regarding investment in this center had determined that the level of research in the field of brain sciences at HU is already among the highest in the world. With the advantage of a newly equipped center, HU will be ranked among the top five in the world in this field. It will open shortly on the Givat Ram campus of the university, with dozens of staffers. Research will be done in how the human brain works, and advances will be made in treating neurological disorders. What a source of pride this is — that we are capable of this at the same time that we face down Iran, and endure a host of security threats as well as international attempts at delegitizimation. We are doing very well indeed. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE APPEASERS
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, June 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Michael Ledeen and it is archived at
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/03/15/the-appeasers/ |
|
Winston Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." They like to call themselves "realists," but their proper name is "appeasers." They follow in the hollow footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, who signed an agreement with Hitler, believing it signalled "peace in our time." But it only encouraged the Fuhrer to believe that there was no will in the West to resist the onslaught of Nazi terror, and thus hastened the onset of the Second World War. As Churchill darkly told Chamberlain upon his return to London, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." A group of today's appeasers sent a letter to President-elect Obama just before the Inauguration (so that it was apparently drafted during the Gaza fighting), calling on him to negotiate with Hamas. Others, such as the British Government, are undertaking negotiations with Hezbollah. Vice President Joe Biden wants talks with the Taliban. The pro-Israel Washington Institute wants to tone down the language we use, recommending we stop using phrases like "war on terror," "global insurgency," even "the Muslim world." The president himself wants talks with Iran, as do numerous columnists, such as the New York Times's Roger Cohen. Secretary of State Clinton has dispatched diplomats to Damascus to talk to Bashar Assad. The rationale for this surge in talks was provided in a recent issue of Newsweek, whose cover was in Islamic green, with a title in both Arabic and English: "Radical Islam is a Fact. Get Used to It." The lead essay was produced by Fareed Zakaria, and called for a more "sophisticated approach" to the Islamic world. Zakaria argued that many of the radical Islamist groups are not part of a unified global movement against the West, that they had "local" grievances, and that these grievances could be dealt with one by one, presumably leading the groups to make peace with us. The top "local grievance" is invariably the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, General Scowcroft, one of the artisans of the failed policies of the George H.W. Bush Administration (the one that confessed failure to grasp "the vision thing"), and one of the signatories of the letter to Obama, blandly remarked "I see no reason not to talk to Hamas." "The main gist," he intoned, "is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process. Don't move it to the end of your agenda and say you have too much to do. And the US needs to have a position, not just hold their coats while they sit down." The full list of signatories: —former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft; All are old enough to remember that similar claims were made about Communism during the Cold War. When President Reagan proclaimed that the Soviet Empire was destined to fail, brought the full array of American power to bear on the world Communist movement, and called upon the West to begin planning for the post-Soviet world, he was denounced as an unsophisticated and dangerous hawk. Didn't he understand, his critics asked, that there was an enormous variety of "Communist" movements and parties, and that many of them were quite independent of the Kremlin? From Katherine Graham of the Washington Post to the usual editorialists on the left, Reagan was urged to take it easy on the likes of the Italian, Spanish and French Communist Parties, the so-called "Eurocommunists." The very same Professor Brzezinski who today calls for talks with Hamas, then argued that "Eurocommunism" was a mortal threat to the Soviet Union, and said that the success of the Eurocommunists would wreck international Communism. It was not so. In the years that followed, despite their local grievances and despite distinct differences in tone, the Eurocommunists remained loyal Communists. And when the Soviet Empire fell, they fell along with it. So it will be with Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban. Just as the Eurocommunists could not survive without the constant aid, guidance, and funding from the Kremlin, so the various terrorist groups cannot long survive without Iran and the dark side of the Pakistani Government and the Saudi Royal Family. Instead of bringing American power to bear on the terror masters in Tehran, Damascus, Islamabad and Riyadh, the appeasers warn that anything we do will only make things worse, just as the Cold War appeasers said that Reagan would make things worse with the Soviet Union. Martin Kramer noted that this case had been made quite emphatically by Ambassador Chas Freeman, the recently fallen nominee to head up the National Intelligence Council. Freeman opposed adding Hamas and Hezbollah to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, despite Hezbollah's attacks on Americans in the 1980s (and, Martin should have added, the 1990s, as at Khobar Towers), and Hamas' suicide bombings of innocent Israelis. "By openly stating and taking action to make them — to declare that we are their enemy, we invite them to extend their operations in the United States or against Americans abroad." In others words, appeasers like Freeman and the others advocate pre-emptive capitulation and appeasement in the hopes that the groups will only target innocents living in the Middle East. One could not ask for a better example of Churchill's definition of an appeaser. This idea is both morally bankrupt and strategically dangerous because it fails to recognize the long-term, worldwide ambition of these groups. Zakaria writes as if radical Islam will destroy itself, if only we are patient and sophisticated. In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried — in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan — people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. It is true that "bin Ladenism" has lost appeal, but that is primarily because it lost the war in Iraq, and has taken severe beatings in Lebanon and Gaza. Nothing is more devastating to a messianic movement — and radical islam is precisely that — than defeat on the battlefield. The jihadis claim that victory comes from God, thus the clear import of their defeat is that God is not on their side. That is why their defeat in Iraq was so momentous, and why we must aim to defeat the jihadi regimes, above all those in Damascus and Tehran. Zakaria is quite wrong to say that the radical jihadis "lack answers to the problems of the modern world." They do have answers, very appealing answers, not only to the problems of the modern world but to the most profound questions of human existence. They are ancient answers, barbaric answers, but they have considerable appeal to many Muslims, especially if we stand back and permit them to extend their sway. It is quite true, as Zakaria says, that most people would prefer to live in a more civilized manner, but the reason that the jihadis failed in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they were beaten by the greatest instrument of freedom in the modern world — the American military — not because the locals tired of living in a sharia state. The overwhelming majority of Iranians detest their lives in the Islamic Republic, but the mullahs continue to rule because the West has lacked the will to defeat them and make it possible for the Iranian people to live in freedom. The current appeasers have less excuse than the British Prime Minister, who thought he could forestall and perhaps even avoid a war with the Third Reich. If they were really realists, the appeasers of today would recognize that we are already at war, and that, just as in the epic struggle against Nazism and Fascism, the only proper mission for the West is victory. Instead, they seek dishonor, and the effect of their dishonorable campaign is to encourage our enemies, weaken our will, condemn the victims of radical Islam to death, torture, and misery, and hasten the day when we will be forced to fight on a much larger scale, perhaps even in our own land. Churchill put it best the day he became Prime Minister: You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs — Victory in spite of all terrors — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
READER-SELECTED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, June, 2009. |
|
Ayalon Institute Segment. From Gabrielle Goldwater This is about a secret munitions factory hidden in a Kibbutz just before the War of Independence. It was shown on the History Channel. Don Wildman, the show's host on this clandestine journey back in time, interviews one of the kibbutz people involved in the secret factory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQNw5MA3DII NBC NEWS ANCHOR BOWS BEFORE OBAMA From Cpocerl Brian Williams says goodnight to President Obama 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc
From Nurit The Prophet Ezekiel Prophecy said: One day God will gather the Jews and build the Nation of Israel... So as Jews do: we shall do what you say... a Pre-the establishment (1945) of the State of Israel. This is a MUST SEE video Among many heroism stories there is one of Kibbutz Ayalon: Under the launderette where the Kibbutz was laundering the British soldiers clothes and under the nose of the British Mandate Authorities young Jewish men were risking their lives each day (17-22 years only) by manufacturing bullets for the paramilitary forces, the Haganah fighters (Haganah in Hebrew means The Defense) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQNw5MA3DII
From Yael from Road 90 It has now been 3 years that we have been waiting for Gilad to come back home safe. 3 years that his kidnappers play this horrific "game", by refusing to give us any news about him. There are a lot of young men like Gilad in the IDF, and that is the reason why Road 90 decided to join its efforts with IDF Pizza, and encourage you to make a donation that will surely make our soldiers happy. All you need to do is to click here and do what your heart tells you... — Gilad Shalit — 3 years in captivity
— News — 3 years since Gilad Shalit was abducted
— History: 3 Minutes, 2,000 Years
— RESERVE — "Nuclear exchange between Israel and Arab States"
— The Six Day War, another point of view
— The IDF is protected by our children
— Why the Palestinians need to recognize the Jewish State
Dollar Collapse by Bernanke From Fred Reifenberg BqfbA6a8rd0&eurl=http/FredReifenberg We the People Stimulus Package From Wake Up America Bob Basso plays role of Thomas Paine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA New Videos for Sun June 28 '09 From Tsila http://newvideosfor.blogspot.com/2009/06/sunday-june-28-09.html Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat, New Jersey, gives a profound speech From Sonia Nusenbaum — June 28, 2009 Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat, New Jersey, gives a profound speech in Congress about Israel's rights in its own lands. He seems to be among those few in congress who "get it." He is surely in the minority among today's Obama Democrats. Since you are already a supporter of Israel, this speech is NOT for you. But please forward it to everyone whose knowledge of mid-Eastern history and/or whose loyalty to the USA and Israel is a bit shaky. Maybe it sounds just a bit trite and repetitious to supporters of Jewish rights to the Jewish state, but Sen. Menendez is POWERFUL — and full of new information — for most Americans. LuOH2YycFP8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl An American Volunteer in Israel's War for Independence: Harold Shugar From Jerry Gordon Brrrr... Rep. Broun Gets Cold Shoulder After Confronting Global Warming Hoaxers on House Floor From Gabrielle Goldwater Artic sea ice growth finished the year in 2008 at the same level as 1979. The oceans have been cooling since 2003. Sea ice is growing at the fastest pace on record. Greenland's glaciers are stabilizing. There are growing fears of a coming freeze worse than the ice age. Alaskan Sea Glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years. And, for the second straight year the Earth is, in fact, cooling... not warming. BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus. ... And who's going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income...the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3100 per family. ... This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it's a hoax! Right on! It's just too bad the House hoaxers wouldn't listen and instead voted for the largest tax increase in US history all in the name of junk science. http://ga/2009/06/brrrr-rep-broun-gets-cold-shoulder-for.html Inspirational Music that Moves the Spirit From JewishTV Network Debbie Friedman: Mourning into Dancing
Alberto Mizrahi Sings Yah Ribon Alam
Nathan Lam sings Sim Shalom
Sam Glaser: Jerusalem of Gold
Jewish Choir: Adon Olam
Shakshuka: Tzadik Katamar Medley
A brave Arab telling the truth From Susana K-M This is a classic. You must read or listen to the video presentation . Amazing that there are Arabs who know the truth about their capabilities and just where they stand in the wider world. I hope he does not have to pay the ultimate price, as is common in both the Arab and wider muslim worlds. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2063.htm Breaking News: Hope and Terror in Iran From Yael from Road 90 Thursday June 25 will mark three years since Iran-backed Hamas kidnapped Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit from Israel. We are still hoping for his safe return, until then let's all pray for him and help Israeli soldiers, by making them smile this summer with a tasty kosher pizza. While watching the videos below, make a small prayer for peace, democracy and freedom in the Middle East, from Iran to Israel. IRAN — Iran's answer to the free world — NEDA-YE SABZ
— MANY Students Shot & Killed by Basiji Gun Fire
— We found people with who to make peace in Iran
ISRAEL — Very touching: It Happened Yom Kippur
— Take a tour of the Golan Heights
— Document: Do you remember Anne Frank?
— Fun: Ahmed & Salim meet Ben Laden
— Discover: The Diwan Project — Music from Yemen
Neda Agha-Soltan was 'Deliberately Targeted By Basij Militia' From Sonia Nusenbaum slideband/Neda-Agha-Soltan-was--Deliberately-Targeted-By-Basij-Milital DO NOT LET UTUBE CANCEL THIS VIDEO! The IDF broadcasting on You Tube, presented by Capt. Avichai Adraee, an Israel officer speaking Arabic, showing and explaining in full clarity what is really going on in Gaza and how Hamas terrorists operate from the midst of civilian neighborhood, schools and mosques and how they used a United Nations school as shelter while firing mortar bombs at Israeli soldiers, thus endangering Palestinian civilians ... However, You Tube wants to remove this video by using the excuse that not too many people are logging in. So please watch the video once, twice and three times and also forward this e-mail to as many people so they also log in and the IDF will be able to have its voice heard. Just this one time, please send this mail to your entire list to your friend, foes, distant relatives and/or acquaintances. This rally is most important as the Arab propaganda machine has cranked up and stands to completely drown Israel 's position. Thank you. watch?v=8sznMP3dnCg&feature=PlayList&p=24B34659 Protesters Stone Basij Thugs! Torch Khomeini In Iran! From Gabrielle Goldwater — June 22, 2009. Brave Iranian democracy protests stone basij and force them to flee:
gatewaypundit/protesters-stone-basij-thugs-torch.html Iranian Hero & Leading Activist Ahmad Batebi On Obama: "His Lack of Response Will Not Be Regarded Kindly" From Gabrielle Goldwater — June 21, 2009. Courageous Iranian student activist Ahmad Betebi was sentenced to death by the evil regime in Iran after the student protests of 1999. He was severely tortured for years in the notorious Evin Prison in Iran. Last year Ahmad Batebi arrived safely in the United States. During a break from prison, Batebi fled Iran traveling through a free Iraq to Austria and finally arriving in Washington DC. gatewaypundit/iranian-hero-leading-activist-ahmad.html "All of Israel is Palestine": Denying Israel's Right to Exist and Anticipating its Destruction From Susana K-M The foundation of Palestinian ideology is the denial of Israel's right to exist. Jewish history is rewritten and Jewish historical presence in the Land of Israel in erased. All the agreements with Israel are said to be temporary. Palestinian Authority Television regularly broadcasts songs, dance, sermons and video clips encouraging Palestinians to anticipate, visualize, and hope for Israel's destruction and replacement by a future "Palestine" "from the River to the Sea." Statements made in English by Palestinian spokespeople regarding the desire to live 'side-by-side' with Israel are frequently contradicted in Arabic-language statements and opinions given in the various Palestinian media. The dual nature of these messages are significant, as they are preparing Palestinians for ongoing conflict and not for peaceful resolution. Thus, any peace agreements signed in the future by Palestinians will be seen as a betrayal of the messages they've been taught for over a decade. Preparing people for peace now will help create peace now and in the future. Preparing people for ongoing conflict will destroy any chance of peace for the foreseeable future. To see the different videos, goto http://www.Aish.com. Another Shooting Death Caught On Tape In Tehran From Gabrielle Goldwater — June 21, 2009. The evil regime is shooting protesters dead — Another innocent protester is murdered savagely by Iranian thugs: Tehran protesters flash the victory sign. shooresh1917/minute-by-minute-with-revolution.html David D'or & Dudu Fisher singing for the pope From Blue Truthe — June 20, 2009. This was shot Monday in Israel, It never made the US TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7euIUUAtk A Girl Was Shot Moments Ago From Amil Imani http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdRwOlmIxI Sweden in Grip of Islam From Fred Reifenberg — June 19, 2009. http://vodpod.com/watch/1428923-sweden-in-grip-of-islam
From Pinchas Winston June 18, 2009. http://shiurimwithrabbipinchaswinston.blogspot.com/ New Videos for June 17, 2009 From Tsila http://newvideosfor.blogspot.com/2009/06/wed-jun-17-09.html "Bursting Bubbles, Bail-Outs, and Bounce-Backs: Prospects for an Economic Recovery, From Jewish Policy Center — June 17, 2009 The new video is a recording of our recent June forum in Washington, DC (view press release here), "Bursting Bubbles, Bail-Outs, and Bounce-Backs: Prospects for an Economic Recovery," featuring Michael Medved, Stephen Moore, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Lacy Hunt. jewishpolicycenter.org/bursting-bubbles-bail-outs-and-bounce-backs Acknowledging Israel's History From Peace4Gen@aol.com — 16 June 2009 Remarks of Sen. Menendez Floor of the United States Senate: "Last Wednesday, just a few blocks down the street, a neo-Nazi opened fire at the Holocaust Museum. He murdered a security guard and terrorized the museum's visitors, including school children, who had come to learn, to express sympathy, to pray. That evil act was the work of a killer who had made his hatred of other religions and ethnic groups well known. An d it was a reminder that intolerance, ignorance and anti-Semitism have not yet been defeated in our world. "This tragedy reminds us of the need for sound understanding of one of the darkest episodes in the history of the world. Far too many misrepresent the significance of the Holocaust, especially in regards to the State of Israel and her people. And far too many deny it happened altogether, out of bigotry, hatred and spite. "In the face of so much misunderstanding, I'm compelled today to speak up about the role of the Holocaust in Israel's history, and Israel's challenges in preventing anti-Semitic murder from continuing to happen." http://www.c-spanarchives.org/2010:32:05&net=2 Please avoid watching if you have a weak heart From Amil Imani http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyOonzfC20o http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/jun/latest-protests Bill Maher: 'hope...starting to show green shoots...' From Boris Celser — June 16, 2009. Great video especially the part when he acknowledges formally that GWB was a 'doer'... http://www.thrfeed.com/maher-attacks-barack-obama-video.html#more Take a look on Iran... and Israel From Yael from Road 90 Two major events happened this week, two events that could shape the Middle East of tomorrow... On the one side, we saw that the democratically elected Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, made a historical speech, where he accepted the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state, showing that he, as much as the Israeli people that elected him, really want peace. On the other side, the Iranian people had the difficult task of electing their new leader. And instead of showing their will for peace and progress by clearly electing the opposition candidate, the Iranian people chose to give their vote to the anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, M. Ahmadinejad, who will continue on his path of building a nuclear bomb, leading the whole region into a state of war. This week, we saw 2 major events, 2 people, 2 visions of the potential future, 2 visions of the world: glorification of life versus a glorification of death. Netanyahu Speech
Look on Iran: — Iranian Pres. Candidate Mohsen Rezai: less dangerous than
Ahmadinejad?
— "Interesting" Iranian Presidential Debate
How a Muslim cleric received the "Obama Speech"
Focus on Jewish Culture: — Ashkenazi: The king of Yiddish songs
— Sephardic: Yemenite Piyut for Simcha Torah
— Israeli Music today: (woman) Malka Ingedashet
Moshe Feiglin responds. From LS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlIuywN5WQ Video: Moshe Feiglin on Pollard and Israel From Justice For Jonathan Pollard — June 16, 2009. J4JP Disclaimer:
Moshe Feiglin: Speaking the Truth — An Honest Response to Obama
Chaim Israel singing "Lecha Aile Tashuk'oti From Jewish Music Chaim Israel has such a beautiful voice. This is a video of him singing at a concert. The song is called Lecha Aile Tashuk'oti. Is this an amazing song, or what? www.youtube.com/watch?v=vECkcgjYpes&mode=related&search The Hottest Jewish Music Site on the Web:
Jewish Music archive
Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve? From Gabrielle Goldwater — June 14, 2009 www.israpundit.com%2F2008%2F&feature=player_embedded Adrian Salbuchi, soft spoken and well dressed Argentinian anti-semite (he will deny it) From Boris Celser — June 13, 2009. Principally to those living in Israel who do not understand the new anti-Semitism, here it is. Watch the 3 videos below (if you can stand it), and also take a look at the link just below, his 10 questions for Zionists. The man pretends to be an international analyst. Coming from Argentina, the most anti-Semitic country in Latin America, as Argentinian Jews still there or living abroad can confirm. Long ago, when the standard of living in Argentina was similar to Canada, that country made the wrong choice. They still blame the Jews. djiin/10-key-questions-for-israeli-zionists-by-adrian-salbuchi These questions can also be found at white supremacist websites, such as the one below. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=591037 And his e-mail is just below, if any of you want to answer him. Don't worry, dogs who bark don't bite. visit: http://www.asalbuchi.com.ar
Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy43zYo33Dg Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY6mq8rAqAQ Part 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppQNpl68RiM ALIYA — Feel the Dream, Shabbat Shalom. Parsha Shlach From Robin Ticker — June 12, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_kxWKB5vPM"> PEPSI, forget the jingle, now you know From Paul Rotenberg — June 10, 2009. Thank you to David Diamond of Winnipeg for sending us this enlightening little video. Now I feel bad that I don't drink any of these carbonated beverage. http://islameyat.com/video_player.php?id=2756 Jewish Response to the Obama Cairo Speech From Tsila http://htmlspecialmessage/jewish-response-to-obama-cairo-speech.html The Political Carnival: Video — Jon Voight on Obama From Gabrielle Goldwater video-jon-voight-on-obama-president-is.html Here you can meet the man of this speech, John Voight:
Hope, Change & the Death of Israel From the United American Committee. A video from a Conservative Christian to Jewish supporters of Obama. Nothing "earth-shaking" here, the speaker essentially says, "Put not your faith in Princes" when it comes to Obama. May Netanyahu stand up to the crushing pressure of the pro-Arab Obama administration. http://www.floridasecuritycouncil.org/ "I Don`t apologize for America — I thank God for it!" From UCI = Israel Unity Coalition Org. An excellent Huckabee video. It analyzes Obama's speech. http://israelunitycoalition.org/video/vtemplate.php?id=39 Newt Gingrich: "Bowing To the Saudi King Is Not An Energy Policy" From Gabrielle Goldwater — June 9, 2009 "Bowing To Saudi King Is Not An Energy Policy" Newt Gingrich was the guest of honor at a fundraiser hosted by the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial committees. Update: Newt Says Obama Already Failed. Here is his energy tip for Barack Obama: gatewaypundit/newt-gingrich-bowing-to-saudi-king-is.html Islam Propaganda vs 100 Shalom From Yael from Road 90 A few days after the "Obama speech", Israel, an Island of history, culture, beauty, is still standing in an "ocean" of hate. I particularly enjoyed the first video about "Pepsi", this guy looks to be so sure of himself... And that's what made me smile, with virulent enemies like this one; I see real hope for Israel... Enjoy the videos, enjoy our country! — Muslim Cleric: PEPSI support Israel (clear and simple
demonstration)
— KKL-JNF's role in the founding and development of Tel Aviv
— Obama on Iran & North Korea... uhhh... on North Korea... uhh...
— Israel & Tel Aviv: 100 Shalom
— Israel: Muslim Respect for Other Religions
— Take a look on East Jerusalem
— Israeli Students React to President Obamas Historic Speech in Cairo
Rabbi Richman responds to Obama! Tikkun Chait Hamiraglim From Robin Ticker — June 9, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nImmsxXoLO0 Jewish response to Cairo Speech; Surviving History; Blessings of Torah From Tsila — June 9, 2009 "The Temple Institute: Jewish Response to the Obama Cairo Speech"
"JourneymanPictures: Surviving History" "The life-stories of ten survivors of the Holocaust in Lithuania, where 95% of the pre-war Jewish population was destroyed. Every photograph or keepsake holds a painful memory, finally unlocked.
'In my town they buried people alive and built a warehouse on top of
them' remembers Berl. Those who survived did so because they joined
the partisans or the army, or escaped to Russia. Or because kind
strangers hid them in basements and attics and on farms, because they
slipped unnoticed through a hole in the ghetto gate or crawled out
through a sewer, or somehow lasted in the camps until liberation.
Chasia, now 87, got a visit late one night by friends who told her to
flee immediately. 'I could leave my children behind and save
myself..or try to save them' she says 'my decision stays with me and
tortures me all my life'"
"Brachot/Blessings Of Torah" http://torahjudaismandisrael.blogspot.com http://7lawsofnoah.blogspot.com Brownback, Eiland, Pipes & Schanzer on the Middle East From Jewish Policy Center — June 8, 2009. The video is a recording of a June 3 panel, sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth, and held at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. "New Thinking for Old Problems: The Challenges of Middle East Peace-Making under the Shadow of the Iranian Threat" features the JPC's Jonathan Schanzer, scholar Daniel Pipes, retired Israeli General Giora Eiland, and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). Jewish Policy Crtr/middle-east-panel-schanzer-brownback-eiland-pipes No ordinary cartoon From Aryeh Zelasko — June 8, 2009. The YouTube comments — vitriolic and expletive-filled, igniting arguments from users all over the globe — are revealing. The debate is all-encompassing, from 1948 to now, from the role of the Holocaust in the Arab-Israeli conflict to the causes for the collapse of the peace process. Name-calling abounds. Both sides accuse the other of murder. But "Ahmed and Salim" isn't your ordinary cartoon. Since the first short South Park-style-animated episode hit the Internet several months ago, "Ahmed and Salim" has become a worldwide hit. Together, the six episodes have received more than 700,000 views on YouTube and have garnered thousands of comments. Users have created subtitles for "Ahmed and Salim" in Czech, French and German. One episode has been banned from YouTube and all of the five-minute-or-less episodes are banned outright in the United Arab Emirates. "They banned it because the UAE flag was in Ahmed's and Salim's living room," one of the creators of the series, Tom Trager, explains. "In the same episode Yasser, Ahmed's and Salim's father, burns down a synagogue and shoots Jews in the head. But the flag — that was the offensive part to them." Trager and cocreator Or Paz welcome the controversy. "We try to annoy groups who take themselves too seriously," Paz says. "And no one takes themselves more seriously than Muslim fundamentalists. So we mock them." The full article by Mya Guarnieri including the cartoon videos can
be read at:
An Alfred Hitchcock documentary on the Nazi Holocaust/other news From Marc Samberg — June 7, 2009. In April 1945 camera crews from the British and American armies entered the Nazi Death Camps and filmed the horror they found there. For decades that film was stored in the archives of the Imperial War Museum in London. The documentary was unfinished with missing soundtrack. But the directors including Alfred Hitchcock had developed a script to go with the pictures. The film is unedited as close as possible to what the producers intended it to be over half a century ago. "They made it as a document to serve our collective memory". It begins with: "*Eleven million people died in Nazi Death Camps, six millions were Jews*...." It is gruesome and most detailed footage, rather long, but you will not be able to stop watching it! Regrettably it all took place which is the most difficult to fathom. Now that the denial of the Holocaust in pervasively rampant, please send this to everyone especially to those who have the gumption to claim that the Holocaust did not happen or that it was not 6 Million Jews who perished during the Holocaust rather a few thousands, or that no Jews or others died in the Nazis Concentration Death Camps. videoplay?docid=-6076323184217355958 AHMED & SALIM-SALIM WANTS TO COMMIT SUICIDE From Cpocerl — June 7, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBAuOGQ4ijM&NR=1 AHMED & SALIM BLOW UP A BUS PART 1 From Cpocerl — June 7, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXMIQDVOs98 Evan Thomas Says Obama Is god From Gabrielle Goldwater Media Is Dead —
Power Line has more on Newsweek: The "new Newsweek" is exemplified by Meacham's decision to turn an issue over to comedian Stephen Colbert as a guest editor. And also by the latest swoon by long-time Newsweek lefty Evan Thomas, who, on "Hardball," proclaimed Barack Obama a "sort of God":THOMAS: ... Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something — I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above — above the world, he's sort of God. He's- UPDATE: The media's crush on Obama is now a national joke. The Politico (/www.politico.com) reported: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty offered up his own round of sharp-edged zingers in remarks to the College Republican National Committee Friday night, POLITICO's Zack Abrahamson reports. gatewaypundit/newsweeks-evan-thomas-says-obama-is-god.html USEFUL FOOLS IN CHARGE OF OBA-HUSSEIN'S AMERICA From Boris Celser Really worthwhile to watch till the end. alanpetersr/useful-fools-in-charge-of-oba-husseins.html Rush Limbaugh: "I Think Obama Got Something Against Israel" From Gabrielle Goldwater — June 5, 2009 The Israelis think Obama's got something against Israel, too. Even Israel's new US Ambassador understands that Obama is anti-Israel. Rush Limbaugh was interviewed by Sean Hannity tonight. During the interview Limbaugh claimed that Obama does not like Israel. Obama has a long history of associating with noted radicals. Of course, many of these radical Obama associates are also Jew-haters. gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/rush-limbaugh-i-dont-think-obama-likes Keidar: Obama Ignorant of True Issues in Middle East From Boris Celser — June 4, 2009 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131717 Watch Video in an interview of Caroline Glick on the Obama administration From Jack Lauber — June 3, 2009 Everyone who cares about Israel should see this video, of Caroline Glick a deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post and Mid East expert. Obama is definitely appeasing the Muslims and throwing Israel under the bus. J street, Brit Tzedek and liberal Jews helped put this enemy of our people into office. www.pjtv.com/video/Can_Obama_Push_Through_a_Palestinian_State%3F/1967/ Congressman Forbes corrects Obama on this country's roots From Boris Celser — Jun 4, 2009 Kudos to Rep. Randy Forbes for his comments in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o ARAB LIES about Israel From Barbara Sommer — June 2, 2009 A pretty good (video) compilation. Collect the whole set (of Arab lies abut Israel, if you can). Worth at least 4 out of 5 stars as videos go . . . http://www.road90.com/watch.php?id=8ZoERaEA8 Hope under Fire From Yael from Road 90 Arab Immigration to Israel
— Virtual Tour of Israel: Archaeology
— Virtual Tour of Israel: Nature
— Hope Under Fire (thanks to our US friends)
— The Tefillin Booth
— Injured Israeli Soldiers — True Heroes
— The Jerusalem Syndrome
SMARTER THAN THE AVG TERRORISTS-OBAMA's GOTTA BE LOVING THIS-DIM & COMMIE !!!!!! From Cpocerl Chinese Muslim Uighurs in Gitmo Call Obama a Communist Catherine Herridge filed a report tonight from Gitmo, with a breaking story that two of the Chinese Muslim Uighurs eagerly spoke to the press when she was in Camp Iguana. They called Obama a Democrat and a Communist, and said they lived in a similar governmental system back in their own country. LOL. Obama's gotta just be LOVING this! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1243900523 Obama vs. Israel From Chuck Brooks Morris: Impending Death of Israel because of Iran, while America is only interested in the settlements and won't help Israel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SoTLTzKJnA&feature=channel_page Muslim Culture From Bryna Berchuck Janel Levy, in a CAPS panel presents several Islamic cultural conflict videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYalTs7GKcE |
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |