| HOME | Featured Stories | June 2010 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
BLOSSOMS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 30, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see his graphic art. |
|
UN CONDEMNS ISRAEL FIRST, INVESTIGATES LATER
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 30, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rex Murphy and it appeared June 5, 2010 in
|
|
I don't suppose the world needs to remember Rwanda to note how sluggish in the face of imminent horror the United Nations is and can be. If that is not a sufficient cue, we could bring in other examples of areas of great threat or immiseration or both: Darfur, Tibet, Chechnya, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Congo or Iran. On these the UN has the patience of a stone but only some of its energy. But torpid as is its nature, and comatose as are its eternal deliberations, on one subject, and toward one state, the United Nations acquires a strange and uniquely transformative power. Bring Israel under its gaze and the diplomatic sloths at UN headquarters morph into the swiftest of gazelles. From lotus-eaters to adrenalin junkies in the twinkling of an eye. Quite amazing, really. So naturally when the debacle over the so-called "freedom flotilla" — news media should be wary of letting activists choose the names of things — roared into the headlines, the UN reacted at the diplomatic equivalent of the speed of light. The Security Council issued its "condemnation," and in a wonderful reversal of cause and effect also called for an investigation into what it had "condemned." And the cruellest joke on the planet, what the UN with unbounded irony refers to as its Human Rights Council, issued, as unfailingly in every previous international incident involving Israel it has, a condemnation as well. If the flotilla's real purpose was to bring aid, then merely by complying with Israel's request to dock at Ashdod — as five of the ships did, with no blood shed and no international headlines — the supplies on the sixth ship would now be in Gaza. In reality, it was exercise in early 21st century propaganda on the battlefield of world opinion. Its only purpose was to challenge and delegitimize Israel's blockade of ships travelling to Gaza — a blockade, as too many news reports fail to emphasize, which up until this "incident" was also being maintained by Egypt. That the Egyptian government, until a few days ago, mirrored in its actions Israel's concerns about what might get shipped into Hamas is the only real obstruction in the otherwise perfectly concentrated anti-Israel narrative. As to the "peace activists" on that sixth ship, the ones who received the Israeli soldiers boarding the ship with bats, pipes, knives and chains — well, the video footage of the moments preceding the boarding and the boarding itself will make most rational people review their understanding of peace and activism and some of the organizations that fly the flags of these conveniently fungible designations. Any real investigation of the flotilla will not confine itself to the boarding, but include an equally scrupulous inquiry into the origins of some of its actors, its unstated as well as it stated aims, and the facility and speed with which it revved up the engine of international protest against Israel. It seemed like half the world took to the streets in less than half a day. This was but one installment in the long and continuous campaign to isolate Israel, and to turn that state in the eyes of international opinion into a pariah, to erode its legitimacy and to break its will. You've seen the branding. Apartheid Israel. Israel is the worst thing to happens to Jews since the Holocaust. Racist Israel. Imperialist Israel. The campaign has been remarkably successful, which is much to Israel's woe and may be to the world's woe as well. There are far larger, more egregious causes for the world's attention than the episode off Gaza last Sunday, greater threats and deeper anxieties. But it is truly worth remarking that when Israel is in the dock, protest rage goes epidemic. To use that vile term so often recently turned upon Israel when it acts in its self-defence, the response is extravagantly "disproportionate." I truly do not know why this is so. Israel is a sanctuary state established after one almost successful attempt just two generations ago to rid all the world of Jews. And Israel is now in the shadow of a fundamentalist, ferociously anti-Israel theocracy which is about to equip itself with nuclear weapons. Perhaps, alas, under the threat of a second attempt. Yet somehow Israel is the rogue, the barbarian nation, the only state on earth that can energize the professionally lethargic diplomats in the great tower of hypocrisy on the East River. Strange and dangerous times. |
|
TURKEY'S ISLAMIC REVOLUTION PAID FOR BY WEALTHY ISLAMISTS
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 30, 2010. |
|
This was written by Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School. |
|
Summary by Daily Alert:
Traveling abroad on his first trip as president, Barack Obama tacked a visit to Turkey onto the tail end of a trip to Europe. "Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message," he told the Turkish Parliament. "My answer is simple: Evet [yes]. Turkey is a critical ally." On the same visit, however, the president showed that he considered Turkey more firmly part of the Islamic world than of Europe. "I want to make sure that we end before the call to prayer, so we have about half an hour," Obama told a town hall in Istanbul. Obama was not simply demonstrating cultural sensitivity. The fact is that Turkey has changed. Gone, and gone permanently, is secular Turkey, a unique Muslim country that straddled East and West and that even maintained a cooperative relationship with Israel. Today Turkey is an Islamic republic whose government saw fit to facilitate the May 31 flotilla raid on Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey is now more aligned to Iran than to the democracies of Europe. Whereas Iran's Islamic revolution shocked the world with its suddenness in 1979, Turkey's Islamic revolution has been so slow and deliberate as to pass almost unnoticed. Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic of Turkey is a reality — and a danger. The story of Turkey's Islamic revolution is illuminating. It is the story of a charismatic leader with a methodical plan to unravel a system, a politician cynically using democracy to pursue autocracy, Arab donors understanding the power of the purse, Western political correctness blinding officials to the Islamist agenda, and American diplomats seemingly more concerned with their post-retirement pocketbooks than with U.S. national security. For Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is a dream come true. For the next generation of American presidents, diplomats, and generals, it is a disaster. _____________ The Middle East is littered with states formed from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I. Most have been failures, but in Anatolia, one has flourished: in 1923, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey and, soon after, abolished the Ottoman Empire and its standing as a caliphate, a state run according to the dictates of Islamic law. In subsequent years, he imposed a number of reforms to transform Turkey into a Western country. His separation of mosque and state allowed Turkey to thrive, and he charged the army with defending the state from those who would use Islam to subvert democracy. While Middle Eastern states embraced demagogues and ideologies that led to war and incited their peoples to hate the West, Turkey became a frontline Cold War and NATO ally. Turks faced down terrorists, embraced democracy, and dreamed of full inclusion as a nation of Europe. No longer. Turkey's Islamic revolution began on November 3, 2002, when Erdogan's Justice and Reconciliation Party (AKP) swept to power in Turkey's elections. Through a lucky quirk of the Turkish election system, the AKP's 34 percent total in the popular vote translated into 66 percent of the Parliament's seats, giving the party absolute control. Initially, Erdogan kept his ambition in check. He understood the lessons to be learned from the undoing of his mentor, Necmettin Erbakan, the first Islamist to become prime minister. After taking the reins of power in 1996 with far less power in Parliament, Erdogan's predecessor sought to shake up the system — to support religious schools at home and to reorient Turkey's foreign policy away from Europe and toward Libya and Iran. This became too much for the military, which exercised its power as guardians of the constitution and demanded Erbakan's resignation. Afterward, Turkey's Constitutional Court banned the party to which Erdogan belonged because of its threats to secular rule. Erdogan himself had been banned from politics because of a 1998 conviction for religious incitement. And so he initially managed the newly created AKP from the sidelines only, working through Abdullah Gul, the lieutenant who served as caretaker prime minister after the party's 2002 victory. Gul pushed through a law to overturn the ban against Erdogan, and the latter became prime minister in March 2003. Learning the lessons of Islamist failures of the past, Erdogan sought to calm Turks who feared the AKP would dilute Turkey's separation of mosque and state. As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan described himself as a "servant of Sharia," or Islamic canon law. But after his party's 2002 victory, he declared that "secularism is the protector of all beliefs and religions. We are the guarantors of this secularism, and our management will clearly prove that." He took pains to eschew the Islamist label and instead described his party as little more than the Muslim equivalent of the Christian Democrats in Europe — that is, all democracy and religious in name only. Both Turks and Westerners can be forgiven for taking Erdogan at his word. He had cultivated an image of probity as a local official that stood in sharp contrast with the corruption of many incumbent Turkish politicians. Rather than upend the system or pursue a divisive social platform, as prime minister Erdogan first sought to repair the Turkish economy. This was an attractive prospect for Turks across the political spectrum, since in the five years prior, the Turkish lira had declined in value eight-fold, from 200,000 to 1.7 million to the dollar, leading to a ruinous banking crisis in 2001. A Coca-Cola cost millions. Erdogan stabilized the currency and implemented other popular reforms. He cut income taxes, slashed the value-added tax, and used state coffers to subsidize gasoline prices. The Turkish electorate rewarded his party for its efforts. The AKP won 42 percent of the vote in the March 2004 municipal elections and placed mayors in four of Turkey's five largest cities. In July 2007, it increased its share of the popular vote to 47 percent. But there was far less here than met the eye. Rather than base economic reform on sound, long-term policies, Erdogan instead relied on sleight of hand. He incurred crippling debt and, in effect, mortgaged long-term financial security of the republic for his own short-term political gain. Deniz Baykal, the former leader of the main opposition party, has said that the state debt accrued during Erdogan's first three years in power surpassed Turkey's total accumulated debt in the three decades prior. And that was only official debt. Outside of public view, Erdogan and Gul, now his foreign minister, presided over an influx of so-called Green Money — capital from Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirates, much of which ended up in party coffers rather than in the public treasury. And here begins the tale of the interweaving of Turkey's destiny with the nations to its east and south, and to the Muslim world rather than with the West.
Between 2002 and 2003, the Turkish Central Bank's summary balance of "payments for net error and omission" — which is to say, money that appeared in the nation's financial system for which government reporting cannot account — increased from approximately $200 million to more than $4 billion. By 2006, Turkish economists estimated the Green Money infusion into the Turkish economy to be between $6 billion and $12 billion, and given the ability of the government to hide some of these revenues by assigning them to tourism, that is probably a wild underestimation. Some Turkish intelligence officials privately suggest that the nation of Qatar is today the source of most subsidies for the AKP and its projects. Thus, if Iran's Islamic revolution was spontaneous, Turkey's was anything but: it was bought and paid for by wealthy Islamists. AKP officials are well-placed to manage the Green Money influx. Throughout much of the 1980s, Erdogan's sidekick, Gul, worked as a specialist at Saudi Arabia's Islamic Development Bank. Before the 2002 victory, he criticized existing state scrutiny of Islamist enterprises. Senior AKP advisers made their fortunes in Islamic banking and investment. Korkut Ozal, for example, is the leading Turkish shareholder in al-Baraka Turk, Turkey's leading Islamic bank, as well as in Faisal Finans, which also has its roots in Saudi Arabia. Erdogan has systematically placed Islamist bankers in key economic positions. He appointed Kemal Unakitan, a former board member at both al-Baraka and Eski Finans, as finance minister and moved at least seven other al-Baraka officials — one of whom had served as an imam in an illegal commando camp — to key positions within Turkey's banking regulatory agency. Erdogan also reoriented Turkey's official foreign trade. In 2002, bilateral trade between Turkey and the United Arab Emirates hovered at just over half a billion dollars. By 2005, it had grown to almost $2 billion. That same year, Kursad Tuzmen, the state minister for foreign trade, announced that United Arab Emirates ruler Sheik Khalifa bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan would invest $100 billion in Turkish companies. Not to be outdone, Saudi Arabia's finance minister announced earlier this year that Saudi Arabia would invest $400 billion in Turkey over the next four years. In contrast, in 2001, Turkish-Saudi trade amounted to just over $1 billion. When Turkish-Iranian trade surpassed $10 billion in 2009, Erdogan announced a goal to increase it to $30 billion. Whether or not Turkey and its Persian Gulf allies are exaggerating their figures, the trajectory of trade is clear. _____________ For wealthy donors, the conversion of Turkey has been a good investment. For decades, Turkey stood out like a sore thumb for Islamists. Here was a majority Muslim country which, even lacking oil, was far more successful than any Arab state or Iran. No sooner had Erdogan stabilized the economy and solidified his political monopoly than he turned to changing Turkey's social order and reversing its diplomatic orientation. Erdogan's strategy was multi-tiered. He endorsed the dream of Turkey's secular elite to enter the European Union but only to rally European diplomats to dilute the role of the Turkish military as guardians of the constitution. While Turkish liberals, businessmen, and Western diplomats took solace in Erdogan's outreach to Europe, his motivation was cynical. His ideological constituents had no interest in Europe, and Erdogan himself is intolerant of European liberalism and secularism. He criticized the European Court of Human Rights for failing to consult Islamic scholars when it upheld a ban on headscarves in public schools — a ban that dates back to Ataturk's original reforms. Erdogan's ambitions to remake Turkey, however, reached far beyond superficial issues such as the veil. He sought to revolutionize education, dominate the judiciary, take over the police, and control the media. Erdogan worked to achieve not short-term gains on hot-button issues like the headscarf but rather a long-term cultural revolution that, when complete, would render past battles moot. Erdogan attacked the secular education system at all levels. First, he loosened age restrictions on children who attend supplemental Koran schools — restrictions intended to prevent their indoctrination. He also undid content regulation meant to counter the ability of Saudi-funded extremists to teach in Turkish academies. Those schools that break the remaining regulations need not worry: Erdogan's party eviscerated penalties to the point where unaccredited religious academies now advertise openly in newspapers. Simultaneously, he equated degrees issued by Turkish madrassas — Islamic religious schools — with ordinary high school degrees. This bureaucratic sleight of hand in theory enabled madrassa students to enter the university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering or, in some cases, even being exposed to Western fundamentals. When such students still fumbled university entrance exams, the AKP provided them with a comparative bonus on their scores, justifying the move as affirmative action. Erdogan made little secret of his goals: in May 2006, he ordered his negotiator at European Union accession talks to remove any reference to secularism in a Turkish position paper discussing Turkey's educational system. Over the past year, the Ministry of Education has gutted the traditional high school philosophy curriculum and Islamized it. Moreover, the judiciary is no longer independent. Erdogan's initial attempts to lower the mandatory retirement age of judges (a move that would have seen him replace 4,000 out of 9,000 judges) foundered on constitutional challenges. More than a year later, the Supreme Court of Appeals chided the AKP for attempts to interfere in the judiciary. When Gul, Erdogan's closest ally, assumed Turkey's presidency in 2007, there was no longer any check on his party's authority. The president selects the Higher Education Board, appoints a quarter of the justices on the Constitutional Court, nominates the chief public prosecutor, and officially confirms the commanding general of the Supreme Military Council. Now, on the rare occasion when the high court levies decisions not to the prime minister's liking, the prime minister simply refuses to implement them. In any case, after almost eight years in power, the AKP has been able to remake the courts. The government can now assign sympathetic judges to hear highly politicized cases. And in March 2010, the AKP unveiled proposed constitutional reforms that would make it easier for political leaders to appoint judges. In any other democracy, discussion and debate about government abuse of power and societal change would saturate the news. Not so in Turkey. No prime minister in Turkish history has been so hostile to the press as Erdogan. What had been a vibrant press when Erdogan took over is now flaccid. The prime minister has sued dozens of journalists and editors, sometimes for nothing more than a political cartoon poking fun at him. When a Turkish media group pursued a story about a Turkish-German charity transferring money illegally to Islamists in Turkey, tax authorities punished it with a spurious $600 million lien. When it continued to report critically, the group received an additional $2.5 billion tax penalty. And, in a strategy borrowed from Iran, Erdogan has confiscated newspapers — the high-circulation national daily Sabah most famously — that he deemed too critical or independent, and transferred their control to political allies. With the independent press muzzled and almost all print and airtime dedicated to his agenda, Erdogan upped his campaign against both the political opposition and the military. Whereas the Interior Ministry would once root out Islamists and followers of the anti-Semitic Turkish cult leader Fethullah Gulen, the AKP filled police ranks with them. Even AKP supporters acknowledge that the Interior Ministry regularly eavesdrops without warrants and leaks embarrassing transcripts to the Islamist press without consequence. "For 40 years, they have kept files on us. Now, it is our turn to keep files on them," AKP deputy Avni Dogan recently said. The real coup against democracy, however, came on July 14, 2008, when a Turkish prosecutor indicted 86 Turkish figures — retired military officers, prominent journalists, professors, unionists, civil-society activists, and the man who dared run against Erdogan for mayor years earlier — on charges of plotting a coup to restore secular government. The only thing the defendants had in common was political opposition to the AKP. The alleged conspiracy grabbed international headlines. At its root, the 2,455-page indictment alleged that retired military officers, intellectuals, journalists, and civil-society leaders conspired to cause chaos in Turkey and to use the resulting crisis as justification for a military putsch against the AKP. In February 2010, the prosecutors revealed a 5,000-page memorandum detailing coup plans. The documents are ridiculous. The indictment was paper-thin. Security forces rounded up most suspects before it was even written. And as for the smoking-gun memorandum, the charge is risible: coup plotters do not write plans down, let alone in such detail. The indictments had a chilling effect across society. Turks may not like where Erdogan is taking Turkey, but they now understand that even peaceful dissent will have a price. Turkish politics had always been rough and tumble, but except at the height of the Cold War, it had seldom been lethal. Nor can liberal Turks rely on the Turkish military to save them. Bashed from the religious right and the progressive left, the Turkish military is a shadow of its former self. The current generation of generals is out of touch with Turkish society and, perhaps, their own junior officers. Like frogs who fail to jump from a pot slowly brought to a boil, the Turkish general staff lost its opportunity to exercise its constitutional duties. Simply put, the Turkish military failed in its job. Obsession with public relations and media imagery trumped responsibility. _____________ A decade ago, Turks saw themselves in a camp with the United States, Western Europe, and Israel; today Turkish self-identity places the country firmly in a camp led by Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Hamas. Turkey may be a NATO member, but polls nevertheless show it to be the world's most anti-American country (although, to be fair, the Pew Global Attitudes Project did not conduct surveys in Libya or North Korea). Nor do Turks differentiate between the U.S. government and the American people: they hate Americans almost as much as they hate Washington. This is no accident. From almost day one, Erdogan has encouraged, and his allies have financed, a steady stream of anti-American and anti-Semitic incitement. Certainly, many Turks opposed the liberation of Iraq in 2003, but this was largely because Erdogan bombarded them with anti-American incitement before Parliament's vote, which withdrew the support promised to the operation. Much of Erdogan's incitement, however, cannot be dismissed as a dispute over the Iraq war. In 2004, Yeni Safak, a newspaper Erdogan endorsed, published an enemies list of prominent Jews. In 2006, not only did Turkish theaters headline Valley of the Wolves, a fiercely anti-American and anti-Semitic movie that featured a Jewish doctor harvesting the organs of dead Iraqis, but the prime minister's wife also publicly endorsed the film and urged all Turks to see it. Turkish newspapers reported that prominent AKP supporters and Erdogan aides financed its production. While much of the Western world boycotted Hamas in the wake of the 2006 Palestinian elections in order to force it to renounce violence, Erdogan not only extended a hand to the group but also welcomed Khaled Mashaal, leader of its most extreme and recalcitrant faction, as his personal guest. The question for policymakers, however, should not be whether Turkey is lost but rather how Erdogan could lead a slow-motion Islamic revolution below the West's radar. This is both a testament to Erdogan's skill and a reflection of Western delusion. Before taking power, Erdogan and his advisers cultivated Western opinion makers. He concentrated not on American pundits who found U.S. policy insufficiently leftist and sympathetic to the Islamic world but rather on natural critics, hawkish American supporters of Turkey and Israel who helped introduce Erdogan confidantes to Washington policymakers. After consolidating power, however, the AKP did not cultivate Jewish and pro-Israel groups, but they did little to sever the relationships. Turks traditionally looked kindly on Israel and Jews; of all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, the Jews in Palestine were one of the few who had not revolted against the Ottoman Sultan. In the 1980s and 1990s, Turkey and Israel had much in common: both were democracies amid a sea of autocracy. They enjoyed close diplomatic, economic, and military relations. So many Israeli tourists visited Turkey that Hebrew signs became ubiquitous in Turkish cities. It was not uncommon to hear Hebrew in Istanbul's Grand Bazaar or in restaurants along the Bosporus. Against such a backdrop, many Jewish groups turned a blind eye to warning signs of Erdogan's antipathy and rationalized Turkey's outreach to Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. It was not until Erdogan exploded at the 2009 Davos World Forum, telling Israeli President Shimon Peres "you know well how to kill," storming off the stage, and subsequently accusing Israel of genocide, that Jewish groups awakened to the change that had come over Turkey. Much of the blame for failing to recognize Erdogan's agenda also lies in the West's intellectual approach to radical Islam. For too many, the headscarf was the only metric by which to judge Islamist encroachment. For Erdogan, however, the scarf was a symbol; the state was the goal. Even after Erdogan began to eviscerate the checks and balances of Turkish society, European officials and American diplomats remained in denial. Certainly moral equivalency played a role: as Erdogan asked last October, why should Turkey accept the Western definition of secularism? For too many Western officials, however, to acknowledge Turkey's turn would be to admit the failure of moderate Islamism. To criticize Erdogan's motivations would be racist. Many diplomats and journalists inserted into this situation their own disdain for any military, let alone Turkey's, and embraced a facile dichotomy in which Islamism and democracy represented one pole, while the military, secularism, and fascism represented the other. Hence, they saw the AKP as democratic reformers, while the military became defenders of an anti-democratic order. Certainly, the healthiest democracies have no room for the military in domestic politics, but by cheering the AKP as it unraveled the military's role in upholding the constitution without simultaneously constructing another check on unconstitutional behavior, the European Union and Western diplomats paved the way for Erdogan's soft dictatorship. Alas, when intellectual smoke and mirrors were not enough to deceive the West, Erdogan and the AKP used more-devious tactics. Just as many American diplomats retired from Saudi Arabia to serve commercially their former charges, since the AKP's accession every retired U.S. ambassador to Turkey — Eric Edelman being the exception — has entered into lucrative business relationships with AKP companies. Mark Parris, who led the U.S. Embassy from 1997 to 2000, just prior to the AKP's rise, and has served in various positions at several think tanks, cultivated a business relationship with the AKP and helped with stories in Turkey's anti-Semitic press about neoconservatives and coup plots. Throughout the first four years of AKP rule, Yeni Safak columnist Fehmi Koru, an outspoken Erdogan supporter, published more than a dozen columns accusing American Jewish policymakers, led by Richard Perle — who was not then a government official — of both manipulating the press and plotting a coup in Turkey. Both charges were not only false but also consistent with anti-Semitic refrains about Jewish control of the press and Protocols of the Elders of Zion — like plots. And, indeed, they served their purpose: the AKP used the columns to rally both nationalist and anti-Semitic feelings. Koru would often refer to a well-placed Washington diplomatic source. In a November 2006 column, he revealed Parris to be his source, a charge Parris has neither explained nor denied. Turkish Islamists also cultivated academics. After Georgetown University's John Esposito received donations from the Gulen movement, he sponsored a conference in the Islamist cult leader's honor, whitewashing both Fethullah Gulen's Islamism and his anti-Semitism. The University of North Texas similarly received Gulen's largesse, as does Washington, D.C.'s Brookings Institution, which has long peddled a soft line toward Erdogan and his agenda. Turkey today is an Islamic republic in all but name. Washington, its European allies, and Jerusalem must now come to terms with Turkey as a potential enemy. Alas, even if the AKP were to exit the Turkish stage tomorrow, the changes Erdogan's party have made appear irreversible. While Turkey was for more than half a century a buffer between Middle Eastern extremism and European liberalism, today it has become an enabler of extremism and an enemy of liberalism. Rather than fight terrorists, Turkey embraces them. Today's rhetorical support may become tomorrow's material support. On the world stage, too, Turkey is a problem. Rather than help diffuse Iran's nuclear program, Erdogan encourages it. Turkey's anti-Americanism, its dictatorship, and the inability of Western officials to acknowledge reality endanger security. Hard choices lay ahead: as a NATO member, Turkey is privy to U.S. weaponry, tactics, and intelligence. Any provision of assistance to Turkey today, however, could be akin to transferring it to Hamas, Sudan, or Iran. Does President Obama really want to deliver the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a hostile Turkey, Iran's chief regional defender, as promised in 2014? Should Turkey even remain in NATO? After all, half a century ago, NATO learned to live without France. Losing Turkey is tragic, but failing to recognize its loss can only compound the tragedy. The worst outcome, however, would be to let strategic denial block assessment of lessons learned. As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan quipped, "'Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Perhaps, in hindsight, the West's mistake was to ignore the danger of Erdogan's ascendance into the driver's seat. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
CIA CHIEF SAYS AL-QAIDA IS WEAKER. TRUE. BUT SO IS U.S., WHILE REVOLUTIONARY ISLAMIST GROUPS ARE STRONGER
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 30, 2010. |
|
CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He's probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large. Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that's a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally-the most important actions damaging the group-took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about. But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida-a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta's optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week-but how one should regard that organization. In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group's decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle. But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other — leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration's policy. First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida's role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa. Left out of the celebration regarding victories over the organization has also been the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity has passed to individuals or small groups in the West and Middle East that act on the basis of ideology, or sometimes of some training and encouragement, rather than as the direct arm of al-Qaida. Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack or failed attacks in a number of places, including one planned for Fort Dix. Individual Muslims or small affinity groups are active. One cannot, of course, achieve a victory over spontaneous decisions of Muslims to become Jihadists, perhaps after reading al-Qaida or other propaganda. U.S. policy has not so much fought this phenomenon but rather largely pretends that it doesn't exist. An attack like that at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles Airport, or killing a U.S. army recruiter in Arkansas, or attacking a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest is merely reinterpreted as the act of an individual deranged mind. The second, and more important, problem with Panetta's triumphalism is that al-Qaida never posed much of a strategic threat to the United States. Of course, it could stage bloody terror attacks but it could not take over countries. The real threat, then, is the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent alliance plus movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and others. Here, too, the administration has played a strategy of ignoring the problem. It seems to believe that by diplomatic engagement, or expressions of sympathy, or benign neglect, or moving away from Israel, or insisting that these movements have nothing to do with Islam, the problem can be defused. But while revolutionary Islamism was set back-at least temporarily-in Iraq it continues to advance elsewhere. Moreover, the movement is further strengthened by the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power and by a U.S. policy that constrains Israel, accepts a Hamas regime in Gaza, does nothing to obstruct Hizballah's power in Lebanon, is reluctant to pressure Iran, engages rather than weakens Syria, and many more steps like these. Al-Qaida can blow up a building. But the revolutionary Islamists can blow up a country. And soon Iran will be able to blow up the entire Middle East.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com. This article is archived as
|
|
OPEN LETTER TO EMBATTLED JEWISH COLLEGE STUDENTS
Posted by Yosef Rabin, June 30, 2010. |
|
My name is Yosef Rabin. I made Aliyah almost a year ago after having graduated from North Eastern Illinois University this past summer. After high school I was privileged to study in Israel for a couple of years and then went on to serve as a combat soldier in the IDF Netzach Yehuda 97th Battalion. I think it is safe to say that I have learned a thing or two in regard to defending the Jewish People and our inherent right to the Land of Israel. When I was in university I watched as the pro-Israel group on campus was helpless against the onslaught of vile incitement and hate aimed at the Jewish State. I have seen a similar trend in universities across the US and I would like to suggest as to why this is. Pro-Israel groups talk about a lot of great things: Israel's democratic values, the IDF's unparalleled morality in battle, her right to self defense, Israel's hi-tech and so many other wonderful aspects of the State of Israel. However, this is exactly the problem. The Arab sympathizers talk about one thing and one thing only, justice! They want the world to believe that they stand in the field of justice, while the Jewish People stand in the wrong. In a sense they are completely right; if we Jews came in and usurped their land, we would have no right to continue to be here. We would have no right to defend what is not ours to defend! However, if we Jews returned to our ancestral homeland and our bond to her stems from the deepest historical and religious grounds, then it is we who stand in the field of justice and they who stand in the wrong. You cannot mix apples and oranges and expect to win the debate; it does not work that way. Let me tell you: the audience will not buy it. They talk about justice, so you must talk about justice! During my last spring semester in NEIU, a Jewish professor wrote a terrible anti-Israel/Jewish piece, which was published prominently in the university newspaper online and in print. He even went as far to write that Israel was "the greatest mistake of the past century" and that "in Judaism, land has never been holy." Needless to say, the Jew haters rejoiced, and Jewish students were too stunned to speak. It was obvious that hitting back with the same old "Israel is such a wonderful democracy" was not going to work. That was not the issue at hand; the issue at hand was our intrinsic right to the land. I wrote back a very strong letter to the editor, which was published in both the print and online additions of the university newspapers. In my letter I focused on one issue and one issue only, our right to the land through mainly history and through the word of our Torah. Considering that the two intertwine, I put strong emphasis on what the Torah has to say about our connection with the land, because you cannot argue against it. No one dares to tell the Christians how to run their affairs in Vatican City nor would anyone dare tell the Muslims what to do in Mecca, because it is sacred to them. There is no point in arguing about it, neither the Muslims nor Christians will give in regarding their sacred lands. After my letter was published, one of the leaders of the anti-Israel movement came to me with a confession. He said, "We gathered to talk about your letter and no one knew what to say...we were speechless. You were so adamant and passionate about your religious and historical connection to the land, what could we have said." My friends, this is the key! You must be unrelenting and declare without fear that the Land of Israel belongs solely to the Jewish Nation and that we are committed to the greatest act of justice by returning to our land! My friends, YOU MUST SPEAK WORDS OF JUSTICE! They may not agree with you, but they will respect you for it. It will change the nature of the debate and swing things in our favor. Jews must walk with their heads held high and not be apologetic in any way in calling for our return to our homeland. We have nothing to apologize about for building in Jerusalem, Chevron or Beit Lechem. Do NOT talk about the peace process; leave this to the politicians. Focus on one thing and one thing only, making sure everyone understands where you stand. IT IS OUR LAND AND WE HAVE RETURNED BY HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIRTUE. Please do not get me wrong — I am not telling you to demonize them, to stoop to their level — but I am asking you to stand up for what is yours. For example, if the Arabs and their supporters have a demonstration about how Israel wants to harm the Dome of the Rock, which stands on our holy Temple Mount, you must respond! Respond not by calling for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, but, rather, rally for Jewish Rights on the Temple Mount! Speak about our connection to the place. Sadly, as a nation, we have completely forfeited our right to the Temple Mount. Think of this logically: if a Jew has no right to walk and pray at the site of his 3,000 year old holy Temple, what right can he possibly have in Tel Aviv, which just turned 100? In my humble opinion, this issue needs to be addressed quickly and unrelentingly — it must be front and center. We must restore Jewish Pride in the Land of Israel and we must begin with its foundation stone, which is the Temple Mount! I would like to start a worldwide campaign on this issue. I am certain that once Jewish students understand the religious, cultural and historical importance of the Temple Mount, they will passionately push it. The Land of Israel, for the People of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel! Thank you, Yosef Rabin is Liaison to North American Communities HaTenua LeChinun HaMikdash (Organization for Renewal of the Temple). |
|
WHY ISLAM WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 30, 2010. |
|
This was written by Steven Simpson and it appeared in
American Thinker |
|
It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict. However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel? There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel. Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad. Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar. In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine." In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D. This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century. The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate." Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel. Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East. |
|
|
|
THE ME CONFLICT NEEDS A DOG TRAINER!; ORGANISER OF MARTYRDOM FLOTILLA
Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 30, 2010. |
|
The ME Conflict Needs a Dog Trainer!
I think the escalation of the Middle East conflict and boldness of so-called Palestinians particular should be very easy for everyone to understand, if they consider the most basic rules of behaviour: 1) Reward behaviour and it will be repeated. Reward it again, and it will be reinforced, with every repetition of this. Even negative attention is attention, and attention is a. These are three basic behavioural facts common to every living thing on this planet! (Even a bacteria knows how and where they received rewards of nutrition. If they didn't — they would not survive!) I gave you these simple DOG TRAINING instructions to my clients in dogs training service! And, when they were willing to follow those instructions, they succeeded! No UN Condemnation — No Demand for Compensation! A group of 25 armed and masked men attacked and set fire to an UN-sponsored summer camp in Gaza on Monday morning. This is the second case of a summer camp set in fire in Gaza this year. In May masked militants burned another UN-sponsored summer camp hours before it was due to open. Both camps were attacked by (HAMAS supervised) Muslim extremists who apparently object to boys and girls going to camp together. Four Years since Shalit Abduction. Hundreds of people set sail in New York City on Thursday in what they dubbed the True Freedom Flotilla. Ten boats sailed past the Statue of Liberty, around Manhattan, and past the United Nations, waving signs calling to free kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Several decades ago, before and during WW2, some people in Europe tried to use 'scientific' arguments and racial profiling to prove the inferiority of Jewish people due to their Semitic origin. Since the creation of Israel, Jews were screamed at — in Europe, Russia and even the US — "go back to your Palestine !" Now, the same kind of people, should I say scum, are trying to delegitimize Israel by questioning the origins of Jewish people. Netanyahu's Epiphany: PA Doesn't Want Peace. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) accused the American-backed PA of being unwilling to enter into peace talks with Israel. "Why are there only proximity talks? There is no willingness on the part of the Palestinian Authority to enter direct talks. I say to Abu Mazen: 'There is no way to solve the conflict without direct discussion.'" (They have never wanted peace with Israel ) Speaking in front of the Knesset, the premier added, "The world says we have a right for self defense, but every time we are about to fulfil our right, we are accused of war crimes." Fatah (Arab) Style Democracy. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah party, has again cancelled elections that were supposed to be held next month, because of fears that Hamas supporters or independent parties will fill the growing leadership vacuum in the PA. The Obama administration has pressured Israel to agree to a long line of concessions to the PA illegitimate government in order to bolster the popularity of Abbas. There Would be no Need for a Blockade. Israel's President Shimon Peres warned that delegitimizing Israel only strengthens terror organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaida and there would be no need for a blockade on Gaza or flotillas, if Gaza would agree to peace, release Gilad Shalit and stop shooting missiles at Israel. Quote of the Week: "...as demonstrated by the UN's unusually speedy condemnation of the flotilla incident and the British government's expressions of outrage, anti-Israel sentiment is extremely useful for Western governments and international bodies, too. It allows them to take the moral high ground on the international stage at a time when, post-Iraq, it is increasingly difficult for them to do so. It allows them to brush over their own acts of aggression by going along with the idea that Israel is a uniquely colonialist, belligerent nation whom they, being whiter than white, have the right to lecture and hector. When Israel is continually said to have crossed a "boundary of civilisation", governments can conveniently pose as civilised by posturing against it." — Brendan O'Neill — Honest person, although not a friend of Israel. Political Blindness. Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni slammed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his decision to ease the siege on Gaza. "Your remarks point to political blindness and giving up. Hamas is getting legitimacy, while Israel is losing it. No one believes you." (Why couldn't her party, Labor, have this political clarity when it was in power?) Saudi Arabia: No Mingling Allowed. A Saudi court has convicted four women and 11 men for mingling at a party and sentenced them to flogging and up to two year prison terms each. (Where are international outcries and boycott of Saudi products — like oil?) Is Obama Muslim? That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to article, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda." (The issue is not whether Obama is Muslim or not. The problem that he most likely is and is hiding it — and is covertly implementing an Islamic agenda as the policy of the United States?) Another Excuse to Dump 'Peace Process'. Chairman Saeb Erekat of the PA's diplomatic negotiating team said that the Jerusalem local planning commission's decision to destroy 22 illegally-built Arab homes as part of the King's Garden reclamation project "proves that Israel has decided to destroy the indirect talks with the Palestinians." (Why must only 'illegally' built Jewish homes be destroyed?) Turkey: Organiser of Martyrdom Flotilla! Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that "Israel was losing its greatest friend losing its greatest friend in the region" with its actions (Quite a cynical statement from a delusional 'friend'. Wasn't Turkey the major organizer of the flotilla?) Erdogan made the statement after an announcement that all nine of the people, who achieved their life goal and became Islamic martyrs by willingly dying creating an anti-Israel publicity stunt, killed in the Gaza flotilla raid were Turks. (Turkey has always played a game of fake friendship with Israel in order to receive financial help from the US. And it has also never been a good member of NATO. Remember that Turkey did not allow US troops to move through to Northern Iraq several years ago! Why aren't American anti-Semites demanding to end US aid to Turkey?) Mission Accomplished! — Turkey emerges as Middle East leader. Martyrs Welcome. Thousands of mourners hailed activists killed in an Israeli commando mission as martyrs on Thursday, hoisting their coffins to cheers of "God is great," while Turkish President Abdullah Gul said "Turkey will never forget this attack." Flotilla was an Islamic Terror Operation. Evidence released by the IDF on Monday night, June 1, described how the Turkish Marmara, the flotilla's lead vessel, had been commandeered by terrorists indirectly supported by the Ankara government's subsidy to the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi — IHH, which is listed by the American CIA as an al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorist organization with bases in Turkey, Bosnia and Bulgaria. Those passengers attested to more than a hundred members of terrorist organizations aboard acting like a quasi-military group with a command hierarchy... Although they appeared to hail from different terrorist organizations from various countries, they were all ordered to say they belonged to the IHH. Activist: I Tried Three Times to be a 'Shaheed'. The IDF released footage showing one of the passengers on the Marmora ferry telling an interviewer that "he looked forward to becoming a shaheed, a martyr," during the course of the voyage. "The first time I sailed to Gaza I wanted to become a shaheed, but I didn't have any luck," he said, speaking in English, apparently to a fellow passenger taking the footage with a video camera. "The second time I tried, but it didn't work. This time, the third, I hope to have more luck," he said. (This Islamic terror flotilla was organised by Turkey and supported by brainless Jew-haters or political opportunists who are building their political careers on anti-Semitism!) World Complacent to Genocide Again? Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan demanded that his European allies cut off funding for Kurdish rebels and extradite suspected rebels to Turkey. (In order to destroy the Kurdish people's wish to live free, Turkey is quite happy with world indifference, just like Nazi Germany before committing the Holocaust!) The United States ambassador to Turkey said earlier this week that the US supports Turkey 's efforts to clamp down on Kurdish resistance: "We stand ready to review urgently any new requests from the Turkish military or government regarding the PKK," (The leading democracy has already signed up with the genocide perpetrator!) Why not Independent Kurdistan? Turkey admitted to slaughtering as many as 120 Kurdish rebels in raids on their hideouts in northern Iraq last month. (Still there is no UN condemnation of Turkey or at least any call for an international investigation of the conflict.) Speaking at the funeral of Turkish soldiers killed in a battle against Kurdish rebels fighting the Turkish occupation — Prime Minister Erdogan said that Turkey would "wipe out" all the Kurdish fighters. Erdogan's words come only two weeks after he reminded Israel that it is said in the Torah "Don't Murder". (Hypocrisy is the main trait of Israel's enemies! Kurds are true freedom fighters against occupation of Kurdistan by Turkey! But so-called Palestinians are opportunistic, blood-thirsty Arab terrorists.) 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 |
|
NEW BUILDING FREEZE CONTROVERSY IN JUDEA-SAMARIA;
ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IN ISRAELI SCHOOLS
Posted by Richard Shulman, June 30, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL DENOUNCES DEADLINE FOR ARAB STATEHOOD 
Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman denounced the Quartet's two-year timetable for new Arab statehood. He explained that the two sides were far from agreement on much. If Israeli Arabs had to exchange Israeli citizenship for citizenship in the new Arab state, they would lose a great deal, economically (Arutz-7, 6/30/10). Israeli Arabs would lose more than that. Their women would become more cloistered, their homosexuals more murdered, their journalists more restricted, their Christians more bombed, and their children more subject to indoctrination in hatred and violence. That is why, in anticipation of Arab statehood, thousands of Arabs whose houses are in the areas contemplated for such a state have been moving into the areas Israel is likely to retain. When Min. Lieberman says the two sides are far apart, he is under-stating it. Israel wants peace. Abbas wants conquest, his people do, and his Fatah charter enshrines it as official doctrine. That makes the two sides irreconcilable, regardless of what Israel does. If Israel were to give up territory in the hope of gaining peace, Abbas would accept it in the hope of gaining an advantage in conquering Israel. Such a conquest is not mere fantasy. Israel is a tiny country, not having sufficient land to fully maneuver its forces and with insufficient strategic depth to withstand an invasion that gets past its borders. It faces an enemy that once it gets inside, is likely to slaughter whatever civilians it can find. The Land of Israel is less than 1% of the Mideast outside of Iran, meaning the Arabs already control 99%. The State of Israel encompasses about 17% of the Land of Israel, the Territories another 4%, and Jordan 79%. That 4%, along with the Golan Heights, is key to Israeli survival. Those areas contain mountain anti-tank barriers and observation points that protect against invaders. They would provide Israel with secure borders. Without them, Israel's insecure borders would invite war from the Arabs, whose ideology is religiously and politically chauvinist. As for the timetable proposed by the Quartet, the East moves on its own timetable. In setting deadlines, as the U.S. and others do for the Arab-Israel conflict and Afghanistan, they set up for failure, under the circumstances. What circumstances? The Arab side wants whatever it can get in the short run, so as to conquer Israel in the long run. Refusing to recognize that situation, the Quartet takes the Arab side. As a result, Abbas is in no hurry to negotiate. Rather than make any compromise, he balks, he insists, he insults, and he waits. He waits, as it seems the Taliban will, for the deadline to pass. The Taliban would anticipate a U.S. withdrawal. The Palestinian Arabs would anticipate U.S. pressure on Israel to hurry and yield to Arab demands. Israeli leaders are appeasement-minded, their national loyalty in doubt, or they are weak willed. They fail to make their own case and put forward or act on Jewish national interests. They make the big mistake of letting hostile outside parties mediate. As for the leaders of the U.S., ignorant or biased about the issues, they fail to act in the American national interest involving allies and jihadists enemies. In blaming the U.S. for so much not this country's fault, in favoring U.S. enemies, and in disfavoring U.S. allies, as well as in their riding roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and intimidating corporations and over-extending an economy-dragging big government, as Obama and his entourage and radical followers do, there is an element of ultra-liberal anti-Americanism. The big question is its extent.
ABBAS DEMANDS NEW CONDITIONS FOR DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS Backed indirectly by U.S. envoy Mitchell, Abbas raised a new demand for switching from indirect negotiations to direct negotiations: a permanent Israeli building freeze in the Territories and in parts of Jerusalem on his list of immediate territorial demands. ["Immediate," in that his ideology seeks exclusive control of the whole country of Israel, as his regime teaches the children.] Newsweek, in support of the State Dept. negotiating position, said that most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu for sometimes holding firm. Actually, most polls show approval of Netanyahu for that, skepticism of any chance of agreement with the Palestinian Authority, and an electorate favorable to Netanyahu and right-wing parties. Mitchell started the day inspecting goods being transferred from Israel to Gaza. Earlier in that day, terrorists fired a rocket into Israel, destroying a packing house. Israeli neighbors decried Mitchell's lack of interest in their humanitarian needs, as he concentrated on the needs of people imbued with the terrorist ideology. How could Israelis not be skeptical, when Abbas admits that if the Quartet's two-year schedule for statehood passes, he would ask the UN to confer statehood within "Israel's existing boundaries?" (Arutz-7, 6/30/10.) That last phrase is inaccurate, perhaps an excess of Jewish nationalism by my source. The Territories are not within the boundaries of the State of Israel, only within the Land of Israel. Israel has boundaries with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, but not adjoining the Territories. There, it has just an armistice line, the Green Line. Israeli law extends up to that line, but Israel has land claims to the disputed Territories. The building freeze being demanded of Israel is one-sided, akin to apartheid. If they asked for a building freeze by both sides, they would be neutral about it. However, the freeze is harming the natural increase in Jewish population. As for the Israeli politics of this, the Israeli Left has been shrinking, as its policies have led to more Arab war and terrorism, and conservative economic polices have led to prosperity. Israelis understand reality better, and fantasize less. Why doesn't Mr. Mitchell recognize the significance of the rocket? Israel keeps falling for Arab and State Dept. negotiating ruses. The ruses are designed to keep Israel making concessions for the same thing. Israel should have learned when Pres. Clinton got Hebron concessions from Netanyahu in exchange for release of Pollard, reneged, as State Dept. advisors said to hold Pollard as a bargaining chip for more concessions. In this case, Israel entered unsatisfactory indirect negotiations as a warmup for direct negotiations, but now Abbas demands another concession for entering direct negotiations. Many times, Arab negotiators agree to something that produces favorable headlines, but then they deny agreement, say they meant something else, pocket the Israeli reciprocal conession but withhold theirs, and deny the negotiator's authority, or try to change the definition and meaning of the agreement. That's jihad.
GAZA-ISRAEL FRONT FALSELY REPORTED QUIET A foreign news outlet reported that the Gaza-Israel front has been "quiet" since operation Cast Lead combat in Gaza. The continued shrieking of air raid alarms and explosion of rockets, however, is noisy. Since Cast Lead, terrorists have fired 300 rockets into Israel. Just Wednesday morning, a rocket destroyed a packing house in Israel, shortly before the workers arrived. The workers went to synagogue to offer the traditional Jewish prayer for having been delivered from evil. Mostly, Israelis have escaped casualties and much potential damage It seems miraculous. The media takes shooting seriously only if there are casualties (Arutz-7, 6/30/10). The media's false indication of non-combat makes peace seem within grasp. Then the media acts surprised and outraged when, eventually, Israel can't keep letting terrorists attack with impunity and build up their ability to attack, and fights back. Some readers have as peculiar a standard of the significance and nature of combat as do the media. I deleted one comment for descending into nasty name-calling, but here will refute the point it made. The comment compared the greater number of Arab civilian casualties in Cast Lead with the smaller number of Israeli civilian casualties, and concluded that Israel must be terrorist. False conclusion, wrong basis of comparison, misunderstanding of terrorism. "Terrorism" is the deliberate attack on civilians for political gain. Terrorism is the jihadist ideology and practice. By contrast, Israeli ideology and practice shun terrorism. The IDF has risked its soldiers' and civilians' lives many times to avoid harming Arab civilians. I think Israel goes too far for a people too far gone in bigotry. The civilians killed in Cast Lead were killed because of Hamas war crimes of using human shields both for its fighting forces and its arms depots, and because they sometimes come out to watch. No Arab civilians would be killed, if Hamas kept its arms and army away from populated areas, as per international law. International law holds Hamas responsible for those deaths. Fair enough. But not knowing international law, the reader's comment was not fair. The reader's comment picks a narrow time frame. However, the Intifadas and all the terrorism before, between, and besides, killed thousands of Israeli civilians and maimed many more. The reader selected too small a sampling. He played into the hands of the terrorists, who deliberately use human shields by the very placement of their weapons depots in apartment houses and by firing alongside houses, schools, and UN buildings. Then, as cynically planned by Hamas, foreigners become indignant not at Hamas for setting up civilians to die, but at Israel, for defending itself. They want Israel to let its own civilians be killed rather defend themselves in a way Hamas prepared to reap headlines from Arab civilians killed in a battle zone. That erroneous and biased desire infected the UN Goldstone report, so some readers cite that invalid report against Israel. Recall the battles of Jenin and the first Lebanon war. The media were full of stories about Israeli destruction there. But in the cities mentioned, the destruction was in a small proportion of the city, only where the terrorists were holed up. One would not have realized the extent of Israeli civility and self-restraint from those misleading reports. About alleged Israeli over-destruction, the misleading goes on, and the myths live on.
NEW BUILDING FREEZE CONTROVERSY IN JUDEA-SAMARIA A new controversy has arisen over the building freeze in Judea-Samaria. PM Netanyahu announced a 10-month temporary freeze of residential and commercial building in Judea-Samaria, not to include public and religious buildings. It is up to Defense Minister Barak to approve construction. Jerusalem is exempt from the freeze. Barak has taken it upon himself to bar construction of schoolrooms in Judea-Samaria, although those would be public construction, for which the need is pressing. Israeli law requires school construction to match population growth. Many in the reigning coalition regime resent Barak's unilateral decision. They say they will obey the law requiring construction rather than the fiat banning it (Arutz-7,6/30/10). Netanyahu often deceives his own people. He is considered weak. Barak is appeasement-minded. It is difficult to tell whether Barak is merely incompetent or disloyal. Both acquiesce to U.S. demands. In addition, the Labor Party has a record of undermining coalitions in which it shares power. Therefore, it is difficult to tell whether Netanyahu wants Barak to violate Netanyahu's word on the limits of the freeze or is too weak minded to oppose him. Netanyahu would have more justification to fire Barak than Obama had to fire Gen. McChrystal. In making up your own mind, you should take into account that Netanyahu talked like a right-wing nationalist during his campaign, but on taking office, secretly imposed a construction freeze on Judea-Samaria. When he announed the freeze, months later, he exempted Jerusalem, but secretly allowed no building, or almost none, in eastern Jerusalem.
ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IN ISRAELI SCHOOLS Knesset Education Committee chair Zebulon Orlev finds that the Islamic Movement has infiltrated Israeli Arab schools. It has participated in selecting staff and educational materials. The news brief is vague in reiterating charges of illegality. The government may be planning a law requiring its approval for NGOs seeking to participate in schools. MK Masoud Ghanayem (Raam-Taal) said that it should be up to the school principal which MKs to permit (Arutz-7, 6/30/10). Rather than leaving the matter up to bureaucratic discretion, subject to abuse, Israel would be wiser to ban the Islamic Movement, which is subversive and pro-terrorist, at that. Whatever I report, some readers distort it into an anti-Israel message. In a report about Territorial building permits controlled by Israel's Defense Minister, a reader took that as proof of Israel being a militaristic society. Israel has civilian control over the military to the point of hobbling defense. The report may reflect Israeli bureaucracy or that the Territories require military participation because the Arabs there have a militaristic society. When last reported, a couple of years ago, the Palestinian Authority had the highest percentage in the world of troops and police. That reader interprets just about everything about Israel as negative and nothing about the Arabs as negative, not their bigotry, not their aggression, not their genocide.
ISRAEL EXPANDS FLOTILLA INVESTIGATION COMMISSION'S POWERS Israel has expanded the powers of the commission investigating the legality both of the embargo and of its enforcement and also the behavior of those organizing the flotilla. The newly appointed commission balked at its lack of power. The government accommodated them by conferring the powers to issue subpoenas, and have them testify under oath, and by appointing two more members. Out of the commission's jurisdiction is how well the IDF enforced the embargo (IMRA, 6/30/10).
U.S. WARSHIPS GATHER IN PERSIAN GULF: UPDATE 
A.P. photo/ David Karp — Ahmadinejad boasts too much to back down? The third aircraft carrier group has just arrived in the Persian Gulf. A German warship is among them. The USS Truman is posted opposite Iran's commando units. President Obama told Israel that this would be a show of force, intended to intimidate Iran's President Ahmadinejad into ceasing to develop nuclear weapons. This is Obama's substitute for a pre-emptive attack. Ahmadinejad is not likely to be cowed. He does not act by rational Western standards, but could be willing to take great chances on his countrymen's live, to deliver a great blow of his own. He counts on the hidden Mahdi to bring his forces to victory over all the non-Muslims. [He has hinted that he is the hidden Mahdi.] Another substitute for pre-emptive attack may be Leon Panetta's new estimate that Iran is two years away from fielding nuclear weapons. That may have been stated to give Obama more time to take us down to the wire (Winston Mid East Report and Analysis, 6/29/10). Since Obama is appeasement minded, and was foolish enough to announce a withdrawal from Afghanistan at the same time as announcing a troop surge there, his bluff is likely to be called.
ISRAEL ARRESTS DRUG RING RUN FROM LEBANON Israel arrested a warrant officer and several civilians for passing security information to a Lebanese drug gang connected to Hizbullah (IMRA, 6/30/10). Evil attracts evil. There are reports of terrorists and drug gangs aligning in other countries, too. Some terrorists tax or conduct some drug smuggling, themselves. Speaking of evil, a reader who calls me evil, also calls modern Zionism an invasion. Modern Zionism is the Jewish national liberation movement that returned a Jewish population to its homeland by purchase of property. They paid both the absentee Arab landlords and the Arab tenants. With that money, Arab tenants were able to buy land of their own. It was the oppressive Arab landlords and money lenders who turned many Arab peasants into tenants and sharecroppers. Zionism helped liberate the tenants. In developing their land, Zionists build an economy. The economy provided jobs not only for Arab former tenants, but also attracted masses of Arab immigrants. If the Zionists were invaders, so were those Arabs, who constituted three-fourths of the Arab families in western Palestine. Some people just don't get the story straight. Nor do they want to, if the true story does not make for alarmist propaganda.
SAUDI ARABIA INDOCTRINATES IN JIHAD The King of Saudi is visiting the U.S. Saudi Arabia alternately falsely claims that it has revised its textbooks to eliminate proposed, bigoted violence and promises to revise them. After claiming that the books were reformed, Saudi Arabia admitted in 2006 that they had not been, but gave the U.S. a solemn promise they would be by 2008. But they broke that promise. Will President Obama raise the issue with the visitor? This issue is paramount. The Saudi government can denounce terrorism and even reduce direct financing of it. But since Saudi education encourages the bigotry and violence behind terrorism, the government engenders the attacks that brought the U.S. to war. Saudi Arabian education instructs the children from first grade through high school that Jews and Christians are their enemies. It teaches them to kill Jews, polytheists (which in their view includes Shiites), and apostates from the Saudi version of Islam. Jihad is presented as a sacred duty. Since the children learn by rote, they are indoctrinated. Saudi Arabia finances schools elsewhere in the world, too. Indeed, although Saudi Arabia comprises only 1% of Muslims, it pays for 90% of the religion's expenses, overriding more tolerant versions of Islam. Saudi Arabia distributes religious literature to millions of the faithful on pilgrimage to Mecca. For the U.S., this is a matter of national security (Hudson Institute, 6/30/10 from Nina Shea, National Review Online).
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:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL:OH JOY!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 30, 2010. |
|
Special Envoy George Mitchell is here, and resuming "proximity talks." There are reports that even now — why wait until he comes to Washington? — pressure is going to be put on Netanyahu to extend the construction freeze, allegedly in return for a PA agreement to enter direct talks. All of this simply exacerbates a sense of frustration and extreme exasperation. Netanyahu has been pushing for direct talks with the PA, saying that this is the only way to make progress. But the question that hangs in the air is, progress on what? The two sides are so far apart that talk of "progress" is nonsensical game-playing, no more than a charade. Will Netanyahu, who pumped for those "direct talks," now have the courage to refuse to extend the freeze if this is the quid pro quo offered to him? Will he fear being accused of being a stumbling block to peace if he refuses to "facilitate" those "direct talks" when presumably given the opportunity to do so? ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu met with the Septet, the inner Security Cabinet, last night to discuss both Mitchell's visit and the trip to Washington. Members of the Septet are not all of one mind on this issue of extending the freeze. Mitchell was scheduled to meet with Netanyahu and Barak, as well as PA prime minister Salam Fayyad today, and with PA president Abbas tomorrow. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the same time that this is going on, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been visiting. Following a meeting with his Russian counterpart, two days ago, our foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, put out a statement that: "[in spite of the fact that I am] an optimistic person, I don't think there is any chance that a Palestinian state will be established by 2012. It is possible to imagine, it is impossible to dream, but the reality on the is that we are still very far from reaching an agreement." I may not agree with Lieberman about everything, but I consistently admire him for his readiness to tell it like it is. ~~~~~~~~~~ Lavrov, for his part, is of a different mind. After meeting with Abbas in Ramallah he declared that reaching a peace agreement by 2012 was a "realistic objective." "If everyone shows goodwill and mutual trust, if all international negotiators actively push the sides towards reconciliation, this is quite realistic." A whole lot of "if"s, with the idea of international negotiators actively pushing being the most unsettling. The only observation I can make in Lavrov's defense is that it is exceedingly likely that Abbas was on his best behavior, wearing his "moderation" suit and spouting all sorts of peaceful intentions. But then one must ask if Lavrov gives a damn if Abbas happens to not be on the level. I would imagine that the "goodwill" Lavrov would seek from Israel would be a willingness to move back to the pre-'67 line, turn eastern Jerusalem over to the PA, accept at least some "refugees," and proceed without a recognition by the PA that we are the Jewish state. Oh! And we should look the other way with regard to continued PA incitement and the existence of Hamas in Gaza. In other words, if we are willing to commit suicide, we would have the opportunity to sign on the dotted line. ~~~~~~~~~~ In a piece in today's JPost, Khaled Abu Toameh reports that a recent attempt to bridge the gap between Fatah and Hamas has been abandoned. Members of a committee put together by businessman Munib al-Masri right after the flotilla incident have thrown up their hands after Hamas refused to receive the delegation and Fatah was not forthcoming in making certain adjustments.
~~~~~~~~~~ This news is of major significance with regard to the so-called peace process. I hasten to assure my readers that I do not imagine for a nanosecond that if Fatah and Hamas were to come to an understanding and form a coalition of whatever kind, that this would pave the way for good things to happen. Fatah leaders have made it quite clear — in a ludicrous two-step that dances around the heart of the matter — that they do not demand of Hamas acceptance of major Quartet stipulations such as recognizing Israel or complying with former agreements. All that would matter, they say, is that the representatives for negotiations jointly agreed upon would accept these stipulations. Makes no real sense, but never mind. The point is that if there were a Fatah-Hamas merger or, more accurately, coalition, there would be a semblance of unity within the Palestinian Arab world and ostensibly one representative body that would speak for all Palestinian Arabs. It would increase the heat on Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ But as matters stand, we are left with what I refer to as the elephant in the room: Hamas ruling in Gaza while the world conveniently pretends this is not happening. Abbas most certainly does not represent all Palestinian Arabs, and the PA cannot negotiate for all Palestinian Arabs. So what is being aimed for? It isn't a "two-state" solution, really, at all, is it? It would be nice if those involved with negotiations were candid enough to acknowledge this major stumbling block. Properly, aside from all other considerations, there should be no talks until the Palestinian Arabs themselves get their act together and until Hamas is out of the picture. ~~~~~~~~~~ It must be mentioned here that according to Abu Toameh, a Hamas official is claiming that both Egypt and the US are working behind the scenes against a Fatah-Hamas merger. The desire, according to this report, is to avoid strengthening Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ In light of this situation, the unconfirmed report below is of particular interest: Last Thursday, the London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that a senior Hamas official — said to be close to Ismail Haniyeh — claims that senior American officials have requested contact with Hamas, but have asked that this remain secret "so as not to rouse Jewish lobby." Maintained this official: "This is a sensitive subject. The Americans don't want anyone to comment on it because this would catch the attention of [US] pressure groups and cause problems." This report was carried by multiple media sources. Following this, an Arabic newspaper located in Washington DC quoted a "senior official" who said that an American envoy, carrying a letter for Hamas, is scheduled to meet with a Hamas representative in an Arab country. The rationale presented for these alleged plans is that Hamas is a factor that must be contended with. Given Obama's predilection for "dialoguing" even with the most problematic of groups, this would not come as a major surprise. However...Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor, has denied this report, calling it "inaccurate." He said he regretted that Al Quds had neglected to request a comment by the US administration. All of this leaves us...nowhere. ~~~~~~~~~~ That UNRWA has Hamas connections (e.g., the UNRWA teachers union in Gaza is controlled by Hamas-affiliated people) is hardly news. But this is a different wrinkle, which also involves the US: According to a report by Israel National News that was released just a week ago, UNRWA is giving a financial boost to Hamas: The currency utilized in Gaza is Israeli shekels. But when UNRWA receives donations to cover its salaries in Gaza — the great bulk of which is from the US — it requests dollars. Those dollars are then deposited in the Gaza Postal Bank, which is controlled by Hamas, so that a currency exchange can be made and UNRWA employees can be paid. The bank (i.e., Hamas) charges a significant fee for making the exchange. Then, according to this report, Hamas sells the dollars on the Egyptian black market for an inflated price. This is the same UNRWA, please understand, whose spokespersons become highly indignant at the suggestion that there must be controls on certain materials going into Gaza that might be used by Hamas in constructions of rockets and bunkers. "What's the problem?" is the standard response. "If it's in UNRWA hands it's controlled." ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see this important piece by Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) for Strategic Studies, on the issue of Israel's right to close its border with Gaza, and the need to do so. So great is the misrepresentation with regard to the situation in Gaza, says Inbar, that it is not understood that the standard of living in Gaza is generally higher than that of Egypt.
~~~~~~~~~~ From Sarah Stern of EMET in Washington has come good news: The US government has officially dismissed its deportation case against Mosab Hassan Yousef — about whom I wrote recently — after a hearing at a federal detention center in San Diego. Mosab, who credits the efforts of EMET with making this victory possible, will be given political asylum. Stern in particular thanks Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who authored a letter to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, co-sponsored with 21 other Representatives, and former Ambassador R. James Woolsey, who also wrote a letter on Mosab's behalf. ~~~~~~~~~~ Apologies. When I recommended — and provided the URL for — the very fine interview of Itamar Marcus by Richard Landes it was up on the PJTV website free for the viewing. I had no idea that it was about to be placed in the PJTV archives, and that there would be an announcement that it could be seen only by paying for a subscription — I was not recommending that anyone pay to see this. I have been in touch with the Palestinian Media Watch office and they are attempting to secure a way for this interview to be viewed without cost. If I receive information on this, I will, of course, share it. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
AN INTERVIEW WITH AARON KLEIN, AUTHOR OF "THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT
Posted by Fern Sidman, June 30, 2010. |
|
Released in May of this year by WND Books, this seminal piece of investigative journalism entitled, The Manchurian President has been both embraced by political conservatives and repudiated by Obama apologists in progressive enclaves. Listed as number 23 on The New York Times non-fiction bestseller list as of June 27th, this eye-opening account of President Obama's ties to radical left-wing extremists represents the latest work of intrepid investigative journalist and WABC radio talk show host, Aaron Klein. I sat down with Mr. Klein to discuss his new book. FS: Concerning your latest book, The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists, what served as the inspiration for you and Brenda J Elliott to collaborate on such a monumental investigative task? AK: I was inspired to undertake this task because so few reporters were conducting any real investigation into Barack Obama's background. I reported in February of 2008 that Obama was tied to Weather Underground criminal/terrorist Bill Ayers. When I did a Google search to see if any other reporters or media outlets had uncovered this information, I was stunned to find that they had not. After all, it is the responsibility of the media to engage in a vetting process of sorts when it pertains to presidential candidates. Based on my research, it was clear to me that Obama had a long relationship with Ayers and Ayers even gave Obama his first job at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They also served together, in the 1990s on the board of the Woods Fund; a non-profit organization that funneled money to leftist causes including the Midwest Academy that practiced Alinsky-like tactics of working within the capitalist system in order to overthrow it. What really served as the impetus for me to write this book was the lack of any real independent investigative journalism on the part of the mainstream media, as it pertained to Obama's past. FS: As you previously mentioned to Sean Hannity on FOX News, President Obama was not forthright in his book concerning his first boss who he claimed was Marty Kaufman. Since no such person exists, and the person to whom he referred was Gerald "Jerry" Kellman, what connections does Kellman currently have with this administration? AK: While Jerry Kellman may not have ties to the administration, it is clear that Obama apparently deliberately disguised the fact in his autobiography that he was given a job at the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools or ABC's by someone he claimed was Marty Kaufman, who in fact does not exist. Rather, he was referring to Jerry Kellman, who is an avowed Marxist and a stalwart acolyte of Saul Alinksy, the radical community organizer. Obama also disguises other names in his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", and neglects to mention that his childhood mentor was another Communist agitator named Frank Marshall Davis. Very little information was known about Obama other than what he had penned in his book. All of this information should be considered a major political scandal and the fact that he changed the names in his book should be challenged. FS: Why do you think the mainstream media did not scrutinize Obama's background and ties to extremists and why do you think he was not carefully vetted by the Democratic party? AK: I think the mainstream media promotes the same kinds of policies that Obama is espousing. He is the kind of candidate that they've been wishing for and hoping for. He is their dream come true. The Democratic Party did not carefully vet him because even those in his own presidential campaign such as David Plauth, who made a lot of Obama's videos, admitted that he didn't check out his background and was unaware of his affiliation for over 22 years with Rev Jeremiah Wright's church and black liberation theology. The party betrays it's past and it's roots by remaining indifferent to the polemical aspects of Obama's career. Obama has been pushing for the very same policies that the mainstream media itself that has been advocating for years and now they have this candidate named Obama so of course they're not going to investigate him in any serious way. To them these issues are not scandals. The media has been promoting Bill Ayers and other radical leftists and the causes that Obama has been representing for years, so this comes as no surprise. FS: Your book sheds light on the sketchy details surrounding Obama's college days. What were his political leanings during his years at Occidental College and Columbia University and was he under the tutelage of Marxist mentors and professors? AK: As to Obama's college days, no official or unofficial records were ever made available to the media. No college transcripts, published records, or even contemporary newspaper announcements about his education have been released. Obama remarkably relates in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" that, beginning at Occidental, he surrounded himself with an assortment of radicals, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and communists. Obama, however, provides neither names nor clues. It was at Occidental that Obama first engaged in community activism, delivering what has been described as the first political speech of his career. On Feb. 18, 1981, Obama addressed students gathered outside Coons Hall administration building, exhorting Occidental's trustees to divest from South Africa. Obama writes in "Dreams" about the rally in which he took part, reportedly led by the Black Student Alliance and Students for Economic Democracy. Students for Economic Democracy, or SED, was a national student advocacy group established by soon-to-be California State Representative Tom Hayden, now a professor at Occidental, and his former wife, actress Jane Fonda. FS: As to Israel, the Middle East and relations with the Muslim world, many people feel Obama has coddled our Islamic terrorist enemies such as Iran, and their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. In a recent article (June 15) by Jerusalem Post reporter, Caroline Glick, she writes: "It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama's friends, former Weatherman Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is former US senator from South Dakota James Abourezk." What are your comments on this? AK: As I reported back in January of this year, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers along with Code Pink's Jodie Evans were in the forefront of fomenting chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory's population and leadership. The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas' former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Clearly, President Obama's associates have helped shape his adversarial stance towards Israel, but he has a history of political leanings towards Hamas. In the 1990s, Obama spoke at pro-Palestinian events alongside Ali Abunimah, who was with Evans' group in Egypt, and who runs the web site called "Electronic Intifada" which spreads anti-Israel propaganda. In one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for Palestinian "refugees," Abunimah recalled introducing Obama on stage. Obama, like most leftists, believe that all conflicts can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations, which is why I believe he is coddling Iran in part. He is advancing and agitating for policies that help Hamas and we might see in the future even the White House eventually opening channels with Hamas because they believe that Hamas can be talked out of their extremism that is patently ridiculous. I know many Hamas leaders and have interviewed them and they are looking to spread their brand of Islam around the world and it's not like we can talk them out of it or talk them into peace negotiations. Obama has an "Israel problem". He has a real issue with the Jewish state. This is evidenced by his radical affiliations with such people as Rashid Khalidi, the pro-PLO Columbia University professor and others like him. FS: Can you shed some light on whom, in the Obama administration, were significant figures in pushing a socialist domestic agenda including the national health care reform bill? AK: As I reveal in my book, a convicted felon named Robert Creamer who is the husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who was one of Capitol Hill's most visible cheerleaders for Obama's health-care bill is the one who helped provide a blueprint for the president's health-care legislation. Creamer said his declared strategies on health-care reform are not about "policies" but "are about the distribution of wealth and power." Creamer also recommended the president "create" a national consensus that the country's health-care system is in a state of crisis in order to push a radical new health-care plan. Creamer was sentenced to federal prison in 2006 after pleading guilty to bank fraud and withholding taxes while heading Citizen Action of Illinois. While in prison, he wrote a book titled "How Progressives Can Win." Obama's chief adviser, David Axelrod, touted Creamer's book as providing "a blueprint for future victories," including on health care. His book was endorsed by other leading Democrats and by Andy Stern, a close ally of the president who as head of the Service Employees International Union had visited the White House more than any other individual. FS: You write quite extensively on the role of the SEIU, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, and of course ACORN in their support for President Obama. Can you tell us if the leadership and rank and file of these unions call for a Socialist and/or Communist agenda and what role, if any, they play in helping to craft legislation? AK: For example, one of Obama's close advisors is Eliseo Medina, the international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. Medina is in the forefront of spearheading legislation that would grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, with the stated objective being the expansion of the "progressive" electorate that would help to ensure a "progressive" governing coalition for the long term. The SEIU is closely linked to the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN and they are top supporters of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Bill, which seeks to document up to 12 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. Also on the council was Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., the co-sponsor of Gutierrez's immigration reform bill. Medina was a chief lobbyist credited with a change in the longstanding policy of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S. The union reversed its stance against illegal immigration in February 2000, instead calling for new amnesty for millions of illegals. The New Zeal blog documents how Medina was honored in 2004 by Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America for his "vital role in the AFL-CIO's reassessment of its immigration policy." That same year, Medina became a DSA honorary chairman. The DSA also supported Gutierrez's 1998 bid for Congress. In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez served on the board of Illinois Public Action alongside a number of DSA members, including Obama health-care advisor Quentin Young. FS: Can you elaborate on David Axelrod's Communist background that you extensively explore in your book? AK: David Axelrod was mentored by Don Rose, a founder of the pro-Communist publication called "Hyde Park Voices" and who, in the 1960s, was a member of a purported Communist Party front called the Alliance to End Repression. Axelrod began his professional career as a journalist with this paper. Rose also worked with the late David S. Canter, who was the co-founder of the Voices newspaper and was named as a communist in the late 1960s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In my book, I document the fact that Rose had written to Marc Canter, the son of the late David Canter and said, "Your dad and I 'mentored' and helped educate Axelrod politically, which is perhaps why you may recall seeing him hanging around the house." In 1987, Axelrod was hired to help in the re-election campaign of Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor, where he once again worked with Rose and Canter. It should be noted that Washington's campaign was supported by a coalition of communist and socialist groups. FS: Will you be speaking about this book on college campuses throughout North America? AK: I will not be focusing on a speaking tour right now but will be putting my efforts into a media tour to help promote the book. Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com |
|
RABBI MORDECHAI ELIYAHU: FREE JONATHAN
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 30, 2010. | |
|
English Translation of Rav Eliyahu's remarks: "This week, we read in the weekly Torah portion about the actions taken by Avraham Avinu to save a captive, to save Lot who had gone to Sodom. He went to Sodom and he was undeserving (of rescue); yet Avraham Avinu spared no effort to save him. "There is a Jew — a very dear Jew — who did so much for the Nation of Israel all over the world and who did so much for the Land of Israel, to save us from some very harsh things — the worst that could happen! "This Jew is named Jonathan Pollard. His wife, Esther, has worked endlessly to try to get him out from where he is held in prison. I myself have appealed to several Presidents of the United States: to Regan, to Bush, to Bush's father, to Cardinal Law and to a host of others. To whomever I could turn, I have appealed to them, asking that they act to take him out of there and bring him here to The Land. "And I told them — also told them here in The Land — if they what they are afraid of is that he will talk, then I will be his guarantor that he will not say a word. He won't say anything. On the contrary! He will praise everyone; he will praise the presidents. In any case, what we want is this: He is our brother! He must come home to the Land of Israel — and at once!"
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
ISRAEL DOESN'T HAVE TO GO UNDER THE BUS
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 30, 2010. |
|
The Obama and perhaps future United States administrations, for strategic military and economic reasons, will attempt to salvage a wavering alliance with Turkey, as well as create or enhance alliances with many other Middle East Muslim countries. Thus, Israel becomes a potential pawn, a sacrifice to be thrown to the turbaned wolves and chic Sheikhs, some adorned in Armani suits, if for one the oil pushers come to shove. The writing on the wall, both in English and Arabic, must be carefully analyzed by Israeli strategists, ever aware that survival depends on adaption. When a presumed 'friend' announces to the world that the Israeli Palestinian stalemate ever imperils its troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, not to mention future ventures into raw material rich dysfunctional Muslim autocracies, it is time to react aggressively. Many emerging economic juggernauts to the expansive East, especially China, India, and Russia; afflicted by Islamic fundamentalists willing to blow themselves and crowds of innocents asunder; can relate to Israel's chronic dilemma. Furthermore, the Jewish States kick-butt economy, state of the art technology, world class research centers populated by some of the brightest scientists and engineers on Earth, make her an enticing partner to pal around with on the world stage. The sun may be setting in the West, but could be rising ever brightly in the East for Israel. Furthermore, reaching out with gusto to other suitors, especially some competing with a less than sanguine Uncle Sam, could very well spark a change in attitude within an administration that apparently takes its perceived protectorate morphed to sacrificial lamb for granted; not to mention a bloc of Jewish voters that could make all the difference in 2012. Politicians are practical fellows; know where their bread, pita, or matzo is buttered. A prescient Israel, sticking to her guns and principles, led by a strong Bibi Netanyahu and wise Likudniks, should continue buildings apartments in the eastern sector of Jerusalem, refuse to be intimidated by an overstepping White House; that by the way has no intention of returning to Mexico America's Greater Southwest won in battle in the 1800s, blithely attributed to 'Manifest Destiny'. Indeed Bibi might suggest to Barack that all of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and each and every inch of core Israel is part of her own 'Manifest Destiny', to be kept under her authority for all time. Period! Additionally, if the U. S. President wishes to get back into the good graces of a nation, expanding her own alliances to the East with folks she can relate to, he had better turn in his chess board for a deck of cards without any hidden jokers. 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 |
|
URDU-PASHTU MEDIA PROJECT
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 29, 2010. |
|
This is from MEMRI. The following is research published from the Urdu-Pashtu Media Project
today. Visit the Urdu-Pashtu Media Project blog daily at
|
|
Criticisms in Afghanistan of President Hamid Karzai's Policy of Releasing Taliban Prisoners On June 6, 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a decree, authorizing review of all Taliban prisoners who are detained in various jails managed by the Afghan government. Under the decree, all those prisoners who are being held on the basis of false information or insufficient evidence are to be released. It is not clear if the decree applies to the detention centers managed by the U.S. and NATO troops. As per the presidential order, a committee, headed by the Afghanistan's justice minister, ''shall conduct a comprehensive review of the cases and release those without legally binding evidence of conviction.'' The order to release the Taliban prisoners came after the National Consultative Peace Jirga, held in Kabul June 2-4. The jirga, or meeting of community elders, was organized by the Karzai government to find a way of ending the nine-year Taliban-led militancy in Afghanistan. At the end of three-day deliberations, a resolution adopted by the jirga approved President Karzai's proposals for reconciliation with the armed opposition groups and authorized him to open peace talks with the Taliban militants who could be willing to quit violence and accept the Afghan constitution. As per the jirga's declaration, the Afghan government and the international troops were urged "to take immediate and solid action in freeing from various prisons those detained based on inaccurate information or unsubstantiated allegations." The move to free Taliban prisoners was welcomed by Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, who argued that such a step will build trust between the Afghan government and the opposition groups. However, the Karzai government's move to free Taliban prisoners has been severely criticized. The first criticism of such a move came from Azeeta Rafat, a member of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house of the Afghan parliament) who argued that such a step will signal to the Taliban that the government is weak and will not lead to positive consequences for restoring peace in Afghanistan. Qazi Nazeer Ahmad Hanafi, a political analyst, also accused President Karzai of "victimizing justice" with a decision to release the militants. Amrullah Saleh, who recently resigned, also accused Karzai of adopting a soft policy on the Taliban. Recently, Dr. Sima Samar, the chief of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, criticized the proposal to release the prisoners, arguing that many militants who are guilty of human rights could be freed under such a move. According to a report in the Dari-language newspaper Roznama Arman-e-Milli, she said that those militants who helped plan suicide attacks, killed innocent people and burned down schools should not be released. In an editorial, below, the Dari-language newspaper Arman-e-Milli expresses concerns that such a move in the past to release militants has not yielded positive results and that it might lead to the release of Taliban militants who are backed by the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence. In another editorial, the Afghanistan Times daily argues that the effective way to restore peace in Afghanistan is by expediting the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces. To read the full report, visit
Pakistan TV Debate on Concubines and Slavery in Islam Speaking on "Point Blank with Luqman," a television program hosted by Pakistani television presenter Mubasher Luqman, prominent Pakistani clerics said that Islam permits Muslims to keep concubines. Video footage of the program was posted on the Pakistani website pakistanherald.com. The show, which airs at 11:00pm from Monday through Friday, is a talk show on which a variety of social and political issues in Pakistan are discussed. The particular edition of the program on which the clerics spoke was aired on Pakistani television channel Express News on May 31, 2010. The participants included Allama Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer, the Secretary General of the puritanical religious organization Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith; Barelvi cleric Maulana Raghib Naeemi, the Nazim-e-Aala of the Jamia Naeemia madrassa; and Dr. Mohammed Aslam Siddiqui, a Jamaat-e-Islami politician and former head of the Department of Mosques at the Punjab University, who joined by telephone. To read the full report, visit
Editorials in Afghan and Pakistani Dailies Examine Secret Talks between Karzai Government and the Haqqani Network On June 16, 2010, a leading Pakistani daily revealed that the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is mediating between the Afghan government and the Haqqani Network, a key militant group that is part of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Dawn newspaper quoted an unidentified "senior security official" in Pakistan as saying that "preliminary contacts" have been established with Sirajuddin Haqqani and other leaders of his group through intermediaries in a bid to engineer a rapprochement with the Karzai administration. According to the report, "[a]lthough the future of the initiative is unclear at the moment, the initial signs are encouraging because the leadership of the militant group appears to be willing (to talk)." The Haqqani Network is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin Haqqani, who have their bases in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal district and have been supported by the ISI. The Taliban have not commented on the report that the Haqqani Network's leaders could consider talks. In fact, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban's own shadow government, has rejected any possibility of peace talks with the Karzai government under the framework of the Afghan constitution. However, the latest report about secret talks between the Afghan government and the Haqqani Network could be the Pakistani military's attempt to gain a foothold in Kabul by allowing the Haqqanis to have a say in Afghanistan. The following two editorials, the first in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn and the second in the Dari-language newspaper Roznama Arman-e-Milli, examine the issue of the secret talks with the Haqqani group. The Dawn editorial, published June 17, 2010 and titled "Haqqani Talks?" stresses that the Pakistani government should first try to secure the Pakistani tribal areas before attempting to gain a say in the internal affairs of Afghanistan; the editorial in Afghan daily Roznama Arman-e-Milli, published June 20 and titled "Why Secret Negotiations with the Haqqani Terrorist Group?" asks why the Karzai government is entering into secret talks with a murderous group like the Haqqanis. To read the full report, visit
Columns in Jihadist Weekly on Dajjal Caution Against Overestimating the 'Power of Infidels': 'Nowhere Will You Find Islam Praising the Power of Infidels [And] Their Conspiracies'; 'U.S., Europe, Kabbala... All These Satans Will be Destroyed by Jihad Alone'; 'The Mischief of Dajjal Can Be Dealt With By Jihad' The Urdu-language Pakistani weekly magazine Haftroza Al-Qalam which belongs to Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist organization Jaish-e-Muhammad, recently published two articles on Dajjal, the antichrist. The articles argue that a focus on conspiracy theories such as those about Dajjal lead to a waste of Muslims' energy and prevent them from waging jihad, and to overestimating the power of the U.S. Jaish-e-Muhammad is headed by Maulana Masood Azhar, a Pakistani militant commander who was released by India in exchange for the passengers of the hijacked Indian plane to Kandahar in 1999. In the Islamic world, there are two versions of the concep of Dajjal. According to Islamic literature, Dajjal is the antichrist who will be born at the time Jesus is reborn and will try to mislead people. Those who follow him will enter the path of heaven as shown by him, but in reality it will be hell. Those who disagree with Dajjal and go into hell as shown by him will actually be entering heaven. This concept concerns "Dajjal the antichrist." However, in the popular perception, the concept of Dajjal has come to be of someone out to mislead and corrupt Muslims, a one-eyed, bloodthirsty, and powerful mischief-maker bent upon dividing the Muslim Ummah. With the antisemitic environment influencing international Muslim opinion, the Jews are seen as the contemporary Dajjal, with numerous conspiracy theories built around them. In the first article, titled "Dajjal, Judaism: A Viewpoint," Talha As-Saif, a regular columnist for Haftroza Al-Qalam, warns Islamic scholars against giving too much weight to the power of the Western countries in their assessment, saying that such a trend in the Islamic world encourages a defeatist mentality among Muslim communities. The article argues that the trend of Islamic leaders' emphasis on explaining everything in terms of Dajjal and the Jews, and their overemphasis on the power of the U.S., is creating a defeatist Muslim mindset. As-Saif notes: "In our view, the effort [about explaining Dajjal] is positive and good so far as it is helping in setting Dajjal's fitna [mischief], character, and attributes before the people — but now... this is so exaggerated that every work is now said to be the handiwork of Judaism and Dajjal, and their power is being exaggerated so much that [Muslims]... are thinking about hiding from or bowing to these conspiracies about Dajjal." In the second article, titled "Japanese Dajjal," columnist Saadi urges Muslims not to waste time discussing and researching Dajjal and similar conspiracies that have a negative impact on the Muslims' morale. Urging readers not to waste time on on conspiracies, he writes: "When Dajjal comes, the world will know, and the only people who will be safe from the mischief of Dajjal will be those with perfect belief in Allah who do not worship wealth or fear death. Such people will join the forces of Jesus and fight against Dajjal." To read the full report, visit
Taliban Leaders: The People Want To Be Ruled by Islamic Law Following are excerpts from an Al-Jazeera TV report on the Taliban in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The report aired May 23, 2010. To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit
Reporter: "The route to the Panjwai region is rough, just like the fate of its inhabitants has been for many years. There is no trace here of the Kabul regime or its allies — at least not in the streets we passed through. The Taliban rules here. They cover their faces and brandish their weapons. Kandahar remains their stronghold — even if it has not been impenetrable for nine years. Nobody can say for sure how many regions are under the control of the Taliban militants, and whether the regions' loyalty to them is out of choice or is bred from fear. To read the full report, visit
Views of Pakistani Religious Leader Dr. Israr Ahmed (1932-2010) Regarding the Structure of an Islamic Caliphate 
Dr. Israr Ahmed (1932-2010), the founder of Pakistan's leading religious organization Tanzeem-e-Islami, was a prominent Islamic scholar who campaigned for establishing an Islamic caliphate. Trained to be a medical practitioner, he began activism during his student days while associated with the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, but later developed differences because of its "involvement in electoral politics." In April 1957, he left the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and established his own religious organization, Tanzeem-e-Islami, in 1975. Over the past few decades, he wrote more than 60 books, delivered television sermons, and founded several organizations such as Anjuman-e-Khuddamul Quran and Tehreek-e-Khilafat, acquiring devout followers in Pakistan, India, and in Saudi Arabia and the broader Middle East. During the past few years, he had been unwell, handing over the leadership of his organization in 2002 to Hafiz Akif Saeed as the acting Emir. While the Jamaat-e-Islami's influence is more in the area of day-to-day activism, Dr. Israr Ahmed's Tanzeem-e-Islami's influence is more in the spiritual, religious, and scholarly domains. At a meeting in June 2010 held in Lahore to examine the teachings of Dr. Israr Ahmed, Akif Saeed, the new Emir of Tanzeem-e-Islami, stressing the message of his predecessor, diagnosed all problems of Pakistan as originating from the absence of caliphate in the country, and asserted: "The real cause of our woes is the delay in the enforcement of Shari'a [in Pakistan]. Peaceful protest and other tactics can help us in this regard... When the infidels can unite, why can't we? We have the Koran, on the basis of which we can come close to each other. Our belief in the oneness of Allah can make the Muslims one nation." According to a report in the Pakistani daily Dawn, "A critic of modern democracy and the electoral system, Dr. Israr [Ahmed] believed that the head of an Islamic state can reject majority decisions of an elected assembly. A familiar refrain in his writings is that the spiritual and intellectual center of the Muslim world has shifted from the Arab world to the subcontinent and that conditions are much more congenial for the establishment of [an] Islamic Caliphate in Pakistan than in other Muslim countries." In 1982, he created a furor in Pakistan, claiming that women should be barred from all professions except medicine and teaching. The following article, which is translated and excerpted from Dr. Israr Ahmed's booklet in Urdu language, "Pakistan Mein Nizam-e-Khilafat: Kia, Kyon, Kaise?" (The System of Caliphate in Pakistan — What, Why, and How?), highlights his conception of how the constitutional structure of caliphate, or a modern Islamic state in Pakistan or elsewhere, has to be organized. The booklet has been published by the Anjuman Khuddam-ul-Quran, an organization of Tanzeem-e-Islami based in Lahore. To read the full report, visit
Indian Author Stresses Essence of Sufism in Islam, Criticizes Saudis for Exporting Wahhabism, Notes: 'Saudi Embassies Also Act as Centers to... Outsource Wahhabism'; 'I Regard Wahhabism As Heresy'; 'The Arabized Version of Islam that Wahhabism Represents is Wholly Hostile to Pluralism' 
Image from Sadia Dehlvi's Facebook page In a recent interview, Sadia Dehlvi, a renowned Indian journalist 4and author of the recently published book Sufism — the Heart of Islam, criticized the Saudi regime for exporting the Wahhabi version of Islam in order to bolster its legitimacy. Calling Wahhabism "heresy" and stating that it contradicts the pluralistic message of Islam, Ms. Dehlvi notes that the peaceful message of Sufism (Islamic mysticism) is central to understanding the 1,400 years of Islamic history. She explains: "In contrast to how the Wahhabis perceive it, Islam is all about cultural diversity... One of the reasons for the vibrancy of Islam historically has been its capacity to express itself in multiple local cultural forms and milieus and to find God therein, for the light of God, as the Sufis say, is present in every particle of His creation." She also accuses the "Jewish lobby" of being behind the negative image of Islam and Muslims, noting: "The image of Islam as synonymous with Wahhabi hate and radicalism was aggressively promoted by George Bush, when he was the American president, and by the largely Jewish-controlled American media." To read the full report, visit
|
|
REMOVING ISRAEL'S BOMB FROM THE BASEMENT
Posted by Louis Rene Beres, June 29, 2010. |
|
Louis René Beres is Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. He is author of many major books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Contact him by email at lberes@purdue.edu |
|
OBAMA'S ISLAMIC ENVOY: OBAMA IS AMERICA'S "EDUCATOR-IN-CHIEF ON ISLAM"
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 29, 2010. |
|
There's only one war going on right now. And it's global. We are all in it. Only, some of us don't know it, including apparently, our commander-in-chief, our educator-in-chief. Or maybe he does. If so, he should switch to America's side. Or resign. Our fearless leader has distanced himself from or insulted our Western allies, and is attempting to destroy Israel by inhibiting its natural growth. He gifts "Palestinians" with millions of dollars, some of which will buy Gazan children thousands of laptops while millions of children starve in Africa and black Sudanese are sold into slavery. He insists that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the root cause of unrest in the Middle East and has declared there is to be yet another Palestinian state scooped out of Israel. He fired a general without a replacement in situ when the Afghanistan war is starting to look as interminable and unwinnable under current policy as was Vietnam. He has ignored or facilitated Iran's building nuclear bombs, joined the infamous and misnamed Human Rights Council at the UN and enboldened Latin American dictators who look to Iran for inspiration. Domestically, he has put the fight against Islamic terrorism on an unlit burner and has continued Bush's policy of enfeebling agencies such as DHI and FBI by directing them to carry out Muslim Out-Reach programs that Bring-In Sharia law. In sum, his policy this past year has been: let's show the Muslims we care about them. The results? Pew Global Attitudes Survey says: 17% Egyptians viewed him favorably, down from 27% last year. Similar declines in Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey range from 4% to 10%. And domestic terrorism is on the rise. Apparently the Muslims don't like his rendition of the Wimp and Poo song. They might not like America any better if we stopped the Iranian bomb and the Islamic takeovers, but we Americans would be a lot more secure. This below was written by Stephen Schwartz
and it appeared in the Weekly Standard
|
|
Envoy Rashad Hussain says U.S. will work with Organization for the Islamic Conference in the UN to stop "defamation of religion." Rashad Hussain, America's special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Saudi-based body formed in 1969 to "protect" Jerusalem from the Israelis, announced a new title this week for President Barack Obama. According to Hussain, Obama is America's "Educator-in-Chief on Islam." Hussain so designated Obama in a keynote speech Wednesday, June 23, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The occasion was another "post-Cairo" conference, following on the event that welcomed Islamist ideologue Tariq Ramadan to Washington in April. Hussain also declared that Obama is "Educator-in-Chief" on the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which has produced diplomatic and political events around the capital for some years. Hussain affirmed with satisfaction that presidential iftar dinners, where the fast is broken after sundown, and which had formerly been limited to diplomats from Muslim countries, now welcomed American Muslims from throughout society. In his remarks, Hussain also congratulated Obama for sending Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, to last year's annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a notorious front for Saudi-financed Muslim radicalism. Worse, Hussain has now divulged that the U.S. will support the OIC in the latter's United Nations effort to criminalize "defamation of religion" — widely perceived as a measure to suppress criticism of Muslim practices that violate human rights. "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the UN on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe," said Hussain. He had previously said, at the above-mentioned April "post-Cairo" conference, that the U.S. would work with the OIC to defend the Muslim head-scarf against prohibitions on its display in schools and governmental offices — a measure common to secular France and now Islamist-ruled, but still legally-secular Turkey, as well as Muslim-majority Tunisia and Kosovo. Obama, Hussain declaimed, has created an "overarching framework" for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims that is lacking in Europe. The problem, according to the president's man at the OIC, is that a once-favorable relationship between the West and the Muslim countries has turned negative in the past decade — presumably, since 9/11. Put plainly, Obama's desire to educate Americans about Islam is founded on nostalgia for a warm and reliable friendship that rarely existed. As noted by Hussain, Obama has called for references to "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism" to be expunged from the official vocabulary employed by his administration, and has pronounced last year's Fort Hood massacre to be unrelated to Islam. As the president has assured the world, terrorism is anti-Islamic and the term "jihad" has been misused. Thus Obama presumes not only to act as "educator" on Islam to non-Muslim Americans, but to define the religion for its own adherents. Hussain addressed his comments to an event assessing the impact of Obama's Cairo speech. But Hussain employed a phrase that must have been chilling to those who heard in it an echo, saying "Islam is a solution" to the current global challenges emerging from Muslim ranks. A "post-Cairo" phrase indeed: "Islam is the solution" is the slogan of the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Are we learning yet? Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi. |
|
LOOKING BACK ON 1,000 JINSA REPORTS
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 29, 2010. |
|
To mark the occasion of 1,000 JINSA Reports beginning in 1995, we have finished reformatting and posting them on our website — www.jinsa.org. Please take a look and let us know which JINSA Reports resonated most with you, which were your favorite, which you disagreed with, and which piqued your interest to learn more or to sound off. We looked back as well. #49 in 1997 reminded us how long the West has been trying to limit Iran's ability to sow terror and destruction in the Middle East. We pointed to a $2 billion French natural gas deal with the Iranian government, for which France expected — and received — no Western sanction. #85 in 1998 reminded us that at one time the Palestinians had an airport in Gaza and passage between the Gaza and the West Bank. It is worth pondering how Israel — with Egypt — came to enforce a blockade against the Palestinians in Gaza, and it is worth understanding how both Hamas and Fatah used the world's money and political support not to create a functional Palestinian state, but to create terrorist operations that have killed thousands of Israelis and thousands of their own people by their own hand (see #203 and #204 on "targeted killings"). We chronicled the so-called "peace process," its demise in the "second intifada," (#753) and Operation Defensive Shield that proved that terrorism can be controlled by controlling territory — a lesson that American troops learned years later in Iraq. We called out the Europeans for paying PLO salaries while Palestinians were blowing up cafes and pizza parlors (#164) and the CIA for building the Palestinian "security forces" (#165). We worry a lot about a Palestinian army being built by Americans (#504, #561, #616, #664, #687, #756, #900, #948 and #993, among others), and about the U.S. training and equipping other militaries that may not share our strategic outlook (most recently #984 and #987). September 11, 2001 was a turning point of sorts, applying the understanding that there are two kinds of people in the world — us and them — and understanding that Israel's war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them was our war as well (#347 is representative). We took a stand against the phrase "Israel's right to exist" (#574 in 2006) as if a democratic country that is fully integrated into the global economy, a participant in dozens of multilateral initiatives, and a provider of aid and assistance to victims of natural disasters across the globe had to justify continuing to breathe. We published the text of the declassified State Department memo acknowledging in 1973 that Yasser Arafat had ordered the killings of American Ambassador Cleo Noel, Curtis Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid (#630) — how long the State Department knew and how little they cared as they continued to treat Arafat like a fellow-diplomat was sickening. We followed the run up to the Iraq war, the war, the surge, the elections and the tentative emergence of political reconstruction. We believed — and still believe — the ouster of Saddam was a blow to terrorism in the region and have been impressed by the number of Iraqis who braved the maelstrom to form political parties, publish free newspapers and vote. Last month (#979) we encouraged the Obama Administration to work closely with the Iraqis to help them form a government that will respect the results of the most recent election. JINSA Reports have been a vehicle for our appreciation for our country and our troops, including raising money for the Fran O'Brien's dinners (#448, #512, #564, #569, #619, #720, #757 and #991). You, our readers, have been responsible for tens of thousands of dollars going into the dinners for wounded troops recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, and you were responsible for the National Medal of Honor Society selecting Hal Koster of Fran O'Brien's as an honoree in their "Above and Beyond" effort to recognize outstanding Americans. (You can still write a check to JINSA for Fran O'Brien's and every nickel will go to the fund.) We'll stop now, but hope you will revisit the anthology of JINSA Reports online as a reminder of where JINSA has been, where our country has been, where Israel has been, and where you — our readers — have been over 1,000 Reports. To contact Jinsa: email: feedback@jinsa.org
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi. |
|
PROBLEM WITH NEW U.S. SANCTIONS ON IRAN; ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER CLAIMS HIS WITHDRAWAL A SUCCESS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 29, 2010. |
|
ISRAELI DEFENSE MIN. URGES WITHDRAWAL FROM JUDEA-SAMARIA Israel's Defense Minister Barak is advising Israelis to make a "strategic" withdrawal from Judea-Samaria as soon as possible. He has a reputation as an expert strategist, but has a record of strategic folly. Here is his most important blunder, one that by itself would have gotten Israel destroyed within a year or two. Nuclear arms and security go through phases. Israel should have learned from the experience of the U.S.: Phase 1: Monopoly of nuclear weaponry. Excellent deterrent against the USSR. Although Israel is ambiguous about its nuclear inventory, it did have nuclear know-how before its enemies did, Phase 1. Then Phase 2 arose, with the prospect that both Iraq and Iran would possess nuclear weapons. That required Phase 3, which in Israel's case meant submarines. A project for acquiring them was begun. Then the IDF General Staff abandoned the project. The General Staff was persuaded by then Deputy Chief of Staff Ehud Barak, thought to be a brilliant strategist. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, however, felt remorse over Germany's major role in Iraqi nuclear development. He offered to finance (at least the first two) submarines for Israel. Thanks to Chancellor Kohl, Israel has a deterrent ready (IMRA, 6/28/10). Barak has other fiascoes to his discredit. In the first Lebanon war, he ordered his troops into a Syrian ambush. Much worse, as Prime Minister, he ordered the IDF to rush out of Lebanon, though it was keeping Hizbullah at bay. In the rush, they had to leave heavy weapons behind and abandon the Free Lebanese Army. This enabled Hizbullah to gain power over Lebanon and pose a strategic threat to Israel. Today, Hizbullah has about 40,000 missiles pointed at Israel. Hizbullah naturally gained in morale, too, as the Israeli soldiers literally ran away. Barak also offered almost all of Judea-Samaria to Arafat. Fortunately, Arafat rejected the offer, or Israel would have lost secure borders and Judea-Samaria would have turned into the terrorist base that the later withdrawal from Gaza turned Gaza into.
ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER CLAIMS HIS WITHDRAWAL A SUCCESS Israel's Defense Minister Barak claims that his withdrawal from Lebanon was successful and had been overdue. He claims that Hizbullah became strong because of the IDF's earlier presence, and it built up a big rocket force in reaction to blows it received from its second war with Israel (Arutz-7, 6/28/10). The issues are more complicated than that, but the explanation is simple. The first Lebanon War had an immediate objective, to destroy the PLO military buildup there. This objective was soon achieved. The strategic objective was to free Lebanon from Syria. At first, Lebanese welcomed the Israelis as liberators from the PLO. Then the IDF troops stayed on, without attaining their strategic objective. At the time, I thought the IDF should have withdrawn. They had become occupiers. Two Shiite militias arose to oppose them, one being Hizbullah. Hizbullah had Islamist ambitions both in Lebanon and to attack Israel. Therefore, at that time, it made no sense for the Israeli troops to withdraw and be attacked on Israeli soil. The IDF helped the Free Lebanese Army to fend off Hizbullah. With greater help and imagination, the Free Lebanese Army, run by Christians but which had many Shiite troops, might have liberated Lebanon. We'll never know. Barak has no moral right to call his precipitate withdrawal a success. It left heavy arms for Hizbullah. It abandoned Israel's Lebanese allies. It made the IDF look like cowards. It did not stop the Hizbullah military buildup, but facilitated it, there being no Israeli interference with it from the other side of the border. Sure Hizbullah has gotten more missiles, after losing militarily in the next Lebanon war. Barak depicts that as if the problem were in retaliating against Hizbullah. But the problem was that the Olmert-Livni regime was defeatist and incompetent, so it sent in insufficient forces to destroy Hizbullah. On another matter, a critic accuses Israel of seeking a "final solution" against Palestinian Arabs. Ridiculous. Considering the strength of Israel's Army, Israel could have inflicted much heavier casualties on the Arabs. Israel did not bomb any populated areas not having enemy forces. Can't say the same for the Arabs, including Egypt, which initiated wars by bombing Israeli cities. Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, without much retaliation. Finally, Israeli forces entered Gaza, and inflicted only 1,400 casualties among a population of 1,500,000. Where is the ethnic cleansing in that? On the other hand, the Arab mosques urge people to murder Jews. Muslim activists have murdered millions of people, as I have documented. Not a word of protest from those humanitarians who worry about the 1,400, mostly terrorists. Neither do they show the slightest appreciation for the IDF code that refrained from many targeted assassinations when civilians entered the target area. These anti-Israel critics must be psychologically incapable of crediting Israel for anything. Too biased.
PROBLEM WITH NEW U.S. SANCTIONS ON IRAN The new U.S. sanctions on Iran passed by Congress is beset with problems. The bill does not actually impose sanctions. It authorizes the President to waive and adjust seven key provisions, which are almost all of them. This President had delayed the sanctions bill for half a year, rendering questionable his seriousness about halting Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Executive branch often ignores the substantive points of legislation to stop Iran. President Obama's Secretary of State declares the waivers would be implemented in accordance with his dual policy of "engagement" and "pressure" regarding Iran. To date, his policy has yielded nil. [It has been mostly unrequited engagement and minor sanctions, including UN resolutions.] "As respected Middle East authority Barry Rubin observes 'the problem is that the administration has been too quick to seek engagement with Tehran, too eager to make unilateral concessions, too naïve in interpreting the Iranian regime as moderate, and too timid about getting tough. In other words, it is possible that the administration will take credit for congressional sanctions that it delayed for six months and then not even carry them out in (unrealistic) hope of making some deal with Tehran.'" "The fact that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all ignored Congressional Iran sanctions in the past, and that the penalties mandated by previous Congressional legislation have never been imposed on a single individual or company since their inception in 1996, suggest that further instituting Executive flexibility in this latest legislative effort was a mistake." (6/28/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) I have reported on other waivers that our Presidents use freely, particularly about Jerusalem, so that the law does not bind them. This is an abuse not only by Presidents but also by Congress. Congress gets credit by its constituencies for advocating policies they want but that they let the Presidents waive. Then there is abuse of the truth. For example, in another context, a reader insinuates that the estimated 1,400 Arab casualties in the Gaza combat stain Israel's honor. Nonsense! War brings casualties. More than half of those in Gaza were military. The rest occurred because Hamas committed the war crimes of using human shields for their arms depots and for their fighting men. Those civilian casualties are the responsibility of the military forces that fight amid civilians. I have documented that and the falsity of the Goldstone UN report that claimed otherwise. If the Arabs had made peace instead of refusing, and if they did not have a doctrine of total war and exclusive control over the whole area, they would not have any casualties. First they commit aggression, and then they lament casualties?
ARAB JOURNALISTS CHALLENGE ANTI-ISRAEL LINE A couple of Arab journalists challenged the anti-Israel line. From Kuwait's Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Al-Hadlaq described the flotilla as terrorists posing as humanitarians. Therefore, Israel was justified in defending itself from them. Mr. Al-Hadlaq contrasted the global interest in Gaza, which is run by terrorists, with the global neglect for much more serious human rights issues. He observed that the hundreds of tunnels prevented the shortages of goods that the flotilla pretends it was needed to restock. He mentioned what he considers graver and legitimate issues, including Darfur, a possible Kyrgyzstan descent into civil war, southern Sudan, Judea-Samaria, three islands claimed by the UAE but seized by Iran, and an estimated eight million Arabs in Iran, whom he attests are repressed. Egyptian-American writer Magdi Khalil stated on al-Jazeera TV that "Arab discourse has done nothing but fuel illusions and hatred." He said that Israel takes matters seriously, unlike Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, who said the UN sanctions resolution belongs in the garbage bin. In his interview, Mr. Khalil said that Turkey's government is Islamist, so Israel was foolish to believe its assurances that the flotilla activists were peaceable. He thinks Turkey is becoming like Iran. He claims that more Arabs are killed in Arab police stations than were killed in all the Arab-Israel wars. As for leftist anarchists in the West, they are anti-Western. The host and another guest accused Khalil of giving Israeli advice to the Arabs. The host seemed to have hurried Khalil off the air (MEMRI, 6/29/10). There is health in this Arab intellectual ferment that does not automatically endorse the official line. People need to break away from several mental conceits and straitjackets, and recognize that different cultures produce different ways of thinking: 1. Chauvinism to the point of jingoism and paranoia; 2. Seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses or conspiracy theory, not that there aren't some conspiracies; 3. The American notion that the U.S. is exempt from significant corruption — perhaps half of its governmental spending is for subsidizing what lobbyists demand; 4. A Jewish notion of having special intelligence, citing a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes. As a whole, my fellow Jews have been particularly intellectual, but not particularly wise; 5. The notion that the U.S. government works for the national interest. Many officials do not know what that is or have their own biases and self-interests.
U.S. FRUSTRATED WITH ISRAEL OVER NEGOTIATIONS U.S. envoy Mitchell is frustrated in the Palestinian Authority-Israel preliminary shuttle negotiations, because PM Netanyahu does not produce a map showing what boundaries Israel wants. Mitchell says that the negotiations are not serious. Dr. Aaron Lerner believes that if Netanyahu provided such a map, the U.S. would draw another, less favorable line, as its preference. Then the negotiations likely would resume with the U.S. line as the starting point for the Arabs to demand an even less favorable line, and the Arabs would have a U.S. plan in writing. In other words, providing a map would be a trap for Israel (IMRA, 6/28/10). Preliminary negotiations appear to be trap in which the U.S. tries to baby Israel along to give away the ballgame before the final negotiations. Indirect negotiations are another trap, whereby the Arabs concede nothing and let the U.S. take its side. Meanwhile, anti-Zionists pretend that the U.S. gives Israel unstinting support. The whole notion of negotiations are a trap, because there is no reason to negotiate now, while the Arab side remains desirous of conquering Israel, rather than making peace. When the Arabs want peace, negotiations would make sense. The State Dept. ignores the jihad ideology of the Arab side, and focuses on getting another useless Olso-like pact signed, so it can pretend to have accomplished something, or so it can get Israel sliding down the slope. So it claims the negotiations, really Israel, are not serious. How serous are negotiations when Abbas says that he would not recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, meaning he is not giving up his hostility to it? How serious is Abbas about making peace with Israel, when he honors terrorists and his regime indoctrinates in hating Israel and the Jewish people? Such hatred does not exist on the Israeli side. Mitchell's frustration seems rather impatient after only four sessions. These issues have been negotiated for years. It is difficult to reach accommodation between a rock and a hard place. 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:
|
|
LEARNING FROM THE PAST, ACTING IN THE FUTURE
Posted by Marc Prowiser, June 29, 2010. |
|
Today is the 17th of the Hebrew month of Tammuz, the start of the three week mourning period of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This period ends on the 9th of Av, which of course is the date of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash (the Temple) in Jerusalem. The 17th of Tammuz commemorates five calamities that befell the Jewish people on this date, the most known is that it is the date the walls of Jerusalem were breached, which of course led to our defeat in Israel, the destruction of our Temple and our expulsion from our holy land. The period around the 9th of Av also commemorates another mournful date for many of us, the "modern day" expulsion of Jews from the Gaza Strip, or more commonly known to many as Gush Katif. Is there a difference today regarding what our enemies desire? Both forces behind our expulsions in the past were world leaders at the time, isn't it strange how the current world leader, the USA, is the driving force behind this modern day effort of expelling Jews from their homeland? Isn't it sadder and stranger that current Israeli leadership bows to these whims today without learning from our past? We must change this. This period, more than others should teach us to reflect on our past, to learn from it, to act upon it, and to move forward, not backward. This façade of a "Peace Process" is falling apart day by day. Indeed it is not based on peace at all, yet racism, bigotry and deceit against the Jews of Israel. As it crumbles, the world, and yes, I mean the world regroups in its efforts to rise against us, to force upon us "solutions" that will only bring about more Jewish victims, and not just in Israel. We saw how this week, Israel's Defense (?) Minister, Ehud Barak chummed up to President Barak Obama that brought up many questions to staunch supporters of Israel. How could someone that is supposed to be responsible for Israel's defense be a buddy with someone who has been getting closer with Israel's enemies and putting Israel further in harms way. Here is a clue, neither has Israel's best interest in mind. We listened in on the leak of Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren as he spoke behind closed doors of the "tectonic rift" that "rocks" the relations of the US and Israel...this all in the shadow of the continued isolation of Israel on the International scene. Lets not forget of course Flotillas, Shmotillas.... I, like my people throughout the world will mourn during this period, I will make an effort to try to better understand the events and actions that led us to the historic and horrible events in our past. I will also pray for a better future, but I will not stop there! We will not, must not let this period bring us down! This is the time to act, this is the time to double, triple and quadruple our efforts to strengthen our people against our enemies. To make sure the mistakes of the past do not visit us in the present or near future. Despite what you may read in the media regarding Israel, or hear what many misguided politicians state, know this, we are strong, and the more the world stands against us the stronger we will become, but this is up to us and is in our hands. We have many, many, many challenges ahead, our land, our home, our heritage is being threatened. It is time to stand up, taller and stronger than ever, all of us, together. Our leaders both here in Israel and in the US, must know that we are here in Israel and we are here to stay. There is no other alternative and surrender is not an option. Israel's' Prime Minister Netanyahu will be showing up in Washington DC next week, he must understand that we have no choice but to be strong, President Obama must understand that we have no choice but to be strong, and only we can show the world that we have no choice but to be strong. May this period of mourning turn into a period of joy and celebration. Lets learn from our past and act NOW for our future! Marc Prowiser served as the Chief Army Security Coordinator for the Shilo Region in Israel from 1996 through 2006. He works in the Security field continuing to defend and protect others from acts of terrorism. |
|
TRUST CAN KILL A SMALL NATION
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 29, 2010. |
|
PART 1: It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz. It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz. I wondered: What was their mission? I also wondered about the practice take-off and landing sessions of U.S. and French aircraft on each other's aircraft carriers. It sounds like a good idea if their likely targets are nuclear sites in Iran. BUT, what if it wasn't? What if their alternate mission was to protect Iran from a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike by Israel on those Iranian nuclear sites? What if their plan is as Zbigniew Brzezinski counseled President Barack Hussein Obama — to shoot down Israeli aircraft in order to insure that Iran reaches full maturity in its nuclear capability? Do Obama and his advisors wish to see Iran and Syria achieve hegemony and dominate the entire Middle East because Obama finds it easier to deal with dictators? Now we come to the issue "TRUST", honoring one's word comes into play. How can we forget the deliberate betrayal of Israel when, during Desert Storm, the First Gulf War January 16, 1991 to March, Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUD missiles at Israel, hitting mostly Tel Aviv. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was prepared to order Israeli pilots sitting warmed up on the tarmac (runways) ready to find and kill the SCUD missile launchers. "The Patriot anti-missile missiles of that day hit the motors of the incoming SCUDS.Their shrapnel and explosives hit residential areas [in Israel]. Israeli pilots, trained to fly at deck level could have found and hit those SCUDs and maybe could have saved the 28 American soldiers who were killed when their barracks in Saudi Arabia was hit by a Saddam SCUD." (1) BUT, President George Herbert Walker Bush, his Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of Defense Colin Powell and Chief of Staff Norman Schwarzkopf assured Shamir that America would send out U.S. aircraft to eliminate the launchers. The reason given to Israel is that by Israel entering the war, it could break up the Arab Muslim coalition against Saddam. However, Bush and group lied. They never issued those orders for U.S. strikes on Saddam's launchers — a fact which was later confirmed by the U.S. GAO (General Accounting Office). Bush and his advisors were artfully protecting Iraq, based upon the philosophy that Saddam would be helpful in fighting Iran. Perhaps so, but, they were willing to sacrifice Israel to Saddam's SCUDs which could have been loaded with Chemical and Biological agents. [Proof from the scene: At 3:59 am in Israel on January 16, 1991 after Saddam's first SCUD attack, former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said in a BBC radio interview: "It's a particular tragedy that Nerve Gas was used." He would know that Saddam had Nerve Gas. Israelis spent Desert Storm in sealed rooms with gas masks and protective baby tents because the American Administration knew Saddam had Nerve Gas.] (1) Allowing Israel to take the SCUD hits was acceptable in the Americans' plans — then and perhaps by Obama now. When Bush and group succeeded in getting Syria to join a fake coalition, Syria was paid off in several ways. First, Syria arrived to the U.S.-led coalition mobilization Headquarters without arms and with no intentions of actually joining the U.S. in fighting Saddam. Syrians were stationed well away from the actual fighting. For this great sacrifice on Syria's part, the U.S. arranged a safe air corridor for Iraq's aircraft (a mix of approximately 75 Russian fighters and cargo aircraft) to be shipped to Iran — who didn't have the necessary Russian maintenance facilities and, therefore, had no use for the beneficent gift. However, the planes were disassembled, crated and then shipped to Syria. Payment to Saddam for this strange transfer came in several Billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — paid to Iraq so Iraq could buy armaments from the U.S. and other international arms' dealers. Saddam had used up his credit line in the arms market and desperately needed a cash infusion — which was why he attacked Kuwait in the first place where he stole $80 Billion in liquid assets. One should ask James Baker, III and the others about this 'little' Kuwaiti hustle. After all, it was he who would ostensibly have ordered America's Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie to give Saddam the "green light" by having her tell Saddam: "We're not interested in your border disputes." Getting back to the matter of today's mission for several (possibly four) U.S. aircraft carriers sitting off the coast of Iran, let us speculate on a few scenarios. Israel has several missile capable submarines tasked as a backup threat to Iran if Ahmadinejad should use a Nuclear Weapon on Israel. Are they to be tracked and targeted by U.S. destroyers lest they launch their missiles at Iran? The question remains: Why would Obama and his advisor wish to protect Iran and Syria? (Note! The American people and most of Congress consider Israel to be a valuable and loyal ally. But, certain Arabists in Washington act in concert with hostile Muslim Arab nations, both for oil and because of their deep-seated animus against the Jewish State.) Unconfirmed reports indicate that the Saudis are so fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran that they will allow Israeli aircraft to use Saudi airspace to bomb Iran. Sounds good going in but, how good is the Saudis' word to allow returning Israeli aircraft to refuel in the air or on the ground on their return and not to launch the very large Saudi (American-supplied) Air Force against the returning Israeli aircraft? After all, the Israeli's would have done their good deed by (hopefully) eliminating all of Iran's Nuclear R&D facilities. So would they still be needed? Let's remember the Good Deed Israel did by destroying the Osirik Nuclear Reactor in Iraq, an act which was condemned by the U.S., E.U., U.N. and Arab/Muslim bloc nations but, was celebrated in the Congressional cloak room and the very happy Saudis (all in secret). Would Israel have to guarantee the safety of both its air re-fueling cargo planes and returning Israeli aircraft by having a sizable squadron of F-16s and F-15s flying near the Riyadh and Tobruk Air Bases in case the Saudis broke their agreement, no doubt, at the urging of the Arabist State Department? The matter of trust and confidence building is based upon prior experience and words kept (or NOT kept). Israel has been lied to by both friends and dedicated enemies who rarely keep agreements when their interests have become mired in their vested self-interest and not in their integrity. I have offered the reader my speculations in part, of what may be a Future War. Israel remains a small, even minuscule nation which could (G-d forbid) be snuffed out by enemies and supposed friends, anxious to pacify Israel's enemies. "Trust" can be a very expensive commodity when you can possibly disappear in a puff of smoke! President Obama has demonstrated a decidedly pro-Muslim attitude and a hostility toward Israel never before seen by Israel or the American Congress. Both Houses of Congress have signed letters recognizing Obama's hostility toward Israel and stating plainly that they view Israel as America's staunch and valuable ally. Obama seems not to share the opinion of his Congress as he reaches out to Iran, Syria and other Islamic nations. As is said: " 'Trust' but verify." ### 1. "Feelings From A Sealed Room in a Gas Mask" by Gail Winston JEWISH PRESS Jan. 25, 1991 2. "Ordered To Die Quietly" by Emanuel A. Winston MACCABEAN
ONLINE from Freeman Center for Strategic Studies April 2003
PART 2: THIRD US CARRIER, 4,000 MARINES & NAVY AUGMENT US ARMADA OPPOSITE IRAN DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 28, 2010 THIRD US CARRIER, 4,000 MARINES & NAVY AUGMENT US ARMADA OPPOSITE IRAN DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 28, 2010 General Colin Powell was NOT U.S. Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf War, Desert Storm 1991 but rather, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary. And General Norman Schwarzkopf was NOT Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Schwarzkopf was the Commander of the Allied Forces in the Gulf War. We apologize for the unchecked glitch. The lesson to working in "Journalism on the fly 101" is: Check your facts! NOT your memory! As good as you think it might be. DEBKA reports today that America has posted a Third Carrier Group opposite Iran's shores in the Persian Gulf. The USS Harry S. Truman with 12 warships are cruising the Arabian Sea opposite Chai Bahar, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards biggest naval base not far from the Iranian-Pakistan border. That's where most of Iran's special commando units are housed. The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Force and its accompanying US warships plus an Israeli and German battle vessel each, transited the Suez Canal June 18. First, from June 6 through June 10, the Truman Strike Force deployed 50 miles off Israel's southwestern shore, secretly drilling the interception of incoming Iranian, Syrian and Hezb'Allah missiles and rockets against US and Israeli targets in the Middle East. (DEBKAfile June 21, 2010) Also posted in the Arabian Sea, further to the west, is the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group. (DEBKAfile June 28, 2010) Please log on to DEBKA.com to get the complete list of forces but, here is their listing of those ships, planes and soldiers in this Third Carrier group. 1. The USS Nassau Amphibious Assault ship is not just an enormous landing craft for the 3,000 Marines aboard; its decks carry 6 vertical take-off AV-HB Harrier attack plans; four AH-1W Super Cobra, twelve CH-46 Sea Knight and CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, as well choppers convertible to fast V-22 Osprey airplanes capable of landing in any conditions. This vast warship has 1,400 cabinets for sleeping the entire Marine-24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard. 2. The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde which carries 800 Marines equipped for instantaneous landing. 3. The amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland which carries 400 Marines and 102 commandos trained for special operations behind enemy lines.
THESE MASSIVE FORCES ARE VERY IMPRESSIVE. What does it really mean to those of us who doubt President Barack Hussein Obama's resolve to prevent Iran's use of nuclear weapons against Israel, Europe and American military bases in the Middle East and Europe (with from 300,000 to 500,000 American soldiers in harm's way)? It appears to me that, having failed to assemble a strong U.N. coalition mandating severe punitive sanctions to halt Iran's head-long enterprise to achieve a Nuclear Weapons' capability, Obama has resorted to a show of force. It seems he's following in the old tradition of Teddy Roosevelt's gun-boat diplomacy. The difference between Teddy R. and Obama is that Teddy meant business and Obama is making a threatened show of force, assuming that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be cowed and too frightened to continue developing his highly prized Nuclear Weapon, let alone use it. I don't think he knows that Ahmadinejad will NOT be cowed or what he is capable of doing — even risking his own population to retaliatory or pre-emptive strikes. After all, he believes that the Muslim "Mahdi" (Messiah) is to arrive in a great war to lead Islam to victory over the infidels (all non-Muslims). It was interesting to hear Leon Panetta, current Head of the CIA, state that Iran will not have an operating atomic weapon for "at least 2 years". We've been seeing that same "two years" since at least 1998! Since the CIA has rarely been right in their forecasts of the nuclear developments of North Korea, Pakistan, India — nor the fall of the Soviet Union under Perestroika, it looks like Panetta has been assigned to give Obama a "two-year" false breathing space to actually deal with Iran through appeasement. I would add that Israel — under Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, has been promised this show of force in gun-boat diplomacy, assuring Israel that it's not necessary to pre-emptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities because Iran will be too frightened to do anything provocative. I do not trust Obama's military abilities to forecast or "organize" anything — let alone plan an actual war against an implacable enemy under the flag of Islam. 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
|
|
THOUSANDS PROTEST FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS IN LEBANON
Posted by Daily Alert, June 29, 2010. |
|
This is from Reuters. |
|
BEIRUT (Reuters) — Several thousand Palestinians and Lebanese civil activists converged on central Beirut on Sunday, demanding more rights for Palestinians, many of whom live in in squalid and over-crowded refugee camps. Dozens of buses transported demonstrators waving Palestinian flags from refugee camps across the country — from the southern city of Tyre as well as from the northern city of Tripoli. "As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon. Some 425,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon by UNRWA, the U.N. agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. Many live in 12 camps across Lebanon in conditions the U.N. has described as deplorable and appalling. Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in dozens of professions and are generally paid lower wages than their Lebanese counterparts when they do find jobs. They are not allowed to benefit from public social or medical services. Proposals for a draft law due to be debated in parliament in a few weeks would give Palestinians the right to own a residential apartment and would legalise work rights. The protesters had planned to demonstrate in front of parliament but Lebanese soldiers prevented them from congregating there. Instead they gathered in front of U.N. headquarters, a few hundred metres away. "Palestinians have been here for 62 years. Their (condition) is unacceptable," said Dalia, a Lebanese assistant researcher. "Civil rights should be given to anyone regardless of their religion, sect or nationality," she said. Some 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes in the war that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. About 4.5 million refugees and their descendents now live in squalid camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank. Most of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are either refugees or their descendants. Israel has recently said it would ease a blockade on the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave, which critics say is collective punishment for Palestinians living there. The issue of granting Palestinian more rights has raised worries it would promote 'naturalisation', which some politicians fear will upset Lebanon's delicate sectarian and demographic balance. Most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims. The proposals have faced hurdles in parliament because of Christian lawmakers' fears that granting these rights would eventually lead to their permanent resettlement, an allegation refugees and civil rights activists say is not true. "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long," Human Rights Watch's Beirut director Nadim Houry said in a statement last week. "Parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians." (Reporting by Yara Bayoumy: Editing by Matthew Jones) 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 |
|
BARAK CLAIMS LEAVING LEBANON IN 2000 WAS A SUCCESS
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 29, 2010. |
|
This was writen by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu. "Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared Monday night he is "proud" of ordering the hasty withdrawal of the IDF from southern Lebanon in 2000. He also blamed previous governments and the IDF's use of strong force in the Second Lebanon War for Hizbullah's strength today." |
|
Barak babbles rubbish. Proof enough that he's incapable of understanding how he's perceived by Israel's antagonists: They see him as an extension of that attention-seeking toady, Shimon Peres. They see him as a weak horse. A weak horse who seeks accolades in all the wrong places. Barak would serve Israel better if he just kept his trap shut. We think Peres is a perpetually babbling, manipulative old man who thought nobody would ever discover that he tried to secretly do business in Gaza with his "dearest friend in peace" Yasser Arafat, by conducting their operations through their respective NGOs they established in the Cayman Islands. A tax haven that at that time had strict secrecy rules. Yes, his "dearest friend," the bloody Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat — the frog-faced runt Yasser who made it absolutely clear that he intended to steal as much of the Jewish Homeland he and his goon gangs could grab and he made it clear that he wanted to "make the streets of Israel run red with the blood of the Jews." (CNN — Christianne Amanpour) In short, Peres is greatly appreciated by the arab invaders who see as as Israel's "great demoralizer". And the arab invaders know that the grabbing remains good so long as Peres and Barak are allowed to strut the world stage. The damage Peres and his cohorts have already done to Israel is incalculable and just like their dearest friend Yasser, you'll never see either Barak or Peres risking their own skins or their fortunes by straight-forwardly advancing the sovereign rights of Israel ... but you will see them bending their knees and falling over every time Abdullah or the US State Dept. gives them a nudge. Such clever old men would serve Israel best if they kept their traps shut. Peres should be forced to account for and disgorge all the funds, gifts, and emoluments he's ever received or squirreled away in his NGOs. Viva Israel and Saludos to the Patriots of Israel and Professor Howard Grief from the SC4Z. We say to Israel: Stop begging for "peace" and start demanding justice — and don't let the Peres-Barak crowd define what this ought to be for you. They either cannot or will not support the law that established the larger boundaries of Israel under the San Remo Resolution and the treaties that followed and still bind the UK, the US, and the rest of europe. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: STILL DETERMINED
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 28, 2010. |
|
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, that is, with regard to carrying out the municipality's development plan, which will include the demolition of 22 illegally-built houses in Gan Hamelech, in Silwan. This in spite of major Arab rioting last night. Good going for the mayor, at least so far. ~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry that I cannot say the same for Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Border Police, it was reported today, will be holding a massive drill in Judea and Samaria this week aimed at dealing with an escalation in Israeli and Palestinian Arab violence. One of the scenarios being rehearsed is the situation that will ensue if the building moratorium is extended. I would not say with certainty that Netanyahu has already decided that the freeze will be extended — that he already knows he will give the nod to Obama when he visits Washington next week. That decision, one would guess, is going to be played out within a larger dynamic — with various factors to be considered, such as how supportive the president shows himself to be on other issues and how hard Netanyahu's arm is twisted. But it is clear that a scenario in which the freeze is extended is being given weight as a distinct possibility. How nice it would have been to read, simply, that the police were preparing for the eventuality of increased Palestinian Arab violence in response to the resumption of building in Judea and Samaria in late September. That, of course, is what should have been the case, given the prime minister's repeated insistence that the freeze will not be extended. ~~~~~~~~~~ If Netanyahu does cave, my guess is that we will not know it right away: Our prime minister is not likely to return and say, "My fellow Israelis, I know I gave my word, but the threats were so ominous, or the deal offered so attractive, that I reversed myself while sitting in the Oval Office." Nah... The pertinent information will come to us slowly, piecemeal. Perhaps there will be leaks and innuendoes. Or maybe the freeze will be continued de facto, with approvals for building held up, and awareness dawning after some measure of time. While Netanyahu is in Washington, he will have a photo op with Obama and will smilingly tell reporters how wonderful his visit with the president was. ~~~~~~~~~~ Indeed, the prediction is that Netanyahu will find a very warm welcome at the White House, for Obama is trying to undo the political damage that ensued as a result of his hostile attitude to Israel. There is a multitude of signs indicating a shift in how the administration is conducting itself with regard to Israel. Yet it's imperative that form and substance not be confused. Commentator Isi Leibler, in his recent piece, "Netanyahu, Place not your trust in princes," addresses this very issue: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to receive a red carpet reception from President Barack Obama at the White House combined with a reaffirmation about the 'unshakeable US-Israel alliance.' However we should not delude ourselves. It is clear that Obama's recent charm campaign was primarily in response to pressure from the American people and in particular from Jewish Democratic supporters shocked into action by the administration's increasingly negative approach toward Israel and the crass reception accorded to Netanyahu during his last visit. ~~~~~~~~~~ One more dumb move: Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. But he is also a convert to Christianity who worked with the Israeli Shin Bet (Security) for nine years, providing information on terrorists that averted attacks and saved numerous lives. In the US for three years, he has had his request for asylum rejected because he alluded in his memoirs to the fact that he worked with Hamas. His book, "Son of Hamas," was published earlier this year; when he wrote it, he had no idea that it would sabotage his appeal for asylum. In spite of his explanation that his association with Hamas was undercover and that he was working to subvert Hamas, authorities came to the conclusion that he was a Hamas-supporting terrorist. Thus he is threatened with deportation. Mosab was honored Wednesday night at a Washington DC dinner, at which the pro-Israel organization run by Sarah Stern, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), granted him a "Rays of Light in the Darkness" Award. Mosab faces a death threat because of his renunciation of Islam. This past week, his former Israeli handler, G. Ben-Itzhak, a Shin Bet agent, revealed his identity for the first time in order to speak on behalf of Mosab Yousef. "Mosab is not a terrorist! He risked his life every day in order to prevent [violence]," he told those present at the EMET dinner. Ben-Itzhak is in the US in order to testify at Mosab's deportation hearing on June 30. "I need to come to the courthouse," he said, "and tell the judge the truth." ~~~~~~~~~~ According to one documentary about Mosab Yousef, when he was asked if the Palestinians and Israel can live together, he replied: "There is no chance. Is there any chance for fire to co-exist with the water?" It has been suggested that Obama would benefit from reading this book. ~~~~~~~~~~ While I believe that the Lebanese ships may still be on their way, Iran has cancelled plans to send a flotilla to attempt to break the blockade of Gaza. According to Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada: "The Zionist regime has made the blockade a political issue and we do not wish to politicise this kind of humanitarian aid because the most important thing for us is to break the blockade of Gaza." Cute, no? He said the voyage was cancelled as Israel "had sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on that regime and it will confront it. "In order to deprive the Zionist regime of any excuse, the aid collected for the oppressed people of Gaza will be delivered to them by other means without mentioning the name of Iran." There is a great deal going on behind the scenes, and I do not wish to speculate on exactly what did discourage the Iranians. Not yet, at any rate. What I will say is that things may not be as bad as we often feel they are. The fact of the matter is that Iran pulled back, unprepared to confront us — our deterrence power must be OK. ~~~~~~~~~~ With the emphasis on Gaza in recent weeks, there has been a resurgence of publicity here to bring home Gilad Shalit. Right now, a march for Shalit, from the north to Jerusalem, is underway, led by Noam Shalit, who is accompanied by thousands. I will not belabor this here. I've made my position clear over time. I, too, would dearly love to see this man brought home. But not — not ever — at the cost of releasing a thousand terrorists who would put many other Israeli civilians at risk and increase the likelihood of further kidnapping of soldiers to boot. We must not be blackmailed this way, and it cannot be Gilad Shalit at any cost. So far, thankfully, no movement from our government on this. It has been made clear that a deal was offered six months ago, which would permit the release of 600 prisoners, but would not include those responsible for major terrorist operations. Certain Hamas people who would be released would be required to go somewhere other than Judea and Samaria — it is felt their release to this area is sought in order to strengthen Hamas operations there. This deal is not to Hamas's liking. Unfortunately, the pressure on the government to bring Shalit's release at any cost may serve to strengthen Hamas resolve that if they hold out they can get what they want. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama is opposed to the release of prisoners in this deal. Not because he cares one iota about endangering Israelis, but because this would give Hamas a victory that would weaken Abbas. It would be very ironic indeed if Obama's opposition helped to maintain the starch in Netanyahu's spine on this issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ I strongly recommend the video provided here:
This is an interview of Itamar Marcus, who heads Palestinian Media Watch, here in Israel, by Richard Landes, academic and author who is an associate professor at Boston U and spends part of his time in Israel. Landes coined the term "Pallywood, which means "productions staged by the Palestinians, in front of camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda." Ignore the pitch to become a subscriber to PJTV and wait for the interview. The 16 minutes is well worth it. In the course of discussing the need to pay attention to what PA leaders say to their own people in Arabic (something that the Obama administration apparently does not at all!), Marcus touches upon a great many important facts. The video ends with a clip of PA president Mahmoud Abbas, speaking in Arabic recently, and putting the lie to all the sweet and lovely "moderate" things he said while in the US to see Obama. Save this, and share it. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
A POEM FOR OUR TIMES
Posted by Wallace Edward Brand, June 28, 2010. |
|
Contact Wallace Brand at webrand@verizon.net
|
|
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM VERSUS LIKUD ZIONISM
Posted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, June 28, 2010. |
|
In the June 28 Eidelberg Report on Israel National Radio, I said: "The Likud separated Zionism from the Torah, just as it has separated the Land of Israel from the Torah." Hence, ponder the following. In The World Upside Down (2010), Melanie Phillips writes: "It was Christian Zionism which led Lord Balfour to issue his famous declaration committing Britain to re-establish the Jewish national home in Palestine." Moreover, and contrary to political Zionism, Lord Balfour said this in 1919: "'The position of the Jews is unique. For them race [or. nationality], religion and country [land] are inter-related, as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other religion, and no other county on earth." This statement is more consistent with the Torah than the Zionism of the Likud Party and of its chairman, Binyamin Netanyahu! Of course, and to be fair, a Christian Zionist does not bear the burdens and responsibility of a prime minister of Israel. But consider Melanie Phillips. For this woman, a Jewess (who also wrote Londonistan) to take a strong, outspoken pro-Israel position on the one hand, and expose the barbarity of Islam on the other — this in anti-Semitic England — requires a degree of courage lacking among Israel's well-protected political leaders. Melanie Phillips has a broad view of Christian Zionism. She writes: Christian Zionism is an umbrella term for those Christians whose support for Israel is based on theology. They believe that the restoration of modern Israel is the fulfillment of God's prophetic purpose that it would be restored to the Jews, its enemies destroyed and peace brought to the entire world. Within this broad definition, there are different varieties of Christian Zionism, including the most controversial doctrine that the restoration of Israel will bring about the return of Christ on earth and a holocaust or mass conversion of the Jews, resulting in the end of days. But ... this doctrine is not universal and does not form part of the Christian Zionism preached by the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has more than eighty branches around the world and which was established in 1980 to represent all Christians who wanted to see their governments affirm the Jews' Biblical right to rule in Jerusalem. In contrast, and as Phillips documents, the Church of England, having succumbed to moral relativism and even paganism, is viciously anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. This decay of the Church of England is part and parcel of the utter decline of Christianity in Britain, whose moral and intellectual decadence is more widespread and more horrifying than the decay taking place in continental Europe. Indeed, from the abundance of evident assembled in The World Upside Down, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that England is dying. All the more reason for a prime minister of Israel to stand up as proud Jew so that Israel may once again be a light unto the nations. Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
PALESTINIAN ARAB RIVALRY SHUTS OFF GAZA ELECTRICITY;
GAZA GUNMEN DESTROY UNRWA CHLDREN'S CAMP
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 28, 2010. |
|
LIKUD MK THINKS RELEASING HAMAS TERRORISTS IS SAFE Likud MK Miri Regev thinks that releasing any Hamas terrorists is safe. She asserts that if any return to terrorism, just return them to prison, as simple as that. She declares that she will march in solidarity with the family of Hamas' Israeli prisoner, seeking his release for however lopsided an exchange Hamas demands. She will get favorable publicity. She claims expertise in this, presenting herself, a former spokesman for the IDF, as a strategist and media advisor. But her plan is simplistic and dangerous. What does prisoner relapse men? It means they commit more terrorism, killing Israelis. Only after they will have killed more Israelis, would her plan take effect. IMRA explains that Israel does not have a parole system, whereby released prisoners who relapse must serve the balance of their term. Release means canceling the rest of their sentence. That is the first monkey-wrench in her plan. To re-arrest the former prisoners, evidence is required. Recidivists would be careful to avoid providing it. They likely would be able to commit more than one crime. But are they likely to commit any? According to Israel Radio, 63% of former Hamas prisoners resume terrorism. So for the thousand or so terrorist prisoners that she would have Israel release, a whole regiment worth, 600 would be attacking Israelis, in exchange for the one prisoner of Hamas. The deal would save one Israeli and doom what, a hundred Israelis? 500 Israelis? Probably the higher number, because the very triumph of such a deal would prompt more Arabs to volunteer as jihadist assassins. Also more likely the higher figure, because the influx would restore the terrorist infrastructure that the Israeli security services worked hard to decimate and put on the defensive. Dr. Aaron Lerner asks whether MK Regev understands the risk to her country but puts her political career first, or doesn't understand these basics? (IMRA, 6/27/10). Note that that political apostle of concessions to the enemy at war is in a party thought right-wing. A major problem with Israel politicians, as with American ones, is failure to foresee consequences. That would require thinking, as contrasted with rationalizing.
IRAN THREATENS TO RETALIATE BY INSPECTING SHIPS OF OTHER STATES A shipping executive of Iran says that if Israel inspects ships from Iran, then Iran will inspect foreign ships in its territorial waters (IMRA, 6/27/10). An embargo in wartime or on reasonable grounds for suspicion is one thing. Israel has reasonable grounds, having caught earlier Iranian attempts to smuggle arms against Israel. But inspection for the purpose of harassment is another thing. That is what the Iranian threatens. When taking on a scofflaw, such as Iran, the Security Council is sabotaged from within. It wastes futile years on mild sanctions. Meanwhile, the enemy learns how to evade the consequences and now devises threats or sanctions of its own. We know that Russia and China undermine the Security Council. What about President Obama? He asks the Council to impose mild sanctions and accepts weaker ones. Is he like Israeli MK Regev, who in favoring a lopsided prisoner exchange with Hamas, fails to see the consequences, or is he like her in perhaps putting politics first? Each one jeopardizes national security.
PALESTINIAN ARAB RIVALRY SHUTS OFF GAZA ELECTRICITY Palestinian Arab rivalry has stopped electrical supply for Gaza. Just when hot weather apparently increased the need for electricity in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), controlled by Fatah, stopped paying the fuel suppliers, at least the one from Israel. The people of Gaza are annoyed with their rival factions for making them suffer. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights urges the P.A. to pay up. It also recognizes that consumers do not always pay their bills. There was a most complicated discussion over whether the organizations supposed to pay for the fuel have the funds with which to pay. The report is newsworthy for not automatically making Israel the scapegoat (IMRA, 6/27/10). Thus the P.A. has its own siege of Gaza. Except for a concluding comment, this is an objective report. Like many, it comes primarily from Arab sources. Nevertheless, some readers call such reports "Zionist propaganda." When that is all they comment, what good do they do other than to demonstrate not knowing enough to show anything wrong with it? Some readers refer us to Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. We have relayed reports by Prof. Stephen Plaut that Chomsky favors neo-Nazis, Communists, just about any dictator. Finkelstein is a sort of Holocaust denier stripped of faculty positions for lack of academic credentials and peer reviewed scholarship and for using his classroom to indoctrinate. One critic, who demonizes Zionists while ignoring the Muslim Arab inspired genocide in Sudan and Saddam's poison gassing of Kurds, refers my readers to pro-terrorist Arab sources, such as al-Jazeera. Critics who call some Jews "Zionazis" and who call my comments "lies" repeat disproved and refuted assertions. What does that show of them? It makes them practitioners of the "big lie" technique. That places them in the company of the Nazis, the Communists, and the holy war fanatics, who believe that the ends justify the means. Islam has a doctrine that permits lying in behalf of the faith, just as did the Nazis and the Communists.
GAZA GUNMEN DESTROY UNRWA CHLDREN'S CAMP 
Masked, armed gunmen attacked a second UNRWA summer camp in Gaza, tied up its guards, and burned the camp down. The identity of the assailants is not known. Non-Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza have bombed restaurants, internet cafes, music stores, and pharmacies dozens of times and have criticized the UNRWA camps. The Palestinian Authority blames Hamas for the arson against the rival camps. The head of UNRWA camps thanked Hamas for its prompt response to the emergency [in time to photograph the embers]. About 250,000 children in Gaza attend the UN camps and 100,000 attend the Hamas camps. Hamas camps offer indoctrination in religion and terrorism, including hatred of Israel, and paramilitary training. UNRWA has normal children's activities and perhaps some human rights lessons (Arutz-7, 6/28/10). Hard to earn a living in Gaza, when terrorists bomb businesses.
ISRAELI ARAB PATH TO TERRORISM AND ARREST Seven Arab citizens of Nazareth, Israel were arrested for terrorism. They belong to the Salafi branch of Islam, favored by al-Qaida. They started on their path of violence via Internet. Websites advocating global Islamic rule taught them how to build bombs and commit terrorist assaults. Being equal opportunity Muslim jihadists, they attacked Christians [usually Arab] and Jews, sometimes by stabbing. They threw stun grenades and Molotov cocktails at houses of Christians and Jews. Their first crime was to murder a cab driver because he was Jewish. [They did not say they asked whether he were a Zionist, just being a Jew sufficed for them. Some of my critics pretend a big distinction, but if the Jewish people were discriminated against to the point of having to give up sovereignty, as the anti-Zionist critics want, the Jews would be exterminated by jihadists. That is a likely prospect that my critics do not bring up.] The gang tripped up when caught trying to enter Somalia, to attend an al-Qaida training camp, in preparation for fighting U.S. troops (Arutz-7, 6/28/10). The goal of one Muslim emirate, is sought by one global jihad, active on numerous fronts and on several levels. The same, general, intolerant ideology confronts the U.S. and Israel, Christians and Jews, in fact, almost everybody, including Fatah against Israel, Hamas against Fatah, and Salafis against Hamas. Anti-Zionists are way off base when they accuse Americans who support Israel of somehow being against the U.S.. The jihadists consider the U.S. the Great Satan. Let Israel keep them busy! Let these supposed anti-Zionist patriots defend American allies and have something to say against jihadists who kill Americans here and abroad!
AL-QAIDA SWITCHES TARGETS IN YEMEN Al-Qaida in Yemen has switched targets. Formerly, it attacked Western facilities. Now it is attacking government facilities. It has detected their weaknesses and lack of coordination (IMRA, 6/27/10). Certain critics think that their name-calling discourages journalists. However, their obvious lack of facts or inability to reason from them, leaving the reports denounced but not refuted, encourages journalists. Readers should see that they have nothing to say for their own case except, perhaps, fairy tales about Jews resuming status as a minority even in Israel, where hundreds of thousands fled for their lives from being a minority in Arab states before. Some might have a point, but they do not know how to present it without invective, so I ignore them.
HIZBULLAH WORKING ITS WAY INTO U.S. VIA MEXICO Rep. Sue Myrick (GOP-NC) warned the Dept. of Homeland Security that Hizbullah may be working its way up into the U.S. through Mexico. U.S. prisoners' tattoos increasingly are in Farsi, indicating Persian influence. Terrorists may be teaching Mexican cartels how to make bombs (IMRA, 6/27/10). Drug gangs and terrorists work together elsewhere, so why not in Mexico? The enemy is resourceful. So is the U.S. Army. But the civilian federal bureaucracy and power brokers stumble through the calendar without instituting effective reform over border control. To be sure, widespread American drug and oil addiction are the roots of the problem, and prohibition of narcotics exacerbates it. Those who oppose legalization of narcotics do so for ethical reasons. But the violent and expensive results of prohibition are not an ethical outcome.
SAUDI ARABIA IMPATIENT WITH OBAMA Saudi Arabia is impatient with President Obama. Faced with the more immediate problem of Iranian dominance if Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that sanctions take too long (IMRA, 6/27/10). That is a tactful way of putting it. The sanctions take forever, but Iranian nuclear development will not take forever. Today's newspapers report a U.S. estimate of 2 years to develop nuclear weapons. If I recall, a year ago, the U.S. estimate was quite a few years more. Before the election, the NIE estimate was that Iran had stopped development. That was the headline, though the body of the report confirmed the opposite. The headline was a lie by politically or ideologically oriented people in the State Dept. and security agencies. Saudi impatience confirms skepticism of Obama's contention that Arab opposition to Iranian nuclear development requires Israel first to settle with the Arabs on their terms. the reql question is how far would the Arabs go out on a limb with the Obama administration, which turns against allies.
ARABS VERSUS ISRAEL, OVER SILWAN, JERUSALEM Arab protesters and Israeli police "clashed," yesterday in a neighborhood of Jerusalem where the City plans to raze 22 Arab houses "which the government says were built illegally on public land." The land would be used for an archaeological park over the ancient City of David. The 200 or more Arabs threw stones at the police. "Israel, which captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war, considers the entire city its capital. Arabs object to any development in that area, "which they view as the capital of a future state." (Dina Kraft, NY Times, 6/28/10, A8.) The article is misleading in several ways. It is not that the two sides clashed, but that the Arabs clashed with police. The significance of this is that the Arabs and their supporters depict the clashes as peaceful demonstrations interrupted by unwarranted police crowd control and arrests. My critics put it that way, but many protests in Jerusalem and most at the security fence are violent. The wonder is that there are not more arrests. The government of Israel should be held accountable to its people for dereliction of duty. Should the newspaper, which has a Jerusalem bureau, leave the matter as "the government says" the Arabs' houses are built on public land? Why not ascertain the facts and report whether those Arabs are land thieves impeding municipal planning? Should municipal order collapse in an area because Arabs want to take it away from Israel? What kind of a city would they get, that way? Ms. Kraft omitted the fact that 66 illegal Arab houses and one house owned by Jews would be spared. Anti-Zionists cannot give show any mercy by Israel. But Is sparing the 66 plus one reasonable? Is Israel a government of law or a government that please a State Dept. working against it? The NY Times is back to misleading historical background. The statement about Jordan makes it seem as if Israel took something belonging to the Arabs. Eastern Jerusalem did not belong to the Arabs. It belonged to the Palestine Mandate, to which the Jewish people were primary heir, until Israel annexed it. Jordan acquired the area by aggression, not that the Times informs readers of that fact. The UN General Assembly had recommended that Jerusalem be an
international city, one of those Utopian follies that failed
everywhere. That recommendation had no legal status, and anyway was
voided by Arab rejection. The Arabs went to war to get the whole
cake. After losing it, they want the Old City, that the UN didn't
even recommend, before. Their ideology is to use what territory they
can get to make another war to get the whole cake. The newspaper does
not alert readers to the real story. Instead, its misleading
statements act to support the Arab plan for further war.
FREE GAZA MOVEMENT'S FLOTILLA DOCUMENTS Israel's Intelligence and Information Center has translated and examined documents and computers of the Free Gaza Movement seized from the flotilla. The Movement was a flotilla sponsor. In its legal briefing to members, the Movement advised them not to say anything in support of Hamas. Otherwise they could be prosecuted for assisting terrorism. One implication is that they know that the support they intended for Gaza would bolster the regime that runs Gaza. The group claims its mission is humanitarian, but it seems more clearly political. That could make its fund-raising in the U.S. criminal. A document that describes the group's goal's does not mention delivering humanitarian aid but generating publicity about the blockade and pressing foreign governments to punish Israel for it (IMRA, 6/27/10).
U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIERS STILL IN PERSIAN GULF. WHY Reports continue to come in that 3-4 U.S. aircraft carries still are in the Persian Gulf. American and French pilots have practiced taking off from each other's carriers. Their mission remains obscure. Is their mission to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities? [Is it to protect U.S. bases from Iranian reaction to an Israeli raid?] Or is it to protect Iran from an Israeli raid, as some of Obama's advisers prefer? Consider first the role of Saudi Arabia. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Saudi Arabia would let Israeli raiders through. But could Israel trust Saudi Arabia to let the Israeli planes refuel and get back home? Does Israel need to post another part of its air force near Saudi Arabia to ensure no Saudi treachery? Can Israel trust Saudi Arabia to keep its word, after Israel would have saved it from Iran, and Saudi Arabia no longer needs Israeli help? More important, can Israel trust the U.S.? For ideological reasons and notions about access to oil, much of the State Dept. is anti-Israel. Congress has sent letters of protest to President Obama that hint at his strong antipathy to Israel. The U.S. has broken its word to Israel before. [Obama breaks his word to almost everybody, as the AMA and Roundtable lobbies have found out recently.] Remember the first Gulf War? Israel was within minutes of sending its planes to destroy Saddam's missile launchers. Four U.S. officials in charge of the war — Pres. Bush, Sr., Sec. of State Baker, Sec. of Defense Powell, and Chief of Staff Schwarzkopf — asked Israel not to. Instead, they promised that U.S. planes would do the job, whereas if Israel did it, the Arab coalition against Saddam might dissolve. That coalition was illusory. Syria sent lightly armed forces at a distance from the combat. The U.S. rewarded Syria by letting 75 Iraqi planes escape to Iran, from which they went to Syria, for which Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid Saddam a few billion dollars. Apparently, the U.S. hoped for future help from Saddam against Iran. [This is like the CIA's predecessor saving Nazis in the hope of their future help against the USSR. P.S.: The Nazis were useless.] The U.S. officials deceived Israel. They did not order U.S. planes to destroy Saddam's missile launchers. Instead, they let Saddam launch. The Patriot missiles intercepted most of the Scuds, but the debris and explosives nevertheless did much damage to Israel. Former Sec. of Defense Weinberger knew that Saddam had nerve gas. Anticipating the use of poison gas, Weinberger, in the middle of the first night of Scud-launching, issued a statement sympathizing with Israel for being struck by nerve gas. How callous to betray Israel like that! Israel, however, had a decent civil defense. Israelis waited in sealed rooms, and the knowledge that they were prepared probably kept Saddam from inserting nerve gas in the Scuds. Israel got the intelligence about Saddam's having nerve gas from Jonathan Pollard, who thereby saved untold numbers of Israeli lives without harm to the U.S.. Incidentally, if the U.S. had let Israel destroy Saddam's missile launchers, Iraq might not have been able to fire one into a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soldiers. Israel cannot trust the U.S. now, either. Those aircraft carriers may be present to destroy Israeli submarines sent to the area as a nuclear deterrent to Iran. Although Israel is an ally of the U.S., and Iran and Syria are enemies, Obama prefers appeasing America's enemies (Winston Mid East Analysis and Commentary, 6/27/10). Readers who criticize my articles, in the name of patriotism, seem oblivious to U.S. duplicity in favoring enemies over allies and harming the American national interest.
U.S. OPPOSES LOPSIDED ISRAEL-HAMAS PRISONER EXCHANGE The U.S. opposes a lopsided prisoner exchange. Why? The U.S. does not object that such a prisoner exchange would be giving in to terrorism. Neither does the U.S. object that it would encourage Hamas to kidnap more Israelis for more exchanges. Instead, the U.S. reason is that a large-scale prisoner release negotiated by Hamas would strengthen Hamas against Abbas. The U.S. remains under the illusion that a satisfactory peace could be made by [the ever-weak but ever recalcitrant jihadist] Abbas (IMRA, 6/28/10). Such a U.S. policy demonstrates to those who can think that the U.S. does not base its policy on what Israel needs or on reality and what is good for the U.S.. What would be good for the U.S. is to defeat jihadists of all types, including Fatah. One may think of Hamas and Abbas as good cop, bad cop, both working for the same goal. A critic recently stated that the Arabs rise up against Israel because Israel "occupies" them. Illogical. The critic acts as if he never heard of jihad, which in modern times started against Palestinian Jews about 90 years ago, having nothing to do with occupation. Jihad is not rational but bigoted. Like other forms of antisemitism, it pretends to have grievances against Jews, but their bigotry exists regardless of what Jews do. Hard to imagine Gaza, in which no Israelis are present, as being occupied by Israel. Nevertheless, these critics have that kind of imagination.
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:
|
|
A TERRORIST'S GUIDE TO IMPROVING ISRAEL'S MEDIA COVERAGE
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 28, 2010. |
|
This was written by Daniel Greenfield who blogs as Sultan Knish. |
|
When you're in a competition and you're losing, one of the first thing to do is to study what your opponent is doing and copy him. In this case Israel is competing for good media coverage with the terrorists. And the terrorists are winning. And if the media likes them so much, maybe it's time to start doing what they do. 1. Get Good Media Coverage By Excluding Bad Media Coverage Say that two movies will be coming out next week. One of those movies has studio which bans all critics who have spoken unfavorably about it from seeing it. The other movie welcomes all reviewers. When the final numbers are tallied, which movie do you think will have the best reviews? The one that didn't screen the movie for any critics who were not favorably disposed toward it. Sure the other movie might claim that its favorable reviews were honest. And that and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee. Now say that these two studios keep doing this for 10 years, and that they're the only game in town. Eventually just to be able to do their jobs, critics will almost always positively review movies from the studio that bars critics, and almost always negatively review the movies from the other studio to stay on the good side of the first studio. That is because selecting for optimal results will produce them. Free societies "screen" for all critics. Totalitarian ones only play to supportive audiences. That is why they get the better publicity than free societies. Journalistic integrity is supposed to make up the difference by telling the truth to the public. When it doesn't, then the journalists are functioning willingly as tools of totalitarian regimes. And maybe it's time to give them the boot. If Israel wants the same supportive coverage that Fatah and Hamas get, it needs to play by their rules. Press credentials would then go to those who provide positive coverage. Those reporters who want to take pictures of wall graffiti and stage photos of Muslim children throwing stones at Israeli tanks need not apply. If the New York Times or NBC News can't find anyone willing to play by those rules, the way they do in Gaza and Ramallah, then they can stay home and they won't be able to do their jobs. The mainstream media will be outraged, you say. There will be even more negative coverage. As if there isn't heaps of it now. And what will the negative media coverage be of? Reporters forced to stay home. Foreign correspondents who have to cover an election in Hungary, instead of eating caviar in a Jerusalem hotel and writing vicious articles about Jewish Middle Eastern refugees living in East Jerusalem. Haaretz reporters will have to move to London to write biting columns in the Guardian about how racist the country they used to live in, is. Before they move on to the inevitable theater reviews and finally begin writing ad copy for insurance agencies. Oh the pathos, the pity. No one will care. Should Israel do this? It's not the way of a free society, but there's only so much propaganda for a totalitarian society that even the freest society can endure before it is destroyed. Freedom comes with responsibility. The main responsibility is not to use that freedom to destroy the free society whose freedom you enjoy. Drill enough holes in a boat, and either the boat will sink or you'll be escorted off and Carnival Cruises will never let you brook a cruise with them again. 2. Get Good Coverage by Killing People All the Time Terrorist groups are always killing people, which the media is fine with. Israel on the other hand mostly doesn't kill anyone. Occasionally it goes after terrorists and kills some of them. An international outcry immediately results. This paradox is explained by a well known defect commonly present in children and moral idiots. This moral defect judges consistently evil behavior more favorably, than inconsistently good behavior. 
In other words, someone who steals all the time is viewed more favorably than a seemingly solid citizen who gets caught shoplifting. Don't believe me? Count how many ballads have been written about highwaymen, bank robbers and terrorists. The answer is a whole lot. This defect does not judge the morality of behavior, but its consistency. Someone who is consistently bad is seen as good, because he sticks to his principles. Which are bad. Clearly proving that he's good. Because if he weren't good, why would he be bad all the time? It must be because he believes that his behavior is really good. So all we have to do is understand his point of view to see why he acts this way. On the other hand someone who is inconsistent is clearly a hypocrite. Otherwise why is his behavior inconsistent? Clearly he knows he's doing wrong and occasionally tries to restrain himself, but still keeps engaging in wrongdoing. Which means he has no principles, and his behavior is therefore unjustifiable. Applied to the Israeli-Muslim Terrorist conflict, this means that Israel is bad because it only inconsistently kills terrorists. On the other hand the terrorists consistently kill Israelis, which must mean that they're good. By only killing terrorists sometimes, Israel shows that it doesn't believe that killing them is ever right. By constantly trying to kill Israelis, the terrorists demonstrate a consistent value system that shows they always believe the are doing the right thing. This seems like madness only because you aren't a cultural relativist. Which is to say that you believe some things are right and other things are wrong irregardless of who believes them or does them. But if you were a moral idiot, or a cultural relativist (but I repeat myself), you would understand that subjective labels such as right or wrong don't matter. What matters is that people behave in a way consistent with their cultural imperatives and global context. Which generally means killing people or feeling bad because their ancestors killed all those people, depending on their level of industrial development, infrastructure and average family income. Back when Israel was much more consistent about killing enemy insurgents and terrorists, there was also a general consensus in its favor. In the 50's, Ariel Sharon snuck into Egypt and blew up an entire village being used as an insurgent base. Today a single targeted assassination of a terrorist results in shrieks of global outrage. The problem here is the "single" and the "targeted" part. The answer is to kill terrorists like you mean it. Not only does consistently doing something result in a better global image, but it also deadens any scandal by turning it into static. Assassinate one terrorist in Dubai and the world is upset. Assassinate ten terrorists a day and the world quickly gets bored a month later after the 300th terrorist. There are only so many headlines reading, "Israel Still Killing Terrorists" that anyone will bother to read. And as a major bonus, killing enough terrorists tends to put an end to that whole terrorism thing. 3. Victims of Our Own Competence The real problem with Israel is not that it has jets and tanks and nuclear weapons. Most of the Middle East has at least two out of three of those. North Korea has all three. The problem is that Israel works a little too well. What do I mean by that? Israel has working traffic lights, electricity, airlines, police forces and stores filled with things made in the country. Back around 1950 when countries were expected to be able to do things for themselves, this was considered a good thing. But today the anti-capitalism paradigm is dominant, which means that any level of competence defines you as a villain. When a reporter goes to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, he notices that despite all the flaws, things somewhat work. No one generally tries to murder him on the street. The Jewish residents at least, aren't using donkeys as transportation, no one throws rocks at his head, and sewage isn't flowing through the street. But when he goes to Ramallah or Gaza, he sees gorgeous villas and classic Mercedes cars, but he also sees dust, dirt and yes raw sewage. Things don't work, or work only unpredictably. Abused animals are everywhere. Militia gangs prowl the streets. Kids throw rocks. The electricity goes on and off. The doctors occasionally work at the hospital, when they aren't heading up the local wing of Hamas\Fatah or selling drugs. Naturally he thinks these people must be the victims. The solution is to make Israel appear just as dysfunctional. While the country has its problems, by comparison things do generally work. Now is the time to stop making them work. During a crisis, major cities in Israel should repeatedly lose power. The Knesset will have raucous debates by candlelight. Traffic jams will be orchestrated and donkeys will replace taxis. Raw sewage will spill out in the street and doctors will leave their jobs and do nothing but conduct press conferences denouncing Sweden for making us live this way. Photographers will be invited to take pictures of senior citizens struggling to manually translate Henning Mankell and Iain Banks novels by hand, due to their boycott of Israel. And of children who are receiving inadequate medical care because of being boycotted by British medical journals. And of course there will be people posing buried in rubble due to the boycotts of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Presbyterian Church and Swedish dock workers. Of course none of this makes any sense. But it doesn't have to make any sense. The facts don't matter. The Muslim terrorists proved that already. The point is to create a lot of sympathetic dramatically staged photos and blame someone for them. It might as well be Sweden since they're spoiling for a fight anyway. This is not about the facts. It's about making the competent feel guilty for their competence. If Israel is demonized because Fatah and Hamas can't provide basic services even with billions of dollars in foreign aid, then it's time for Israel to stop providing basic services. In the anti-capitalist dogma, competence is criminality. A more advanced society is always more wrong than a less advanced one. Clearly the only way to win their sympathy is a race to the bottom. If the lights go out in Gaza, let there be no lights and sewage in Haifa. In Ramallah has open sewage, then Tel Aviv should go back to using donkeys. If Jenin has armed militias riding on donkeys that are swimming in pools of sewage, it's time to close all the hospitals in the Israel and gather gangs of schoolchildren and start stoning foreign planes. At some point where Israeli schoolchildren achieve a lower literacy rate than their counterparts in the West Bank. When there is no electricity anywhere in the country, and cold running water only twice a week. When the only forms of transportation in the country are rusting 1960's classic American cars and mistreated donkeys. When there is no working fire department, but cell phones are everywhere. When you can't go a hundred feet without hearing the sounds of machine gun fire. And when there is an entire branch of the UN dedicated to feeding and clothing Israelis. Then finally the public relations battle will be won. Because Israel will truly be a failed state — and therefore wholly moral. Only successful states take the blame, because only they are judged as being responsible. Failed states on the other hand are always someone else's victim. If paradoxically the only way to be a successful state, is to be a failed state — it's time to start failing upward. Anyone who supports the Muslim terrorist side, and disapproves of the article should ask him or herself, why? 
If censorship, homicidal mania and deliberate dysfunction are effective media relations tools for the poor "Palestinian Arabs" who can hardly walk four steps without claiming citizenship in the great state of victimhood, maybe it's time their victims got a piece of the action. If the left doesn't like working countries that don't throw critics off buildings or constantly try to kill people — then they're writing a scenario in which those countries will transform themselves into the image of the sort of countries that the left does like. This is only a satirical piece, but all satire has more than a
grain of truth to it. If the media left calls democracy, tyranny and
tyranny, democracy. Then perhaps the only way for them to recognize a
country as a democracy is for it to become a tyranny. If they praise
countries that violate civil rights, for their freedom, and damn
countries with freedom for violating civil rights — clearly then
the only way to the leftist heart is by violating civil rights. By
calling good, evil, and evil, good — the left has written this
narrative itself with the inkstains of its own moral hypocrisy. It
cannot complain about its consequences.
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi.
This article is archived at
|
|
ISRAEL'S PR IS NOT THE PROBLEM
Posted by Ted Belman, June 27, 2010. |
|
When Israel loses yet another PR battle, many of her friends complain that Israel is partly to blame because she is woefully inept when it comes to PR. I am not one of them.. Glenn Jasper, Ruder Finn Israel, recently suggested that Israel should have all its spokesmen deliver the same message. After all, that's what the Palestinians do. That might be a good idea except that Israel is a nation of presidents and each president will deliver his or her own message. They can't be disciplined. Alex Fishman suggested that Israel should consider the PR battle as more important than the military battle and organize accordingly. "Hence, the manager of this war on our side should not be the army via the IDF spokesman, but rather, someone on the highest national level, with the best professionals, who would have the knowledge and ability to write the "scripts" for the war and enforce them on all our executive arms, including the army." Good as these suggestions are, they don't go to the heart of the matter. To start with there is a coalition of forces including antisemites, leftists and Islamists, that are dedicated to Israel's destruction. They couldn't care less about truth and justice so a better PR campaign would be irrelevant. Then there is the main stream media that presents news to support their agenda rather than the truth. The fact that they suppressed the flotilla videos, which made Israel's case better than a thousand words could have, is testimony to this fact. They have constructed a narrative in support of their agenda and any facts that are not in keeping with it, are ignored. But there is something more going on that is little noticed and much determinative. Governments lead by the US also construct a narrative depending on their agenda and they don't let truth and justice get in the way. Long before the Oslo accords, the US began to suppress negative information on Arafat and the PLO as she wished to build a peace process around them. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the US made no issue of the violation of the accords by Arafat. She was not about to let such violations scuttle the peace process. In effect Arafat could do whatever he wanted, and this included killing American diplomats, so long as he gave lip service to the peace process. Caroline Glick called the "peace process" an "appeasement process" the goal of which was, not peace, but appeasement. Iran and Syria also learned this lesson. They could keep killing Americans in Iraq as long as they denied their complicity. The US rarely called them on this because if she did, she would have to do something about it. President Bush waged a campaign against Syria to hold them accountable for the assassination of Harari and to get them out of Lebanon. Syria put up a strong enough fight to get Bush to abandon his original agenda. Bush then started a process of accommodating Syria rather than attacking her. Pres Obama continued this process. Now Syria is openly arming Hezbollah in violation of Res 1701 and aligning with Iran. The US response is to embrace her, to engage her, to send envoys and generally make nice. Obviously pointing the finger at Syria is inconsistent with the present US goals. Similarly the US has been attempting to engage Iran and to co-opt her into helping in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus the US refrained from supporting the green movement when it challenged the government. For the same reason she is unwilling to verbally attack Iran or to apply effective sanctions. She is even prepared to live with a nuclear Iran if only Iran will cooperate and even, if not. In the last year or so Turkey has entered centre stage in the Middle East and is throwing her rhetorical weight around especially since backing the flotilla. Not one critical word did Obama utter. To the contrary he believes "Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process." Examples are legion but what has this to do with Israel's efforts at public relations? Lots. The flip side of this coin is that when the US wants to force someone to do something, either friend or foe, she must first demonize them. But the US can't demonize a friend without a pretext so she first creates a crisis as her springboard. In March of this year the US feigned outrage over Israel's announcement of a housing project in Ramat Shlomo. This outrage legitimated the subsequent US attack on Israel. Similarly, Israel's legitimate self defense in the flotilla attack in which she killed nine violent "activists" was enough of a pretext for demonizing her and putting pressure on her. On May 31 after news of the deaths surfaced, Obama was a bit more restrained in his condemnation of Israel than his European allies and called for all the "facts and circumstances". Had he been genuine in this, he would have, after the videos of the attack on the IDF went viral the next day, totally sided with Israel and nipped the demonization in the bud, but he didn't. He had an agenda and he wanted to use this crisis to announce the blockade was "unsustainable". He allowed the pressure to mount so he could achieve his ends. Shelby Steele argues most convincingly that "the end game of this isolation effort is the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation". He attributes this scape-goating of Israel to a "deficit of moral authority" in the West. While that is sadly true, it ignores the fact that realpolitik, which has taken hold of the Obama administration, dictates a similar result. Yet I would argue that the pursuit of self interest by the US is assured greater success with Israel as a strong ally rather than without her. This is not to say that Israel should cease its PR efforts. She shouldn't. She should continue to provide her friends with the truth so that they maintain their friendship lest they be infected as well. Notwithstanding all the demonization she is subjected to and the realpolitik, she has managed to keep the goodwill of the American people and others who value truth and justice. Ultimately, this is her trump card. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
ISRAEL CHANGES CURRICULUM; JEWISH-ARAB ISRAELI VILLAGE SPLIT OVER GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL AND EGYPT STOP SINAI SMUGGLERS Israel and Egypt stopped some Sinai smugglers. Bedouin in the Sinai have been smuggling more weapons, food, and drugs for terrorist organizations in Gaza. Israel warned its citizens that terrorists are planning to kidnap and murder Israelis. Egypt has convicted a group of Hizbullah, Lebanese, Egyptian, Sudanese and Palestinian Authority terrorists for planning the kidnapping and for smuggling Iranian arms into Gaza. Five Sinai drug smugglers had infiltrated the border with Israel, but Israeli forces detected them, shot two. One is recovering in an Israeli hospital. The others were arrested. Egypt shot two Bedouin near a crossing to Israel. The Egyptian government alleged they were among the bandits that attacked a government security convoy. Local residents alleged that Egyptian security forces had fired rocket-propelled grenades into their village (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).
MORE BEDOUIN VOLUNTEER FOR IDF 
Volunteer Bedouin enlistment in IDF combat units, such as for desert reconnaissance, has increased 50% and still is rising. The IDF attributes this to visits by commanders to Bedouin homes. On the other hand, those who do serve are threatened and their families subjected to mockery (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).
ISRAEL CHANGES CURRICULUM Israel has a new curriculum for its non-religious public schools. The new curriculum includes Jewish culture and tradition. One of the motives for the change is that people not linked to their culture can more easily switch to a foreign one, such as Silicon Valley's. Another is that people should know what they are defending the country for. This is a sensitive subject. At what point does knowledge of one's cultural background become indoctrination in particular religious belief? (IMRA, 6/26/10). Israelis who call themselves non-religious do so in comparison with the very religious. Most Israeli Jews are traditional. The question is why it took so long for the government to insert its people's culture and tradition into the curriculum. Perhaps another motive for the change is that parents have been transferring their children from national (secular) schools to religious ones, where there is discipline and learning.
HAMAS DISCUSSES ITS ISRAELI PRISONER 
In describing its capture of an Israeli soldier, Hamas boasted that this exploit demolished the myth of Israeli invincibility. It also threatened to capture more Israelis, for ransom. It described its men as "freedom fighters." Hamas had signed a German proposal for a prisoner exchange, but "Zionist arrogance" obstructed the deal. Hamas implied in its demands for prisoner release that Israeli imprisonment of them were not legal. "This humanitarian effort by Hamas, and its military wing reflect the honest intentions for achieving an acceptable prisoner exchange..." Hamas demands 1,500 Arab prisoners of Israel in exchange for the one Israeli prisoner of Hamas. Hamas accuses the government of Israel dishonest about the deal, wishing instead of kill Shalit if they can find out where he is incarcerated (IMRA, 6/26/10). What a weird discussion! The IDF had a reputation for improvisation and hard fighting, not invincibility; being able to win a war does not mean winning every battle. The IDF reputation was sullied by Barak's unnecessary flight from Lebanon and by failing to put enough effort in against Hizbullah the next time, to win. "Zionist arrogance" scotched the prisoner exchange? No, Hamas demanded the release of murderers. Israel may yet be crazy enough to comply, but it would be crazy to comply. As for exchanging so many hundreds for one, and one who is not invincible, that would be counter-productive, enabling the released terrorists to murder more Israelis than the number saved by the deal, which is one. Jewish law would reject such a lopsided deal, but Israel is not governed by religious law. Of course the imprisonment of the Hamas terrorists is legal. They attempted or committed murder of civilians or fought in illegal ways against soldiers. Jihadists claim it is not legal because of their own, actual, religious arrogance. They believe that Muslims have superior rights to non-believers, so that self-defense by non-believers is an affront to the Muslim Arabs. There is no evidence that the Israeli government wishes to kill Shalit. The whole country wants him back. Any regime that succeeds would be popular. The last time IDF forces stormed the holding pen for an Israeli prisoner, the Arabs executed him. So much for their being humanitarian! The radical Muslims who run Gaza call themselves freedom fighters, but they are free of Israeli rule and would be free of the partial embargo if they did not commit aggression against Israel. A critic, who claims he knows all about the Arab-Israel conflict, says they just want equality. Since they rule themselves now, and they do not mingle with Israelis, because where the Palestinian Arabs rule, they hold the area exclusively for themselves, what need for equality? What Hamas wants, as its spokesmen attest and I have reported, is to destroy Israel. That critic, however, ignores disproof of his contentions. Neither is Hamas, a terrorist organization that tries to bomb civilians, humanitarian. Nor is it humanitarian when it stores weapons in houses, making the houses a legitimate military target. It is not humanitarian when it practices a sort of apartheid with women, as well as by barring Jews, when it throws Fatah men out of the window, when it lets people blow up churches, when it steals or blocks humanitarian aid, when it tortures people, etc.. Israel's rule of combat is to abort targeted assassination if two unidentified persons are too close by. That is humanitarian, going beyond international law. The U.S. rule is ten times as many.
IRAN FORESEES SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN GASOLINE Iran foresees self-sufficiency in gasoline in two years. The government is boosting production at its refineries so as to become independent of gasoline imports (IMRA, 6/26/10). Taking Iran at its word, this demonstrates the folly of starting with light sanctions and escalating slowly. As in war, gradual escalation enables the enemy to accommodate. By the time more serious sanctions are proposed, they are too late to exert strong effect. Incidentally, the U.S. has not built more refinery capacity in years. Neither has New York City or State built more electric power plants in years. Government regulations seem to be a major factor.
SENATOR KERRY VISITS ISRAEL Senator Kerry, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, visited Israel. He: 1. Congratulated Israel for relaxing the embargo on Gaza; 2. Approves of Israeli self-defense; 3. Saw the damage from Hamas rockets in Siderot, and says the U.S. is working on ending that; 4. Does not under-estimate the danger from Iran, hence the "tough" sanctions on Iran (Arutz-7, 6/27/10). If the U.S. acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense, why does it demand removal of the roadblocks and checkpoints that thwart or apprehend terrorists? In what way is the U.S. working on ending Hamas bombardment of Israel? What progress was made? Or is what Sen. Kerry said about working on it pious lip service? The sanctions Sen. Kerry calls "tough" may discomfort Iranian leaders, who, however, express scorn for it and continue nuclear development.
GAZA EMBARGO RELAXATION CUTS INTO SMUGGLING Now that Israel has slashed its list of banned materials for Gaza, the need to smuggle them in has crashed. Instead of 2,000 tunnels and 25,000 workers, only about a hundred tunnels and 3,000 workers continue in operation. They now specialize in cement and iron, which Israel lets in for projects under international supervision. [That means the smuggling is more for Hamas than for housing.] Some people in Gaza are deferring purchase of cement, because cement from Israel is better in price and quality than what is smuggled from Egypt (IMRA, 6/26/10).
JEWISH-ARAB ISRAELI VILLAGE SPLIT OVER GAZA FLOTILLA The Jewish-Arab village of Neve Shalom was established to demonstrate peaceful co-existence. After the flotilla combat, however, the village council, dominated by the Arabs, posted a sign at the village entrance, "The residents of Wahat el-Salaam/Neveh Shalom protest the murder of the activists on the 'Freedom Flotilla' and demand an end to the siege of Gaza." Jewish residents asked the Council head to remove or amend the sign. He changed "murder" to killing. The Jews still objected. In reaction, the Council restored the word, "murder." In counter-reaction, the Jews erected their own sign, "We, residents of Neveh Shalom, protest against the hanging of signs in Israel that express a one-sided viewpoint. We protest the attack by radicals from the 'peace' flotilla on IDF soldiers and demand the immediate release of Gilad Shalit." The Council had the new sign vandalized and threatened to expel the Jews (IMRA, 6/26/10). I have reported that the Arab members celebrated special anti-Zionist days, but demanded that the Jewish members not celebrate Israeli holidays. What they called peaceful coexistence was Jewish subordination to the Muslims. As in Moorish Spain. Self-defense is not murder. Truth is not part of jihad.
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:
|
|
OUR SECRET SOLUTION
Posted by David Wilder, June 27, 2010. |
|
We are approaching 'the three weeks' as they are known, three weeks beginning on the Hebrew date, the 17th of Tammuz, thru the 9th of Av (the 29th of June — 20 July). These three weeks are a time of intense mourning, marking the destruction of the first and second Temples, the Beit HaMikdash, so many thousands of years ago. This period of time also represents the beginning of the end, as we approach the final days and weeks of the year, by the Hebrew calendar. This is also a time of introspection, usually accompanied by the word 'Tshuva,' which, loosely translated, is repentance. This, as we take up an accounting of the past year, both individually and collectively. How could we have acted better, both with our fellowman, and in our relationship with our Creator? Despite that fact that 'officially' this self-searching does not begin for over a month, actually it begins now. For our sages have taught us the reasons for the destruction of the two Temples: The first, due to idol worship, murder and adultery. And the second, caused by unadulterated, totally unnecessary, hate. In order to rectify these errors of the past, we must delve deep into ourselves, examining our own actions, trying to identify similarities to that behavior which brought about such destruction, spiritual and physical, and, if and when found, corrected. As mentioned, this must be undertaken both individually and collectively. How so, collectively? To this, there are, I am sure, many answers from many diverse vantage points. I'd like to discuss one, which I believe is of the utmost importance. Very frequently, when speaking with groups and with journalists here in Hebron, I find myself addressing the same issue: "What is the solution?" 'The solution,' of course, dealing with the continued war between Arab and Jew, be it in Hebron or throughout Israel. I'd like to present my answer, as repeated numerous, numerous times. My response comprises several parts: Of course, our enemies, our neighbors, must accept our legitimacy, our legitimacy as a people, and our legitimacy to live in our land, freely, as Jews. As of yet, this legitimacy is still denied us; they refuse to accept that Jews have any right to live in Israel; not only in Judea and Samaria, but in all of Israel, be it Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Beer Sheva. This is nothing new. The Arab-Islamic rejection of Israel has existed from time immemorial. However, in order to reach any kind of 'peace,' this denial of Judaism and Israel must be changed, with the denial itself being rejected. However, this is the least important element of the answer. Of course, one can rightly ask, how can this first objective be achieved?
NOW WE BEGIN TO TOUCH ON THE ESSENTIAL ISSUES, the first of which is that we, as a people, must accept our own legitimacy, our right to live as a people in our land. As surprising as it may sound, this self-legitimacy is not a given. In many circles this self-acceptance is rejected. I once debated a professor who declared that 'if the cost of establishing the State of Israel was expulsion of any Arab people from their homes, then the State should not have been declared.' This is, of course, very extreme. But it's not too far from those people who question the Jewish right to Jerusalem, not to mention Hebron. There are many who really don't know — perhaps it really 'isn't ours.' Or perhaps 'their right is no less than ours.' This is reflected, here in Hebron, on an almost daily basis, when groups coming to visit, both Israeli and others, divide their days in half. Part of the day they spend with 'Breaking the Silence,' whose directors are infamous for having been responsible for involving Israel in Goldstone, having accused Israeli soldiers of war crimes during the last war in Gaza. Even Netanyahu brutally attacked them for their slander of Israeli soldiers. These people are not foreigners — they are Jews, Israelis, who have been accused by many of being traitors to their land and people, aiding and abetting the enemy. Only last week they 'hosted' in Hebron several Arab MKs, including Muhammad Baraka, one the most virulent Jew-Israel hating Arabs in the Knesset. Funded by the EU, Britain and other, this group has become a de facto 'equal' to the Jewish Community of Hebron. All groups, including Israeli pre-military academies wanting to hear 'both sides of the story' spend hours with them, as well as meeting with us. I've had to fight with numerous Jewish organizations who insist on 'touring' with Yehuda Shaul and Michael Menken, the two leaders of this group, this despite the lies and hatred spewed forth from their mouths. For example, how can one explain the photograph shown below, of Menken, smiling, shaking hands with Baraka, head of the Hadash, an Arab, anti Israel political party. Baraka was indicted four times, including for attacking police, but has not stood trial due to his Knesset immunity. 
How is it that Jewish and Israeli organizations are willing to allow their youth to hear virtual enemies of Israel? What would happen to any American youth organization which insisted that, in the name of fairness and equality, their participants be allowed a few hours with people representing bin-Laden, in order to allow them to 'hear both sides!?" It is this very doubt, this craving for what seems to be, albeit only superficially, fairness, that is eating away at the very core of our being. Would parents allow their children to try 'just a little poison' in order to experience it? This national doubt, which is expressed in such experiences, is a result of our inability to realize who we are, and where we are, summed up, perhaps, in realizing the source of our roots. As a result, our enemies refuse to take us seriously, because we
refuse to take ourselves seriously. For example, Anwar Sadat,
speaking in 1972 said," war is now inevitable. Whatever the price,
whatever the sacrifice, we will not back down. We will not give up one
centimeter of Arab land"
Closer to the present, I recall having read statements by Arab leaders to the tune that 'if Israel is willing to give up any of its land, than they really don't believe it belongs to them. For if they did believe it belonged to them, they wouldn't think of abandoning any of it.' In other words, the Arabs don't think we're serious. For good reason. We're not serious. But not only because we are willing to divide our land and abandon major segments of it to our sworn enemies. There is an even better reason. If Jews really believe that this land, Eretz Yisrael belongs to them, then why don't they live there? Why do they remain in other countries and not move to their land? This too is a good question which expresses the lack of Jewish seriousness concerning Israel. It stands to reason that if we really did believe that this is our land, we would all be here. Hence, a simple conclusion — we don't believe it's our land; but some other 'people' does believe it's theirs. And guess who wins.... In other words, if we don't take ourselves seriously, why should anyone else take us seriously? We don't know if it's ours, and they do. The solution — start to grow up and take life seriously. Today there are five and a half million Jews in Israel. The Arabs laugh. When there are 10 million, 12 million, they won't laugh as much; neither will the rest of the world. It was easy to expel 9,000 Jews from Gush Katif. Had there been a population of 20,000, it would have been a different story. Ditto Judea and Samaria. Today's numbers are not enough. The numbers today stand at over 300,000 with the highest percent of annual population growth in Israel. No surprise that Jews are expelled from buildings in Hebron, or building freezes stunt our growth. Because when 300,000 blossoms to 500,000 and growing, well, what are they going to do with us? The government still hasn't figured out what to do with the thousands they uprooted from Gush Katif. What will they do with a half a million or more in Yehuda and Shomron?! That's the solution, and it's up to us. When we do our thing, take on the responsibility, assuring that our neighbors understand that we really are serious, things will change. They won't laugh any more. And they'll understand that we're not going anywhere fast. We're here to stay. Many years ago a journalist interviewed an Arab family adjacent to a Hebron Jewish neighborhood. The Arab said that he knew the Jews were here to stay. How did he know? He said that he saw the children, he saw their eyes, and he knew, we will never leave. This is our secret weapon, our secret solution — this is our future — this is our answer to the three weeks commemorating the great destruction. This is the Tikkun, the rectification, repentance, tshuva, the return. This is Am Yisrael.
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.
|
|
WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCEMENT ON GAZA SHOWS THE MISSING ELEMENT: STRATEGIC RATIONALITY
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 27, 2010. |
|
"As a general rule, you should assume that the more unlikely the action I lay upon this stage for you, the more likely it is that I have evidence of its having happened." — Clive Barker, Galilee. Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, "White House on Israel's Announcement on Gaza," as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government. The June 20 White House statement opens thusly: "The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change." One would expect that a rational policy would use the words "unsustainable" and "demands fundamental change" to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime. The statement continues: "On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank." Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a "down payment on the U.S. commitment," that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money. Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution. Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn't the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority? This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel's existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the "humanitarian" consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program. In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state. Doesn't who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit? The announcement continued by welcoming Israel's new policy as something that "should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons." In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach. Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel's concessions aren't sufficient. "There is more to be done, and the President looks forward to discussing this new policy, and additional steps, with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visit to Washington on July 6." So the U.S. government wants the Hamas-ruled statelet to get even more. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: "We will work...to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank." Now while it is true that this could mean supporters of the Palestinian Authority will be able to go to Gaza and have more influence, what it will mean in practice is that Hamas militants (including bomb-makers and agitators) will be more able to get into the West Bank. Though Israel will no doubt closely vet those who pass between the two areas, will it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian "freedom of movement"? Of course, there is the requisite paragraph voicing support for Israel, but note that it gives nothing more to Israel whatsoever: "We strongly re-affirm Israel's right to self-defense, and our commitment to work with Israel and our international partners to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, we call again for his immediate release, and condemn the inhumane conditions of his detention." Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit's release? Of course not. The statement adds: "We believe that the implementation of the policy announced by the Government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza, and we will continue to support that effort going forward." But wait a minute. If this further entrenches a terrorist, repressive regime will that "improve life" for the people of Gaza? And the statement ends: "We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza." Of course, all of this won't discourage the flotilla ships which will continue to sail and at times will seek confrontation. After all, if confrontation results in gaining such victories why should anyone dismiss them as "unnecessary?" And finally note the veiled hint about all parties acting responsibly. The administration won't even come out openly to demand that Hamas lets in goods and doesn't steal them! So in this statement there is not one word — not one word — of direct criticism of Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given about the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans. Let's assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with a different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship. The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I'm not saying this is my preferred policy but it is a far better way the Obama Administration could implement its own wishes. In other words, the administration could have played it this way: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don't want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA, and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel. But that is not the strategic line taken. Yes, it is incredible. The Obama Administration refuses to criticize Hamas in its own statement. Why? Is it afraid that the need to send money and goods into the Gaza Strip is so great that no offense can be given to Hamas lest the regime would refuse these concessions? In this bland little White House statement we see the policy insanity of the current U.S. government. Again, as problematic as the president's goal is — reducing the sanctions against the Gaza Strip — the real craziness is in the way it is being conceived, explained, and implemented. 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 |
|
WHITE HOUSE WELCOMES SHARIAH FINANCE SPECIALIST
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 26, 2010. |
|
This was written by Chelsea Schilling and it appeared in World Net Daily |
|
The Obama administration has announced its appointment of 13 White House fellows — and the first person featured on its short list is a Muslim attorney who specializes in Shariah-compliant transactions. "This year's White House fellows are comprised of some of the best and brightest leaders in our country," Michelle Obama said in the June 22 announcement. "I applaud their unyielding commitment to public service and dedication to serving their community." White House fellows spend a year as full-time, paid assistants to senior White House staff, the vice president, Cabinet secretaries and senior administration officials. Samar Ali of Waverly, Tenn., is the first name appearing on the White House list. She is an associate with the law firm Hogan Lovells — a firm that claims to have advised on more than 200 Islamic finance transactions with an aggregate deal value in excess of $40 billion. According to Ali's biography posted on the White House website, "She is responsible for counseling clients on mergers & acquisitions, cross-border transactions, Shari'a compliant transactions, project finance, and international business matters. During her time with Hogan Lovells, she has been a founding member of the firm's Abu Dhabi office." Hogan Lovells lists Ali's experience "advising a Middle Eastern university in the potential establishment of a Foreign Aid Conventional and Shari'ah Compliant Student Loan Program and advising a Middle Eastern client in relation to a U.S. government subcontract matter." "Our team members are at the forefront of developments in the Islamic finance industry," Hogan Lovells boasts. "We help set standards for the sector. We have also advised on numerous first-of-their-kind transactions, such as the first convertible Sukuk, the first equity-linked Sukuk, the first Sharia-compliant securitization, the first international Sukuk al-mudaraba and Sukuk al-musharaka, the first Sukuk buy-back, and the first Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) guaranteed Islamic project financing." Ali also clerked for Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge Edwin Cameron, now of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Promoting Islam and Shariah The White House notes that Ali also led the YMCA Israeli-Palestinian Modern Voices for Progress Program and is a founding member of the first U.S. Delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum. Ali was listed as a member of the British delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum in 2009 and as a U.S. delegate in 2010. Shariah Finance Watch blog noted, "[I]t was at the World Islamic Economic Forum where key leaders declared Shariah finance to be "dawa" (missionary) activity to promote Islam and Shariah." In fact, the president of Indonesia, H. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, delivered a March 2, 2009, keynote address to Islamic leaders at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta during which he called for Islamic banks to do "missionary work in the Western world." "Islamic banking should now be able to take a leadership position in the banking world," he said. "Islamic banks have been much less affected by the financial meltdown than the conventional banks — for the obvious reason that Shariah banks do not indulge in investing in toxic assets and in leveraged funds. They are geared to supporting the real economy." (And you also can't track their transactions.) He added, "Islamic bankers should therefore do some missionary work in the Western world to promote the concept of Shariah banking, for which many in the West are more than ready now." 'We didn't consider terrorists to be Muslims' Ali received her law degree from Vanderbilt Law School and served as the first Arab-Muslim student body president at Vanderbilt. She has interned for the Islamic International Arab Bank in Amman, Jordan. According to Vanderbilt Law School, Ali's mother immigrated to the U.S. from Syria, and her father is Palestinian. He left the West Bank town of Ramallah at age 17. America.gov reported that Ali said her parents taught her to "never forget where we came from and to never forget where we are now." "I will always be Arab and I will always be American and I will always be Muslim," she said. Ali spoke out at a campus memorial service days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "In my opinion," she told the Washington File, "Al-Qaida is trying to ruin Islam's reputation and we are simply not going to let them win this fight. If someone has a political agenda, they need to call it what it is, and not disguise it in the name of a religion or use the religion to achieve their political goals. This is simply unacceptable." While she said she grieved the loss of thousands of American lives, Ali told the File she grew concerned about whether Americans would assume that she, as a Muslim and Arab-American, approved of those attacks. "Thus, I was worried that many of my fellow citizens, would not realize that just because my friends and I are Muslims and Arabs, did not mean that we were part of or even agreed with the terrorists who caused September 11," she said. "We didn't even consider the terrorists to be Muslims. I was worried that people would confuse Islam with Osama Bin Ladin and his agenda, that they would confuse his agenda as the agenda of all believers in Islam." Creeping Shariah Shariah already is moving into some elements of American society, with a lawsuit pending over U.S. government involvement in a financial institution that accommodates Shariah requirements in its business operations. WND also reported in November 2008 that the Treasury Department sponsored and promoted a conference titled "Islamic Finance 101." Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments — creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy. In his July 2008 essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy wrote, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand." Holton referred to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah — a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims — and could ultimately change American life and laws. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork. However, many Islamic financial institutions also require industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life." Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law — Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan — hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holton said. "This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah." Tenets of Shariah In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":
'Useful idiots' Alexiev wrote that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims ..." However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent." Shariah finance institutions have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cited Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities. Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities — including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless. If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev wrote. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda." Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHERE TO START?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 26, 2010. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) There are times, and this is one of them, when I feel pulled in multiple directions as I consider what to address in a particular posting. The vast number of messages I am receiving from my readers — on, indeed, a multiplicity of issues — is acknowledged here. I am certain everyone understands that it is not always possible for me to answer directly. ~~~~~~~~~~ First, an announcement with regard to the destruction of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Yitzhar, which was the single focus of my last posting: American Friends for a Safe Israel (AFSI) is leading a protest on Monday, June 28, from noon to 2 PM at the Israeli Consulate at Second Avenue and 42nd Street, New York City. To dramatize this decision, a flat-truck and bulldozer will be driven south on Second Avenue to 42nd Street, in front of the Israeli Consulate. The bulldozer will be moving slowly around the block and passing in front of the Consulate as often as possible, depending on traffic. Signs and banners will emphasize that NEVER AGAIN must Israel take destructive action against its own Jews as it did five years ago in Gush Katif. Those who wish may walk along the sidewalk carrying their signs, following the bulldozer on its path and spreading the message. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is, indeed, essential that this wrong-headed decision be reversed. This is understood by all those who care about a strong and Jewish Israel. Thus I salute AFSI for its decisive action in publicizing this. And I confess to great heaviness of heart that this announcement and AFSI's action should be necessary. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Likud Central Committee met on Thursday and voted to resume construction in all parts of Israel once the 10-month freeze in Judea and Samaria expires in late September. Absent from this meeting — conspicuously so — was chairman of Likud, Binyamin Netanyahu. His public rationale is that he has already stated that building would commence at the end of the freeze, and so there was no point to be made at the meeting. Others, however, saw in this stance a deliberate attempt by the prime minister to distance himself from his party's decision. MK Danny Danon, who initiated this meeting, which had been delayed from March at Netanyahu's urging, was among those expressing great unease at his no-show position. "It's a bad sign," Danon said. "It means he is more worried about pressure from Obama than from the Likud." Netanyahu, it should be noted, is scheduled to meet with Obama on July 6. One does not have to be the diplomatic equivalent of a rocket scientist to recognize that Obama will be applying enormous pressure on Netanyahu. He'll accuse him of being a stumbling block to peace negotiations if he doesn't agree to continue the freeze before there has been progress, or just when progress is starting, or whatever. We know as well how many times Netanyahu has caved in the face of such pressure, and thus unease is justified. ~~~~~~~~~~ In an interview after the vote, Danon said that the message to the prime minister was that his party was behind him and he should be strong. The vote, he added, was also intended to deliver a message to the White House, which must respect our democracy. Minister-without portfolio Benny Begin, who did attend the meeting, noted that the freeze would end during the holiday of Sukkot, which is known as our time of joy. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Gil Hoffman, JPost political analyst, Netanyahu let it be known among his ministers that "he would not look fondly upon their attendance." This, it seems to me, of itself puts the lie to Netanyahu's contention that he didn't need to attend because he was already committed to not extending the freeze. If this were the case, why would he care if his ministers did attend? Thus, it's worth noting the few ministers who did show up in addition to Begin: Communications Minister Moshe Kahon, who chairs the Central Committee; Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein; and Minister-without-portfolio Yossi Peled. Minister-without-portfolio Michael Eitan arrived at the end of the meeting. Where, I wonder, was Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon. Begin, the only minister to address the Committee, read the original Security Cabinet decision regarding the freeze, emphasizing that it said that construction would continue at the end of the 10-month freeze. Flyers distributed at the meeting by the Judea and Samaria branch of Likud featured words Netanyahu had spoken during his campaign. It included this: "The supreme test of any elected official is whether he keeps his promises to the public." Sigh... ~~~~~~~~~~ From the time of the announcement about it the other day, there were ways in which I considered what happens in Gan Hamelech, in Silwan in eastern Jerusalem — with regard to the demolition of illegal Arab housing as part of a major Jerusalem redevelopment plan — a litmus test for Netanyahu's strength and our ability to stand strong as a sovereign state. Netanyahu postponed action on this in March, because the international fuss was too great and the moment considered by him to be too sensitive. Did the mayor run this by him first now? I would suspect so, but am not certain. Will the decision hold? Don't hold your breath. ~~~~~~~~~~ When originally writing about this, I alluded to the furor that was mounting, but it has since grown greater. On Thursday, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat's office clarified a matter with regard to providing new housing for the 22 families whose illegal homes are slated to be taken down to make way for public space. Originally, it had been said that there were plans to provide such housing. Now the clarification is that private — international and specifically NGO — money will be sought for these homes, and that public money will not be used. Quite frankly, this is a relief. For there was reason to question why Jerusalem should build housing for those whose homes had been constructed illegally. Explained a spokesman for the mayor: "...I would remind you that these are 22 illegal buildings, and while the municipality is putting significant capital into the planning and zoning process, it will not be using public funds to construct residential units. Well...OK. ~~~~~~~~~~ But not OK with the secretary-general of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon. In a statement of unmitigated gall he called the plan illegal and "unhelpful to the peace process." Well, sure, because PA president Mahmoud Abbas has said that "Israeli practices in east Jerusalem hinder peace talks." In fact, they "put the peace efforts in danger." If we weren't talking about taking down illegal housing he'd be signing on the dotted line any minute now. How fortunate for Abbas that he has this excuse to fall back on. You know how ridiculous this has become? Morocco — Morocco! — issued a condemnation of the plan and urged "the major powers and the UN to immediately intervene to dissuade Israel from going ahead with this illegitimate decision and put an end to the Judaization plans in east Jerusalem." The world truly is insane, and this is nothing short of incredible. Especially since the plan does not call for the illegal Arab housing to be replaced with Jewish housing, but with public spaces — parks, etc. — that would benefit all the residents of the area, most of whom are Arab. While the evicted Arabs would have new housing with superior services, if the funds can be raised. (And believe me, there are pro-Arab Israeli NGOs that could help raise that money in a flash if they wished to help provide Arabs with housing.) Facts have nothing to do with this hysterical situation. And when I think of all the crises in the world that genuinely require international intervention, I am left breathless by this. ~~~~~~~~~~ More than ever does it seem to me that it's important to stand strong here. Watch the fireworks when Arab squatters are evicted (let us hope!) from an old Yemenite synagogue in this same area, so that it can be returned to its rightful Jewish owners — either by the police, as ordered by the court, or, if the police fail to act, by local Jewish residents, assisted by at least 10 MKs. ~~~~~~~~~~ While on the subject of Ban Ki-Moon, I would like to recommend an article, "Ban Mischief at the U.N.," by John Bolton, a true friend, clear thinker, and former US ambassador to the UN: "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is close to making an enormously significant misjudgment about his role and authority. Mr. Ban has repeatedly called for an "international" inquiry into the May 31 clash with Israeli commandos, provoked by supporters of Hamas on a Turkish-flagged ship off the Gaza Strip, resulting in nine killed and dozens wounded. According to the media, he is seriously considering launching such an inquiry by his own personal decision. (With thanks to Marta W. on this.) I had thought Kofi Annan was deplorable and that Ban would be an improvement. Goes to show how wrong I can be. Undoubtedly a certain anti-Israel edge comes with the job. Just as significant as the error in Ban's thinking — perhaps considerably more significant — is the position of Obama on this. Americans, take note! ~~~~~~~~~~ YNet has reported that Malaysia is pushing for a discussion in the General Assembly on the flotilla incident. Another Muslim country getting into the act. General Assembly resolutions have no impact within international law, but this would bring Israel aggravation from a PR perspective, which is undoubtedly what is being sought. ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me note in passing, while on the theme of the UN, that in September Gabriela Shalev will be completing her two-year term as Israel's ambassador to the UN — a thankless job if ever there was one. She is returning to academia and there is much speculation as to who her replacement will be. ~~~~~~~~~~ I focused on the theme of the disconnect between American Jewry and Israel in a recent post. Now I am pleased to report on a new and broader mission for the Jewish Agency that has been approved unanimously by its Board of Governors, and has been announced by Chairman Natan Sharansky. While the Agency will still be devoted to its traditional task of aliyah, it will take on as part of its agenda heavy investment in providing identity-forming experiences for Israeli and Diaspora youth. Said Sharansky: "There is a time to nurture the tree and time to collect the fruits. Aliyah, support for Israel, these are the fruits. But they only come as a result of solidarity, commitment or connection of Jews to Israel. That's the tree." The Agency's new mission statement reads: "Inspire Jews throughout the world to connect with their people, heritage and land, and empower them to build a thriving Jewish future and a strong Israel." Blessings upon this venture, and may it progress well. Much is at stake. ~~~~~~~~~~ Good to end this posting on an upbeat theme. Much more to follow shortly Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
BRITISH METHODISTS SCAPEGOAT ISRAEL FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS; MUSLIMS BRING JIHAD INTO GERMANY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 26, 2010. |
|
FLOTILLA, PAKISTAN, N. KOREA IN PERPSECTIVE Both sides contributed to the flotilla imbroglio. The IDF should have known better than to land commandos in the dark on a ship sponsored by a terrorist organization, IHH. IHH had set a trap for the IDF. But the Islamists initiated the violence that led to the death of nine and the wounding both of Israelis and Islamists. That same day, Muslim gunmen stormed a hospital in Lahore, where they shot dead a dozen survivors of the terrorist attacks against two dissident mosques that had slain 93 Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ignored the Muslim terrorist slaying of 105 Muslims in mosques and hospital, but condemned what he called "disproportionate force" by the IDF that killed and wounded people "attempting to bring much needed aid to the people of Gaza." A week earlier, North Korea sank a South Korean ship and its crew of 46. The Security Council had planned to take up a resolution against N. Korea, but deferred it to take up a condemnation of Israel. Although Egypt also maintains an embargo on Gaza, only Israel is blamed for the embargo. Suppose foreign activists and Gaza residents had stormed the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, and attacked Egyptian troops, who, in self-defense killed nine. Would the UN have dropped major business in order to condemn Egypt? Not likely. Nor are the naïve idealists aware of Hamas' goals. Hamas has the goal of conquering Israel. That goal is more important to it than own people. For example, to make a political statement, Hamas barred the humanitarian goods once it was to be delivered via Israel (Joel Brinkley, former NY Times foreign correspondent, in Israel Behind the News, 6/24/10). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights miscasts the flotilla as attempting to bring much needed aid. No, it was attempting to break a legal blockade, to enable Hamas to import what it wishes. Obviously Hamas would bring in heavy arms. It would produce more war and casualties. How would that serve a humanitarian purpose, as contrasted with sending humanitarian goods to Israel from trans-shipment to Gaza? Besides those reported double standards of ethics and disproportionate attention to Israel, the UN misuses the term, "disproportionate force" in support of its bias. The UN seems to use the term to mean sufficient force for Israel to prevail. Under international law, a military operation does not used "disproportionate force" if its commanders believe the operation has a significant goal that outweighs risks to civilian lives. When the enemy, in this case, Hamas, fights amid civilians, it is responsible for their casualties. Considering that the Islamists cleared the deck for combat, no civilian lives were lost on the flotilla. Considering that the Islamists had formed themselves into a mob of squads and were beating and capturing the first commandos, the IDF had to land more troops. These troops used only hand guns. The IDF did not attack anybody on other decks, and did not sink the ship, which might have been disproportionate. The reasonable military objective was to rescue the captured troops. Think of how mistreated — four years in darkness and isolation — Hamas treats the soldier it captured before! In close quarters, keeping the deaths toll to nine was an accomplishment, from the humane point of view. Ordinary crowd control methods did not work there. (For a broader perspective of Muslim terrorism against Muslims, use the same link for the 6/24 article by Ben-Dror Yemini, "Held to a Different Standard) P.S.: Some readers ask why I favor Israeli murder of civilians.
They do not cite any evidence that I favor that or that Israel does
it. Accusations against Israel I have disproved, as in my series on
the Goldstone report.
BRITISH METHODISTS SCAPEGOAT ISRAEL FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS At its annual conference, The Methodist Church of Great Britain is taking a vote on its report about the Arab-Israel conflict. An affirmative vote would commit the Church to one-sided positions on "settlements," security barrier, blockade, and to boycott goods produced by Israelis in Judea-Samaria. Uncritically accepting the false Arab narrative, the report examines Israeli actions by distorting them and ignores Arab actions. Thus the report ignores Arab attempts to destroy Israel. It assumes that further Israeli withdrawals would solve the problem, although prior Israeli withdrawals facilitated more Arab attacks. The report's obsession with Israeli violence, and its indifference to Muslim religious animosity to Israel, is not objective and not peace-making. In depicting Israel as the sole cause of wars in the Mideast, the report feeds the rising antisemitism. What else is its presumption that Jewish sovereignty is the cause of the problems? How can the Arab-Israel conflict bear on Iraq's troubles with Kuwait and insurgents? Nevertheless, the report urges an arms embargo on Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), to make peace for the whole Mideast. We have gone through a similar period of seeing a victim through the enemy's eyes. Before WWII, French Socialists falsely assumed that the rest of the world is rational. They did not believe that Germany had fallen under the spell of raging fanaticism. They tried to find reasonable points in the German demands, to which they could accede and appease Germany. And so they supposed that the Nazi hatred of Jews must be deserved and not all medieval nonsense. Likewise, Western intellectuals ignored Palestinian Muslim ideology and supposed that their suicide bombing of Israelis must be a rational response. The Methodist report ignores Arab Muslim motives and misdeeds. It is as if the Arabs made no decisions and bear no responsibility for their actions and for results. [Patronizing, in a way.] The report examines Christian and Western theology on claims to territory, but not Muslim ideology. Utopian demands are made upon Israeli behavior, without regard to Arab bigotry and violence; no demands are made upon Arab behavior. Although the report mentions Israeli security concerns with terrorist attacks, the report exaggerates Jewish theological influence upon Israel and statements by an early Zionist leader as the key influence upon Israeli behavior. That is, it under-states the strain of the constant Arab attacks. It also omits popular Israeli support for negotiation and Arab rejection of negotiations, as when Arafat walked out after a new Israeli offer. Drawing upon personal contacts with Palestinian Arabs [why no contacts with Israeli Jews?], contributors to the reports extrapolate the hospitality they received into goodwill by the entire Palestinian Arab people. There is no justification for doing so. They expect their hosts to brief them objectively. What can they really expect from a people whose society indoctrinates them into the opinion that Zionism took away their country, and they must take away the Zionists'. To the writers of the report, history in 1947 involves Jewish paramilitary attacks on Arabs, as if there were no preceding Arab attacks on Jews. The report puts it, "several Arab countries attempted to intervene in support of the Palestinians." That is a whitewash. The Arab states vowed to destroy Israel. The report fails to consider what would those countries have done to the Jews, if their intervention had succeeded. [Nor did Egypt and Jordan do anything for the Palestinian Arabs they did succeed in gaining control over.] Israel is accused of having expelled 750,000 Arabs. [My sources indicate a much lower total.] To the contrary, Palestinian Arab leaders ordered their people to evacuate from all areas of fighting, especially Haifa and Jerusalem, or be considered obstacles to holy war. Jordan's army ordered Arab women and children out of Beisan. In Jaffa, even after the British forced a Jewish militia out, and in Tiberias, local Arabs organized their own evacuation. And so it went, but for a few exceptions of Israeli expulsions of Arabs for military reasons. No mention is made of Jews who lost their homes in Mandatory Palestine. Also not mentioned are the Jewish refugees from Arab states who, unlike the Arab refugees from Israel, were forced out. The Jews lost more property. Also omitted from the report is Hamas' mistreatment of Arabs, theft of their humanitarian aid, and refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The Methodist report would embolden Muslim extremists to persist in jihad (CAMERA, 6/25). Intellectuals seem peculiarly bereft of facts and logic. My non-intellectual critics denounce general presentations, without identifying errors in the presentation. They are reduced to ad hominem attacks and name-calling and asserting that Israel is just as bad.
BBC'S BIASED REPORT ON ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE DAY To supplement the prior article, here is a recent analysis of last month's BBC report on Israeli Independence Day, a report typified by the same kinds of one-sided omissions as the Methodist report. First of all, the BBC did not discuss Israeli independence. It discussed only the Arab day of mourning in reaction to it. The BBC featured Claudette Habesch as a witness to dispossession. It failed to advise viewers that she is a "media-savvy, forceful advocate for Palestinian" Arab causes, an executive who engages in strident "anti-Israel polemics." Thus she recently accused Israel of a "massacre of the Palestinian people." She omits Muslim persecution of her fellow Christian Arabs, who are fleeing Muslim rule but growing in number in Israel, where they are not persecuted. Mrs. Habesch asks, how could she have lost her (rented) home? BBC fails to explain that if the Arabs had accepted the UN partition resolution, and had not made an illegal war on Israel, there would have been no Arab refugees. The resulting misery for both sides is the Arabs' fault. Like the Methodist report, the BBC film falsely claims that Israel expelled the Arabs, and fails to explain that the Arab states did expel Jews and in greater numbers. Half of the Arabs fled between November, 1947, when the Arabs responded to the UN partition plan with violence against Jews, and May, 1948, when Arab armies invaded. Most of the Arabs fled because they followed the example set by their elite, 20,000 of whom had evacuated before any fighting, or because they wanted to escape the battlefield or the coming battlefield, or because their leaders and foreign Arab leaders demanded it or else. Both Israeli leaders and British commanders urged the Arabs to stay. [My source fails to grasp the significance of the fact that half the Arabs fled so early. That early flight came when Israel was losing the war. Apparently that preceded unification of Israeli militias and absorption of Czech arms. Israel started the war with few effective troops and poorly armed ones. My host in Haifa told me that he got off the ship as an immigrant, was sent to the front, and was told to run alongside Israeli soldiers so if one fell, the immigrant would acquire a rifle. The significance of the early flight is that Israeli forces did not then have the power for compel a mass-flight.] BBC has revisionist historian Tom Segev claim that half the Arab refugees had been expelled. He has no evidence for it and for his claim that Zionist leaders thought there was no room for both peoples. Historian Ephraim Karsh cites a letter from Ben-Gurion to his son mentioning there is room for both. [Many Zionist leaders said the same thing and urged the Arabs to live in peace with them.] Omitted by BBC was the Arab perpetuation of the refugee condition that other groups of refugees from the same period resolved long ago. Also omitted was Arab inculcation of hatred of Jews (CAMERA, 6/24)
MUSLIMS BRING JIHAD INTO GERMANY
A Jewish dance group, Chaverim, started to perform at a street festival in Hanover Germany, to perform. Youths threw stones at them, injuring one, and called out, "Juden Raus," meaning Jews out.
Police arrested half a dozen suspects, five of whom were Muslim immigrants. The suspects ranged in age from 9 to 19. How young they get radicalized! (Maayana Miskin, Arutz-7, 6/25/10).
LEBANON CLAIMS ISRAEL'S NEW GAS FIELD Recently, natural gas was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea 50 miles west of Haifa. According to Israel, that is within its economic zone. Lebanon, however, claims the gas field as off its coast [but not if due West of Haifa]. Hizbullah said it would insist on Lebanon's rights. Israel's Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said that Israel would defend its resources, according to the rule of law and maritime law. He pointed out that wherever the gas was, Lebanon would claim it. The problem is that Lebanon does not recognize the legality of Israel, he explained (Arutz-7, 6/25/10). Min. Landau bases his observation of other claims by Lebanon. I find Lebanon's claims to be pretexts for continuing war and for Hizbullah to retain its militia. When I reported the find, a reader claimed that Israel was stealing the gas from the Palestinian Arabs. Haifa is not near Gaza. There is gas off the coast of Gaza; Israel's government did not claim it for itself. Since the Palestinian Authority does not have the sovereignty with which to claim it, was the government right to relinquish a claim to it?
ISLAMIC DRESS DANGEROUS OR TOLERABLE IN WEST? n a Port Stephens, Australia Go-Karts, the rules for safe dress did not exclude Islamic dress. A Muslim women was killed there when her head covering snagged in her moving axle. The place was closed [at least for a time]. In a Perth, Australia amusement park, the rules for safe dress did exclude Islamic dress from the pool. The concern there was that such clothing could snag in the joints of the slide; clothing would require more sterilization. Refused entry into the pool for violating that safe dress code, a Muslim woman sued and won a settlement sum. Whatever a theme park does, it gets into trouble. It is time that Western countries figure out a reasonable solution. A standard suggested by Daniel Pipes is "rights for all and special privileges for none." Let Muslim dress be used except for matters of safety, security, legal proceedings, and education (David J. Rusin, 6/25/10).
ISRAEL: NO EXCUSE FOR IRANIAN FLOTILLA Israel's PM Netanyahu said that Iran has no excuse for sending a flotilla to Gaza. [He must have been referring to Israel's agreement to let all non-militarily usable goods through, inspecting to make sure they are not militarily usable.] Therefore, the reason they still send a flotilla must be to break down the military inspection part of the blockade, so they can ship missiles to Gaza. That is not humanitarian but for war, Netanyahu pointed out. These flotillas are organized not by supporters of peace but by opponents of peace, Netanyahu said. They cynically put women aboard, but their own regime does not allow women to dress, work, or express themselves freely. They are exploiting women for propaganda. Challenging the supposed humanitarians, Netanyahu said, "I call on all the human rights and peace activists in the enlightened world — go to the places where they oppress women, go to the places where they hang homosexuals and deny rights to minorities, go to places where there is no freedom of speech, no press freedom, no independent courts of law, no human rights organizations. Go to Tehran." (IMRA, 6/25/10).
ASSAD DEMANDS THAT LEBANESE LEADERS MEET WITH HIM Syria's President Assad demands that Lebanese Party leaders confer with him. A French mission studying France-Syria relations criticized such meetings as weakening Lebanon. President Suleiman of Lebanon said that only official representatives of the two countries should consult with each other. Observing that Syria is stronger than Lebanon and historically influences a major segment of Syria, Suleiman cautioned that Syria should not use that influence against Lebanon (IMRA, 6/25/10). But that's how Assad can give Lebanese leaders their marching orders. The U.S. requires of its own citizens that they let the country's official representatives conduct foreign policy for the government.
GAZA-BOUND SHIPS BARRED FROM CYPRUS PORTS Lebanon wants to send a ship to Gaza by way of Cyprus. Cyprus Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou, however, reminds Lebanon that Cyprus does not allow such ships to stop at Cyprus. As for the marines that Iran had said it would station on the new flotilla, Iran withdrew the notion (IMRA, 6/25/10).
UAE ENFORCING UN SANCTIONS ON IRAN 
As expected, the U.S. Congress authorized more sanctions on Iran. Now the UAE has begun enforcing UN sanctions on Iran. The government closed 40 international and local firms violating the sanctions. Those companies shipped to Iran contraband and banned dual use goods. They also deal with Iran's Revolutionary Guards. About 400,000 Iranians "are based" in Iran
(IMRA, 6/25/10).
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:
|
|
A LETTER TO HANIN ZUABI, ISRAELI MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, WHO WAS ON THE FLOTILLA
Posted by Susana K-M, June 26, 2010. |
|
This comes from the Take A Pen Organization; their website is at
Background: Hanin Zuabi describes herself as a 'liberal Palestinian woman and a Knesset member.' She participated in the Gaza Flotilla. The Knesset voted to strip her of three parlimentarian privileges. Zuabi saw this rebuke as racist. The Knesset saw her action as identifying with the enemy while serving in the Israeli parliament. |
|
Miss Zuabi, First and foremost "chapeau" for a very effective P.R. I must admit: I didn't know of your existence until the flotilla provocation. In fact I still don't know anything about you but almost everyone in the country knows of you and that is quite an achievement! Please allow me then to ask you: Besides of fame, what were you trying to achieve? You know, as well as we all do, that there is no shortage of food in Gaza, or any other commodities for that matter. Yes, alas, there is a constant shortage of ammunition or materials that could be used in the production of weapons, and so it should remain! Gaza needs no protection! Gaza is not under attack! On the contrary, Gaza is a nasty aggressor who for years has been rocketing civilians on a daily basis! (never heard you comment on that!). Let's be honest: You did not truly believe that the flotilla was going anywhere! So, what were you thinking when you saw all those hooligans armed with knives and clubs and hatchets, that kept your company aboard the ship? That it was a masquerade ball? Did it occur to you that, as Israel's Parliament Member you should have warned our army of what awaits our soldiers aboard? Did you try to stop that outburst of violence? What did you expect would happen? That maybe like the "Sarajevo Assassination" that ignited 1st World War, your flotilla will ignite the Middle East? And then what? Let's try to understand your logic: You feel frustrated, bitter, discriminated, you believe that the regime in Israel is oppressing and ruthless and should be overthrown. Do you have any idea at all what awaits you personally should your aspirations God forbid, be realized? Do you think that in a regime controlled by Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda or Taliban, women have any rights? Particularly independent ambitious women? What about nine year old girls? You may not have children of your own, how about little nieces? Can you imagine life in a regime where any dirty old man can purchase himself a nine year old girl and penetrate her vagina? And appalling as it may sound it would be legal and lawful and even encouraged!!! Did you think of that Miss Zuabi? Do you have any idea what oppressing tyranny is really like? Did you know that the Islamic revolution in Iran was enthusiastically supported by the intellectuals? Who, like you, considered the Shah's regime an oppressing tyranny that should be overthrown? Try to find out what they think today (Those who survived...as most of them didn't!!). Ask them about life in the Islamic Republic, about freedom, about human rights, about women's rights. I suggest you read "Reading Lolita in Teheran" by Azar Nafisi, or "A thousand Shining Suns" by Haled Husseini, or "Not without My Daughter" by Betty Mahmudi. Did you ever wonder why all the so called Arab countries in which over a billion Muslims live are all defined as "3rd world countries"? Did you ever wonder why although the Shiite leaders condemn western culture as blasphemous and decadent, for their billion subjects the "west" is a desired immigration target? Did you ever wonder why all those who apply for Family Reunion wish for it to be in Israel and not in Gaza, or "Palestine" or Syria? Is it because of our standard of living? Or our human rights and freedom? Or our social and health security? So maybe, after all, we are not that evil ! Mentioning Palestine and Palestinians: Have you ever wondered whatever happened to the hundreds of millions (yes! Hundreds of millions!!!) refugees scattered all over Europe during and following 2nd World War? Entire cities were bombarded and destroyed! Dozens of millions of homes ruined! About fifty million lives lost, twice as many wounded and crippled! Hundreds of millions found themselves away from home, out of their countries! So, where are they? They couldn't have vanished! No! They did vanish! They were rehabilitated!!! That is the answer of the "blasphemous" "decadent" west to refugee issues! Any refugees! And indeed the "west" poured incredible amounts of money in order to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees, not knowing or refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders had no interest in solving the refugee issue! On the contrary, they did everything within their power in order to p r e s e r v e it! At the same time, they did like the idea of the money, so they preserved that too! Very carefully, in their (not so little) own private bank accounts! In other words, Miss Zuabi, The solution does not lie in destroying Israel and replacing its free democratic regime with an extreme Islamic one. Should that, God forbid, happen, you may enjoy, for a split second, the sweet taste of profound satisfaction, and the next split second you will watch not only your privileges being taken away from you, but all your basic human rights! The Shariah Law does not acknowledge human rights, let alone women's rights: Women are men's property to be treated as they please! But you must know that .... No, Miss Zuabi, destruction is never a solution! Your solution lies in Education, and more education!!! Not brain wash!!! Not that childish nonsense about Paradise with it's seventy virgins (In any event not meant for you ...) Real free plural western — yes, Western — education that will raise free, moral decent human beings, capable of standing up for their rights without the use of knives and clubs, aware of their duties and place in society. Miss Zuabi, I so much hope that the day will not come, when from the depth of an open grave into which our bodies would be thrown, I will whisper to you: " I t o l d y o u u u u u ....." Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINIAN ARABS ARE NOT OCCUPIED
Posted by Israel Zwick, June 25, 2010. |
|
As the US is struggling to advance the "peace process," there are three words that are wholly responsible for impeding the development of peaceful relations between Israel and its Arab population. These words are: "Occupied Palestinian Territory." These pernicious words have led many in the world to believe that Jews came to Palestine after World War II, drove out the indigenous Arab population, and have continued to occupy their lands. Until this malicious fabrication is dismissed and the international community acknowledges that Jews are indigenous to the region and have every legitimate right to reclaim and settle land anywhere within the borders of the former British Palestine Mandate, there will never be peace between Israel and the Arab population. |
|
Occupied Palestinian Territory" originated. Excerpts from Wikipedia explain how the erroneous term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" originated.
Occupied territory is territory under military occupation. Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907,[1] territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. At the end of a war, usually the victorious side is in possession of territory previously possessed by another state. This territory is known as occupied territory. Acquisition of occupied territory is incidental to a war, where the military forces of the occupying power come into the possession of territory previously held by another state. Occupation is usually temporary; and under the subsequent articles of the Hague convention (articles 43, 44, and etc.), and the Fourth Geneva Convention the status quo must be maintained pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new civilian government.[2] Examples of occupied territory include Germany and Japan by the Allies in the aftermath of World War II; Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989; Iraq by the United States and its allies after the 2003 invasion, and the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by many international organisations, governments and others to refer to the territory captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and much of the Golan Heights and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestinian Authority and numerous international bodies consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, a position disputed by Israel. Israeli position The use of the terms "occupied" for these territories has been disputed. Paul S. Riebenfeld, an international lawyer, who represented Jewish interests at the League of Nations, argued that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not belong to any other sovereign state, are part of former Mandate Palestine, and therefore fall legitimately within Israel's jurisdiction. Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, assuming it can even be considered that it "occupied" it in the first place, is disputed The above excerpts are from Wikipedia. Though the following articles are old, they are still relevant, perhaps more today more than when they were written, as history becomes more distorted with time. Commentary; New York; Jul/Aug 2002; Efraim Karsh; Abstract:
What Occupation? NO TERM has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than "occupation." For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel's supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel's allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people. For most Western observers, the term "occupation" describes Israel's control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel on "stolen" land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London's Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled "Occupied Palestine." That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian "right of return" that is meant to reverse the effects of the "1948 occupation" — i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself. Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel's actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today's terrorist attacks were "what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people"-a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state. Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 "occupations." "I come to you today with a heavy heart," she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, "leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe]": In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population .... On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties. Taken together, the charges against Israel's various "occupations" represent-and are plainly intended to be-a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.
IN 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect — and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan — caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community. Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab. The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control). As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."
THE BRITISH proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank — which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers-Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"-a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war. At this time — we are speaking of the late 1960's — Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez alAssad openly referred to Palestine as "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria"; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000. Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom's economic, political, and social structures. For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.
WHAT, THEN, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind? At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel's control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat's PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO's support for Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980's. Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this occupation did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of IsraeliEgyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel. Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. Israel's restraint in this sphere — which turned out to be desperately misguided — is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors. In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule. During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent. Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated. No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians' standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars. Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980's, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990's, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.
ALL THIS, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel's hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of proPLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: "It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don't build arms factories with it." Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.* Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel's administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel's counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little "armed resistance," and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960's, then from Lebanon. In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO's largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that "there is no difference between inside and outside." But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO's influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged. But these things were not to be. By the mid1970's, the PLO had made itself into the "sole representative of the Palestinian people," and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960's-well before the Six-Day war-to pursue its "revolution until victory," that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.
BY THE mid-1990's, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli "peace partner." At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly. But what did all this have to do with Israel's "occupation"? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank. By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat's abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank's populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved. The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank's overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank's 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained "overriding responsibility for security." Some two percent of the West Bank's population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains "functional jurisdiction." In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.
IF THE stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo "peace process" but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent. Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu's election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu's three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres's term. There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment. The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years. Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat's response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings-murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000. In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that "peace" agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel's most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place. There are limits to Israel's ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership. It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians' rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of "inhuman occupation" with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means. [Author note] EFRAIM KARSH is head of Mediterranean studies at Kings College, University of London. His articles in Commentary include "Israel's War" (April 2002) and "The Palestinians and the `Right of Return"' (May 2001). The following is reprinted from Palestine Facts http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ territories_occupied_or_not.php ISRAEL 1967-1991, OCCUPIED TERRITORIES?
Are the West Bank and Gaza "occupied territories" as Palestinain Arabs assert?
As a result of the Six Day War, Israel gained all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (historically known as Judea and Samaria). Palestinian Arabs often insist on using the term "occupied territories" to describe these areas, usually connected to the assertion that they fall under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, Palestinian spokesmen also speak about Israeli military action in Area A as an invasion, an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty. The use of both forms of terminology is a contradiction. If Israel "invaded Palestinian territories" in the present, then they cannot be regarded as "occupied"; however, if the territories are defined as "occupied," Israel cannot be "invading" them.
Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention:
In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.
International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former US State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:
Israel only entered the West Bank in 1967 after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the United Nations rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.
Regardless of how many times the Palestinian Arabs claim otherwise, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel's favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River, almost 80% of the original Mandated territory, that was given to Palestinian Arabs and Emir Abdullah to create the country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). Moreover, the rights under the Mandate were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, after the termination of the League of Nations in 1946.
It is important to observe that, from the time these territories were conquered by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1948 to the time they were gained by Israel in 1967, the territories were not refered to as "occupied" by the international community. Furthermore, the people living in those territories before 1967 were not called "Palestinians" as they are today; they were called Jordanians and Egyptians. (In fact, before Israel was founded Jews and Arabs alike who lived in the region were called Palestinians. The newspaper was the Palestine Bulletin and later the Palestine Post before becoming today's Jerusalem Post, the Jewish-founded electric company was Palestine Electric and so on.) There was no call for "liberation" or "national rights" for the Arabs living there and no Palestinian nation was discussed.
No UN resolution requires Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories, nor do they forbid Israelis from going there to live. In particular, the often-misquoted UN Security Council Resolution 242 (and related Resolution 338) make no such demand or requirement. The demand that Israel stop creating "illegal settlements" is similarly baseless.
Under the Oslo Accords, the "peace process" started in 1991 at the Madrid Conference, Israel agreed to withdraw from the disputed territories and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) was given control over land chosen so that more than ninety-nine percent of the Palestinian population lived under the jurisdiction of the PA. But the committment to Israel's security that was the backbone of the Oslo agreements was never honored by the PA and Israel was forced to periodically re-enter the ceded territory to quell terrorism. In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected sweeping concessions by Israel at Camp David — promoted by US Pres. Clinton in an attempt to reach a final peace agreement — and the Palestinian Arabs turned again to violence with the Al Aqsa Intifada. That is, after the PA was governing nearly all Palestinian Arabs and a generous peace offer with international backing was on the table, the only response Israel got was increased violence. This is the sole reason Isreal continues to have a military presence in the disputed territories.
Sources and additional reading on this topic:
This entry was posted on June 25, 2010 — at 3:13 pm and
is filed under Judaism, Middle East Report, News Articles, Opinion,
Recent Posts, Zwick's Picks.
Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net
and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net
This article was published in
|
|
IDF FLOTILLA VIDEO; ARABS LYNCH JEWS AS KLAN DID NEGROES; ISRAELI JUSTICE: PUNCTILIOUS OR AMOK?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2010. |
|
IDF FLOTILLA VIDEO The IDF finally prepared a composite video of the flotilla and especially the battle ship, assembled from many cameras, including helicopters' (ZOA, 6/23/10). 
The video rapidly flashed a great number of scenes. I found it difficult to match the photos with the narrative, for sometimes they were not related or switched too fast. The photos should have had simple captions. Omitted were photos of gas masks and ceramic vests, which I had seen in other photos. But the film made clear these major points: 1. The flotilla was organized by an pro-terrorist, Islamist charity. [It is not relevant whether most passengers had humanitarian intent, if they did.]; 2. The IDF informed governments, flotilla organizers, and approaching ships that they could deliver the goods via an Israeli port and subject to inspection, without having to risk confrontation. The flotilla answered with obscenity; 3. The Islamist cohort sought "martyrdom," which means confrontation; 4. The radicals prepared weapons in advance, as we saw being fashioned and later gathered; 5. They attacked the first Israelis to land; 6. Not content with capturing and disarming those commandos, they beat them inhumanely; 7. The next set of commandos to land realized they were in a fight and drew weapons for self-defense and rescue. The video bolsters the Israeli explanation about the mission intended for violence that would embarrass Israel into abandoning the embargo so Iran could ship arms to Gaza. The humanitarian aspect was a cloak for the military aspect. Peace is another cloak. The Nazis had professed a desire for peace after "one last concession." Stalin gave out peace prizes while arming insurgents. So, too, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia profess a desire for peace while supporting terrorism. Americans need to become more skeptical of scoundrels who take refuge in professions of peace and humanitarianism. Same for false patriotism. In the name of patriotism, someone reacted to my article on Pollard's disproportionately heavy sentence and ill treatment with obscenity and impugning my own patriotism. It is unfortunate that mental institutions allow access to Internet without teaching anger management and manners. The reaction was a typical one of ignoring all the explanation and focusing narrowly on the conclusion, which, for the critics, is, you disagree with me, you bad. Patriotic? Pollard became a spy after U.S. policy was subverted, against Israel. None of the super-patriots who hate Pollard suggest investigating that subversion. Patriotic? None of the super-patriots object to other spies, including Arab ones, being let off or given disproportionately light sentences. Not insisting upon life imprisonment for other spies, they fail to explain why Pollard should get it. They ignore the fact that he spied on the U.S. but not against it — the documents he copied for Israel were not about the U.S.. Some of these critics probably object to harsh U.S. treatment of terrorist prisoners in Abu Graib. They do not object to harsh U.S. treatment of Pollard. Their inconsistency appears to use patriotism to cover baser motives. ARABS LYNCH JEWS AS KLAN DID NEGROES Last year I reported on my brief guided tour of the Territories. The son of the woman who showed me where Arabs from Beit Jala used to shoot into her town of Gilo, was on guard duty at Beit Yonatan. Beit Yonatan is a house owned by Jews in the Silwan neighborhood of Jerusalem. Now occupied mostly by Arabs, it is the site of King David's town [before he built the Temple Mount], and is opposite the Western Wall. Why should the son have to guard a house owned by Jews in their capital city? Because the Arabs are exclusivist, practice apartheid, and are violent. When Jews moved in, an Arab threw his dishwasher down at one, striking a car, instead. It was not good for the car. Realizing, unlike the Obama administration, that the Arabs do not want to live side-by-side in peace, the owners of Beit Yonatan hired security guards. The Army escorts the guards to and from the house. On guard duty, the son saw Arabs starting to lynch a friend of his, down the road. That is, a gang of Arabs from Silwan were trying to beat the fellow to death. The guard ran to the rescue. At the same time, a security patrol drove up, so the gang fled. Badly hurt, the friend was taken to hospital. Not end of story. While the guard was fighting off the gang, other Arabs vandalized the electrical wires of Beit Yonatan. Resuming his post in the dark, the guard touched a live wire. The electric shock sent him flying. His internal organs were at risk, and had to be scanned. Fortunately, he escaped injury. Now the questions arise. The guard was armed. Why didn't he fire at the attempted murderers? Because they are Arabs and he is a Jew. Jews are not allowed to fire at Arabs except the second before the knife would pierce their jugular. Neither are Jews allowed to talk nasty to Arabs, even under such circumstances. The security cameras would reveal to police lip-readers forbidden words. Why didn't the media carry this story? How many other such stories has the media not covered? Is it any wonder that violent Arabs attack Jews, under those circumstances? (Israeli associate, whom I thank for this exclusive and inside report, 6/23.) OBAMA GETS ISRAEL TO RISK CITIZENS' LIVES IN JUDEA-SAMARIA Checkpoints and roadblocks regularly apprehend terrorists and confiscate weapons. A checkpoint is used to safeguard the Israeli citizens in Maale Adumim and Kadar. Purportedly concerned more about the checkpoint's resulting inconvenience to Arabs than its life-saving function for Jews, President Obama has demanded that Israel remove such checkpoints and roadblocks. Israel's PM Netanyahu, defiant in words but ever pliant in deeds, the pliable Prime Minister is removing that checkpoint. The checkpoint is just a few feet from the entrance to Maale Adumim. Arab highway traffic from two dangerous Arab towns passes by, but could pass in. The Arabs also would gain access to other Jewish areas, such as Kadar, Mishor Adumim (industrial section) Kfar Adumim and Mitzpe Yericho without inspection. The road to Kadar is long, winding, and up a cliff. School buses can be attacked and cars forced off the road. From that area, three roads go to Jerusalem. The old one has a wall at the end, to restrict cars to checkpoint inspection. Jews taking it are subject to lynching and having rocks thrown at them. Many, including infants, were hospitalized. A newer road was resorted to, but Arab threw rocks down from their town, Os Issaya, in the mountains leading to the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem. Now they take a still newer road. That is the kind of siege under which Israelis live (Israeli associate, 6/23.) The restriction on Arab traffic on certain roads, one of which recently was lifted, is because of security needs for Jews and a terrorist and apartheid mentality by Arabs.
ISRAELI JUSTICE: PUNCTILIOUS OR AMOK? An Israeli court has just awarded Jareis Jareis, an Arab from the Galilee province of Israel, $8,000 tax free. What is his story? He was convicted in 2006 for PLO terrorist activity, including passing security information to Iran. Based on a plea agreement, his sentence was for 34 months of hard time, after which the prosecutor was supposed to recommend parole. When the 34 months expired, the prosecutor did not recommend parole. The secret service discovered new information making Jareis still a security threat to Israel. He was kept 81 days longer than the 34 months, although for a total of less than his full sentence. Upon release, he sued the government, and won. Prof. Plaut prefaced this report with a remark that he and IMRA have to resort to often, that the story is not a spoof (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/23). Is Israeli justice punctilious or amok? The mostly leftist judges tend to rule in the Arabs' favor to the point of absurdity and against national self-defense. Nevertheless, anti-Zionists lack the grace to accept this if not applaud it. They denounce Israel judicial system as anti-Arab. These anti-Zionists go too far when they condemn everything about Israeli policy toward the Muslim Arabs, and condemn nothing about Muslim Arab policy toward Jews. They accuse Israel of bias, but fail to see their own. With fact and logic, they have run amok.
ISRAELI DEPUTY PM: GIVE ARABS PART OF ISRAEL Osraeli Deputy PM and Foreign Min. Avigdor Lieberman starts his thesis in a right-wing manner, but then, contradicting his premises, veers leftward: 1. Arab recalcitrance thwarted trading land for peace. 2. The world thinks the dispute is over the Territories. However, the conflict arose before the 1967 war that brought the Territories under Israeli control. The PLO began in 1964. Its charter disavowed claims to Judea-Samaria! 3. The world also misunderstands international law and precedent. It increasingly demands that Israelis withdraw behind the 1967 armistice lines, which the armistice pact stated are not borders. The UN resolution does not call for total. Its drafters said such withdrawal would render Israel insecure. 4. Israel's leaders suggest no alternatives. 5. If the armistice lines were made into borders, the conflict would spill into Israel, whose big Arab minority now mostly thinks of itself as "Palestinians." Although they have civil rights, more and more of them identify with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) [which does not enjoy civil rights]. They question Israel's legitimacy and Jewish self-determination. In growing numbers, they assist terrorists against Israel. Some Arab leaders, including public officials, spy on Israel or otherwise assist enemy governments. Arabs regularly hold large demonstrations against Israel, crying "death to the Jews!," and displaying posters of terrorists. 6. Therefore, the conflict is between two peoples. [Actually, it is a conflict by one against the other.] Therefore, the answer is not, as the world expects, a 100% Arab state and a bi-national state still to be called Israel. Bi-nationalism fails. 7. The real answer, Min. Lieberman asserts, is separate self-determination. He would exchange territories, leaving minorities in both states, with civil rights. No Arab influx into Israel. Arabs already in Israel would have citizenship in the new Arab state. The Arab state must be demilitarized. Israeli forces would be present in it to prevent arms smuggling into it. Dr. Aaron Lerner warns that the resulting boundaries would have the Arab state bulge into Israel in a way that threatens national security; "presence" of Israeli forces is vague. Dr. Lerner often explains that a sovereign state cannot be held to any promises to demilitarize. Lerner also questions how Lieberman can be considered right-wing (IMRA, 6/24/10). Lieberman is considered right-wing, because the media likes to make dramatic contrasts and it is a handy excuse to criticize the Israeli government. Lieberman shouts like a tiger but acts like a pussycat. The P.A. is supposed to be demilitarized now, but the U.S. and Israel cooperate in militarizing it. The notion of demilitarization and IDF "presence" are the type of balancing concessions that are stated in principle but are dropped in practice. In this anti-Israel atmosphere, they cannot be counted on. Israeli leaders pose no alternatives, because they lack enough nationalism and courage to propose a Jewish claim to the Territories. They are waiting for the Arabs to civilize. Maybe when the messiah comes? Lieberman mistakenly thinks the conflict is national. He overlooks the primary cause of the conflict, Islam's claim to exclusive control. Now that jihad is almost everywhere, he should be aware of it. Islamist jihad would continue regardless of borders. Lieberman would solve nothing, and he would give up Jewish claims to most of the Territories. After describing seditious sentiment among Israeli Arabs, he proposes a plan that would permit many of them to stay in Israel. That is in effect the bi-nationalism he derides. Yes, he offers them citizenship in another state, but why would they want it? It would not help them in the state of their residence. The P.A. forbids Jews from living in its area, and its people often try to lynch Jews who venture inside. Lieberman can propose minority rights, but what Muslim Arab state grants them? Although Lieberman ridicules an exchange of land, that is what he proposes. Actually, he proposes a gift of land. Israel would give up some of its sovereign territory and would give up most of the disputed territories to which it has the best legal and historical claim and which are not owned by the P.A...
NEW YORK "TRUE FEEDOM FLOTILLA" A "true freedom flotilla" sailed yesterday around landmark areas of New York Harbor. The hundreds of passengers on 10 ships sought the release of Hamas' Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit. The flotilla sponsor, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, gave a care package of food, books, and glasses for the prisoner to Rosmary Mackey, representing the Red Cross. However, Hamas has barred Red Cross access to Mr. Shalit for all four years of his activity. The true freedom flotilla brings attention to this humanitarian problem, as contrasted with the Gaza flotilla, sponsored by a pro-terrorist organization (Arutz-7, 6/25/10). Islamic historical practice has been, when war is not going well, to call for a truce, during which time to prepare for renewing combat better prepared. Hamas called many truces, but continued some firing. This was like its practice of using human shields, but in this case using the official truce as a shield by condemning Israel if it struck back at Hamas truce violators. During one truce, Hamas built a tunnel under Gaza to Israel. It sneaked into Israel and struck an IDF post by surprise, capturing Shalit in the process. Hamas mistreats him. Islamic terrorists do not treat prisoners according to the rule of war, but expect their enemies to treat them according to the rules of war.
PAKISTAN CONVICTS 5 AMERICANS OF TERRORISM Pakistan had arrested five Americans for plotting terrorist activity in Pakistan. FBI agents who worked with Pakistani security officials on the case had expected Pakistan to extradite the youths to the U.S., where they would face an FBI probe. [If they did what they were convicted for, they would be in violation of U.S. law, too.] A Pakistani court, however, barred extradition. Prosecutors claimed that the men had a computer and maps indicating they had sought training from terrorists to blow up a dam on the Indus River. Their lawyer claimed they had gone to Pakistan to administer humanitarian services. But apparently they had not informed their parents of their alleged good intentions — the parents reported them missing. The court sentenced them to 10 years in prison. Defense attorneys claimed the men were beaten in prison, but State Dept. officials who spent time with them deny it. The young men had met in a mosque in Virginia. The Obama administration added to its list of security concerns what it calls "home-grown terrorism" (Zahid Hussain, Tom Wright, Keith Johnson, Wall St. J., 6/25/10, A3). Not to second-guess the attorneys, but major terrorist organizations train agents to claim mistreatment under captivity, to gain Western sympathy and smear their captors with antipathy.
ANTI-ZIONIST BIGOTRY CANCELS CONFERENCE FOR GAYS' CIVIL LIBERTY StandWithUs (SWU) had proposed months earlier a gay rights program at the Detroit international US Social Forum. SWU sent the Forum its proposed program and background information about itself. SWU has advocated on campuses for gay rights and held an earlier gay rights program in which it networked for gay rights. In recent weeks, participants in the Forum sent the SWU program leader, whom it had approved, threatening e-mails. They noted that they would not provide security and that the building would be open to all, hinting that he would not be safe. Two days before the conference was to open, the Forum canceled it. The Forum explained that they felt the "true" purpose of the program was to defend Israel. SWU denies that. Its program has nothing about the Arab-Israel conflict and everything about how gays are treated in the Mideast. In Muslim areas of the Mideast, gays are punished or discriminated against. Iran orders gay men to have a sex-change operation or be executed. Mideast families honor-kill gays, not only women who hold hands inappropriately. Only in Israel can they come out of the closet. The program was intended to educate about those problems, direct gays to assistance, and build coalitions for them. SWU believes that the Forum did not want people to hear non-political, favorable reports about Israel and unfavorable reports about the rest of the Mideast. It sacrificed the gay minority and their rights in deference to anti-Zionist prejudice (StandWithUs, 6/24 )
REPERCUSSIONS OF FIRING GEN. MCCHRYSTAL The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal both reported on Thursday and Friday about the repercussions and considerations of firing Gen. McChrystal. We lost our most capable general over his lack of discretion. On the other hand, his replacement is likelier to review sooner some of the weaker aspects of his military policy. The criticisms he and staff made of civilian officials elected and non-elected did not interfere with duty, were not insubordinate, and probably are valid though nobody is checking them. McChrystal certainly is not insubordinate to policy — he originated the policy, and the President accepted it. President Obama's civilian aides carped at it. Obama said he was firing McChrystal in order to have unity, but the aides were voices for disunity. Why weren't they asked to resign? If McChrystal were fired for not reining in his staff, who will fire Obama for not reining in his staff? Obama's firing of the military leader, coupled with Obama's setting an early date for troop withdrawal that makes victory impossible — imagine how that must have frustrated the military — encouraged Pakistan to try to fill the vacuum. It is trying to pull Afghanistan into its orbit. It offered to control the terrorist organization behind the Taliban war effort, in exchange for influence in Afghanistan. That terrorist organization, however, largely is a creature of Pakistan's intelligence agency in the first place. Pakistan has been posing as a U.S. ally, but is behind much of the terrorism and the fighting against the U.S. and its allies. What is Pakistan's goal? To what and whom is it loyal?
DEARBORN COPS ARREST CHRISTIANS TO BAR THEIR VIEWS FROM MUSLIMS ActForAmerica displays a video of a few Christians in Dearborn Michigan. When the Christians attempted to distribute a portion of their Bible, printed in English and in Arabic, outside of a Muslim festival, a squad of police came right over to them. The police took them briefly into custody. A policeman told the camera wielder to turn off the video. [Since we saw the video, one assumes the police returned the camera.] Police said the group could not distribute literature within 5 blocks of the festival. The Christians were denied their Constitutional rights. The Christians believe that this is the only town in America having such a restriction (6/22/10). Dearborn is known to have a large Arab population. Should this means that the U.S. Constitution does not apply there? According to Islamic law, non-Muslims are not allowed to display their views to Muslims. Were the police enforcing Islamic law? Did the police act in deference to political forces? To prevent a clash? The Christians did not intend to clash with anyone, but, as I have reported often, Muslims clash with non-Muslims in the Mideast, in Europe, and on North American campuses. Should the threat of a Muslim riot govern law enforcement (as it does on the Temple Mount), or should the law govern Muslim behavior?
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:
|
|
MY SON'S TEXTBOOK DENIES RONALD REAGAN AND POPE JOHN PAUL II THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE IN HISTORY
Posted by Jeff Dunetz, June 25, 2010. |
|
I spent much time during the past few weeks helping my son study for the state-wide World History test he took a few days ago. Working with him through his studies, I learned his class presented a brand new version of history, a version that never occurred. Some can argue different versions/interpretations of events that happened centuries ago, but his text book and curriculum distorted events I saw with my own eyes. 
The text-book in question is called World History Patterns of
Interaction
Both sides believed that they needed to stop the other side from extending its power." What it should have said was that the Cold War was a battle between the Soviet side wanting to expand its communist philosophy across the world, and the west trying to prevent the takeover. The book also whitewashes the tyranny of Castro's communist Cuba. Page 985 says "Soviet aid to Cuba ended abruptly with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. This dealt a crippling blow to the Cuban economy." There was no mention of the brutality of the Cuban regime; the fact that all opposition newspapers had been closed down, all radio and television stations were in state control, or that moderates, teachers and professors were purged. Nor was there any mention of the torture and inhumane treatment in Cuban prisons that is still happening today. Perhaps the biggest rewriting of history was the discussion regarding the end of the Cold War. It talks about Nixon and detente, then boom on page 991: ... fiercely anti-Communist U.S. president, Ronald Reagan took office in 1991. He continued to move away from detente. He increased defense spending, putting both economic and military pressure on the Soviets. And how does the book explain the result of Reagan's policies? "Tensions increased." That's it! According to the text book, an increase in tensions was the only result of that "evil" Reagan's policies. But never fear because, there arose a leader in the USSR who knew not the cold war. Later on page 991, the book explains ".a change in soviet leadership in 1985 brought a new policy toward the United States and the beginnings of a final thaw in the cold war." Wow, look at that... out of the blue the USSR woke up one day and decided to play nice. 
That explanation doesn't mesh with history (or my eyes). The peace-through-strength strategy executed by the Reagan Administration drove the Soviet economy into the sewer. I saw Reagan announce, what may very well be the greatest bluff in the history of man, the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). This initiative posed a technological challenge to the Soviet Union and the communist regime spent tons of cash trying to catch up technologically. The part we never told the Soviet Union (until President Obama blurted it out a few months ago) is the technology posed a challenge to us also. The communists thought we were holding a royal flush, but all we really had was a pair of threes; being chess players, instead of poker players, they resigned. The prospect of Star Wars Technology scared the pants off the USSR, and so did the fact that they thought that Reagan was crazy enough to use it. Crazy like a fox he was. Reagan's willingness to apply significant rhetorical and other pressures against the Soviet Union, or as he called it, the "evil empire," made the Soviets pour even more money that it didn't have into weapons technology (why does that sound familiar?) At a session of the Russian Politburo in October 1986 Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev tried to sell a groundbreaking disarmament plan including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues, the USSR's weak economy could not keep up with Reagan's military expansion. We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. ... If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable. This military and economic pressure from Reagan was on top of the political pressure applied by a Pope born in a Soviet satellite country, Poland. John Paul II provided a moral focus with his constant anti-communist sermons. The Pope's visit to the very Catholic country of his birth Poland in 1979 stimulated a religious and nationalist resurgence centered on the Solidarity Union movement that galvanized opposition. Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Poland to protest the suppression of Solidarity. In response, Mikhail Suslov, the Kremlin's top ideologist, advised Soviet leaders not to intervene if Poland fell under the control of Solidarity for fear it might lead to heavy economic sanctions by the west. These potential sanctions could result in further catastrophe for the Soviet economy. That "non-intervention" of the USSR, because Reagan's threats had bled them dry, was the beginning of the slippery slope leading to the easing of the communist oppression, and the fall the Soviet Union. It is said that history is written by the victors, and in the past this may have been true. But in the case of Cold War history, it has been rewritten by the progressives who want to indoctrinate our children to their inaccurate version of facts many of us saw with our own eyes.
Contact Jeff Dunetz by email at jeff@jeffdunetz.com
|
|
EX-PREZ AZNAR OF SPAIN ON ISRAEL
Posted by Laureen Moe, June 25, 2010. |
|
In a powerful article in the Times of London, Jose Maria Aznar, the President of Spain from 1996-2004, provides a rousing and eloquent defense of the State of Israel. Aznar also uses this opportunity to announce the launch of his new organization "Friends of Israel" composed primarily on non-Jewish Europeans and Americans. President Aznar is to be applauded for standing up for Israel, standing up for what is right. The article is below: If Israel goes down, we all go down Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West's best ally in a turbulent region /font> |
|
For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world. In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology. Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances. Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy. Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment's peace. For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement. The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel's destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large. The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly. Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction. The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world's future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel's strength is our strength and Israel's weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel. It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity. What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel's legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel's vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude. Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined. Laureen Moe is a Christian Zionist and lives in Canada. She can be
reached at her website,
|
|
NO ENTRANCE FOR DOGS AND JEWS"
Posted by James Caplan, June 25, 2010. |
|
It is not just a delegitimization of the State of Israel. It is the delegitimization of the Jew, a Jew anywhere in the world. The Turks slaughter two million Armenians and through the Greeks out of Turkey with no compensation from 1915 through 1923. They are a fine group to get on the "human rights" bandwagon. Never forget, when the Christian General, Jan Sobieski. marched his Polish Catholic army into Austria to save the Vienna from Turkish rule, the Turks retreated and gave up. However, the Turks murdered all their Christian hostages, some 23 THOUSAND.......among whom, 8 THOUSAND Christian children were murdered. Let's put these fiends in perspective. This came from Manny. Keep it circulating.. This below was written by Lior Zagury. |
|
Yes, it is important for me to present myself in this way, especially today when there is a feeling that there is a festival for anti-Semites. I just came back yesterday from Poland after 8 days of having the privilege of guiding the Inter Disciplinary university students in the death camps. These students, studying in Israel were Jews, Christians and Muslims. 5 huge armed commando Polish soldiers with rifles and pistols needed to secure our check in to EL-AL flight to Israel from the Warsaw airport. I know that you got at least 100 e-mails about the flotilla to Gaza and I will not repeat what was said there. I want to speak about something much bigger that is happening now. The header of my letter wasn't taken from the streets of Berlin in 1933 when the Nazi's came to power, not from the neighborhoods of Warsaw in 1941 when the Jews lived in the Ghetto, and not even from the shops of Kielce after the second world war in 1946, just before the pogrom that made Jews understand that there isn't a safe place for them and they need to leave Europe. The header was taken from signs that were hanged at the entrance to big markets and offices in Turkey in the past few days, in June of 2010 and similar signs that were hung in Jordan. The signs say: "not receive the dogs & Israelis" as you can see in the photo that is attached. What we see around us is not about the flotilla and Gaza. It is a very sophisticated plan to demolish the legitimacy of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. In his first speech at the German Reichstag at 1/30/ 1933 Hitler said the cause of all the world problems is world Jewry. Most of the people didn't take him seriously and felt very safe in their countries, trusting their governments. 12 years later we lost 6 million Jews in the Holocaust in the worst way that human kind has ever known. These days, 65 years after, Achmadinijad from Iran and many others say exactly the same. The history repeats itself. Most of the people do not take him seriously and feel very safe in their countries, trusting their governments..... This is a wake up call. If you will ignore that and convince yourselves that this is not the main stream, this is just a passing storm and that it will never happen to us — sooner or later, you might find those restrictions in your backyard, in your favorite restaurant, in your great Bar and in your amazing university as it was 75 years ago. A few months ago, an Arab restaurant in Haifa didn't allow Israeli soldiers to come in and eat. We need your support now more then ever. We need to raise our heads, speak in a very clear and loud voice and especially be one, united. I have a complete and strong confidence in our nation. Israel has the most moral army in the world, it is the only democracy in the world that in each and every given moment there are hundreds of thousands of missiles and rockets ready to be launched to the central of its cities from enemies that want to erase us, and the only place in the world that a Jew can just be a Jew and feel completely safe about it. We promised NEVER AGAIN. Don't wait to say we didn't know. Yours, Lior Contact James Caplan by email at jamescaplan@hotmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 24, 2010. |
|
What you see above is a picture of the Od Yosef Chai Synagogue and Yeshiva (place of Jewish study) in Yitzhar in Samaria. I wrote about this on May 20 and repeat the information here: On May 9, the IDF's Civilian Administration (the administrative body for Judea and Samaria, overseen at the top by Defense Minister Barak) issued a demolition order against this building. So volatile is this situation that Arutz Sheva cited a warning from MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) that bloodshed would ensue. He called it a "declaration of war against the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria." "Local residents believe that authorities are purposely punishing the yeshiva because of a confrontation with the IDF that took place on Independence Day, and also because security forces hold the yeshiva's students responsible for various attacks against Arabs in recent months and years." ~~~~~~~~~~ Note of clarification: Yeshiva head Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira was held by authorities this winter with regard to an arson attack on the Kafr Yassuf mosque. Reports the JPost: "A Jerusalem District Court judge forced the police to release Shapira for lack of evidence." As to Independence Day, Yitzhar residents say that IDF troops began harassing visitors who wanted to tour the area and prevented them from entering the springs near the settlement. When the soldiers tried to hold back one of the residents, other settlers became agitated. The residents say that one of the soldiers stationed in the area fired a warning shot into the air. When he refused to give his name, the residents demanded that he remain in the area until he agreed to do so. The IDF says that residents attacked soldiers with stones, lightly hurting three. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to the Arutz Sheva report: "'...the authorities are making special efforts to hurt the yeshiva in an unfair and vindictive way,' a yeshiva spokesman said... 'It should be noted that the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution.' ~~~~~~~~~~ Further clarifications from the Jerusalem Post : The IDF administration in Judea and Samaria claimed that the construction was done outside the zoning area for this type of building. The Yitzhar treasurer, Itamar Posner, however, maintains "that the building was within an appropriately zoned area of the settlement... I will add here that this must also be considered in light of the reluctance of the government to demolish illegal Arab homes, and the furor that ensures over an attempt to do so (which I addressed yesterday). ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, I also wrote about how problematic Barak's positions are: how he fails to protect Jewish interests, instead showing an eagerness to make concessions. He's fond of muscle-flexing, but in the wrong way. He likes to show one and all that he's really tough with the people on the right, courting approval from the left and, need I add, the international community. Obama and Abbas would be so pleased with him if he demolished this Yeshiva. But what a shameful and obscene act it would be. The date for demolition is just days away. This cannot be permitted to proceed. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am asking you to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu (not Barak himself). The demand is that Netanyahu stop Barak. We need a huge outpouring of protest. As always, numbers count. Make your message short and to the point, please. If you are writing from outside of Israel, note that the world is watching and if Barak succeeds he will do Israel considerable harm among the very people who are Israel's biggest supporters. If you are inside of Israel, let the prime minister know that he is being watched and will be held responsible. What happens will affect his support now and in the next election. The heart of the message: Jews do not destroy synagogues. This is a shameful thing to do and gives great comfort to our enemies. Share this and encourage others to act. ~~~~~~~~~~ Fax: 02-670-5369 Write: "Attention Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary." Please, also fax to 02-670-5369 and 02-649-6659
E-mail: Please, send to both addresses. Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm). For the first address, above, put in subject line: "Attention: Cabinet Secretary, Zvi Hauser." For the second address, above, put "No Demolition at Yitzhar," "Don't destroy the Yeshiva," "Stop Barak now," or something similar. Please! Take the time to do this.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
FEMALE CRIMINALITY IN IRAN; ISRAEL PROTECTING U.S. TANKS;
FIRING GEN. MCCHRYSTAL AND FREEING POLLARD
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2010. |
|
FEMALE CRIMINALITY IN IRAN A young woman in Tehran was fined $50 per finger for wearing nail polish, $250 each for wear a jacket that was short, and that had bright colors, and for wearing make-up, about $1,000 for lightening her hair color, and another $180 for perching her glasses on her hair. The Iranian morality court is on the job! Iran's President denies that the guidance patrol arrests women for such matters (Arutz-7, 6/23/10).
IRANIAN RUMORS OF SAUDI-IDF COOPERATION Iran has been disseminating unconfirmed reports about IDF-Saudi military cooperation. First was bruited a rumor that Saudi Arabia agreed to turn a blind eye to an over-flight by Israeli squadrons going to raid Iran's nuclear facilities. A safe lane in Saudi air space would shorten the flight path significantly to ease the raid's difficulties. Now Iran claims that Saudi Arabia has turned part of its Tobuk air force base, which practically adjoins Israel, over to the Israeli air force. Iran uses the term, "entity" or "Zionist" to refer to Israel (IMRA, 6/23/10). Ironically, the U.S. sold Saudi Arabia warplanes on condition that it not station them at Tobuk and not add fuel storage tanks to them. Saudi Arabia broke those conditions, without repercussion. The famed Israel lobby, much overrated, was silent or helpless on that as on much else. When Saudi Arabia made a military alliance with Egypt, and broached plans for a bridge between the two countries, Saudi Arabia became more of a threat to Israel. The threat might be discounted, because most strategists, including Israel's see individual jigsaw pieces instead of the whole puzzle. Thus, they may not count Egypt and Jordan, because of peace treaties. But fanatical or otherwise unscrupulous regimes disregard treaties when advantageous to their plans. Egypt and Jordan engage in diplomatic and economic warfare against Israel and Egypt had supported Palestinian Arab terrorists. Hamas broke its truces with Israel. Strategists also tend to discount individual forces as small, by themselves. Thus, Palestinian Arab militias are mostly omitted from the strategic equation, but especially with their new American training, they could hinder Israeli mobilization long enough for the Arab states to bring up superior forces first. Blind to overall strategic considerations, and vainly attempting to appease inexorable critics, Israel has let itself be surrounded by terrorist militias armed with rockets they have fired at Israeli civilians, for a start.
MEMPHIS ANSWER TO ANTI-ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK Organizations have started anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" events annually on U.S. campuses and in cities. The Memphis Friends of Israel has been sponsoring an annual pro-Israel festival and, during the year, educational events. The Friends are spreading the project into other locales. Their idea is not to let the other side monopolize the media on this subject. Give the facts a public hearing (Arutz-7, 6/23/10). In some countries, the Israeli view is silenced. Thomas Jefferson had faith that in a fair contest between truth and falsity, truth would win. These days, if Israel even gets its message out, the contest is not fair. Falsity is too pervasive and unscrupulous. The Media and educational systems give people a basic misunderstanding. Political correctness hobbles forthrightness. (That's Memphis, Tennessee, not Memphis, Egypt)
CONGRESS TO OBAMA: STAND BEHIND ISRAEL Congress endorsed letters to President Obama urging him to stand behind Israel. The letters were signed by 87 Senators and 320 Representatives. The letters noted an international effort to deny Israel legitimacy. It described the flotilla attempt to break Israel's legal blockade by militarily ambushing Israel, as part of this improper effort. So, to, are the UN Human Rights Commission efforts to single out Israel [on false accusations and to the neglect of real and serious problems]. The conference on nuclear proliferation tried to isolate Israel, by sandbagging it. Congress urged the President to have the U.S. veto those untoward efforts in the Security Council. They justified U.S. support for Israel as in our national interest. The letter concludes with hope for peace negotiations that lead to a "two-state solution." (Arutz-7, 6/24/10).
ISRAEL EXPOSES IRANIAN HYPOCRISY ON WOMEN In a meeting with Austria's Chancellor Werner Faymann, Israel's PM Netanyahu exposed Iranian hypocrisy on women. Iran intends to load women onto a ship of its flotilla against what it calls Israeli oppression of Gaza. As Netanyahu put it, "My friends, I want to show you the extent of the absurdity. The darkest forces in the world — Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, who want to return the world to the Middle Ages, who prevent their women from dressing, working and expressing themselves freely, where their women live in slavery and oppression, frequently without their basic rights, often subject to violence; they dare to organize a boat of women as propaganda against Israel?! "The time has come to put a stop to this hypocrisy and work toward genuine women's rights and human rights in our region. I call upon all peace and human rights activists in the enlightened world: Go to the places where they oppress women; Go to the places where they hang homosexuals in town squares and deny the rights of minorities; Go to the places where there is no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press, no independent courts, no human rights organizations and no human rights. Go to Teheran. Go to Gaza.
ISRAEL PROTECTING U.S. TANKS Israel is protecting U.S. tanks. Having successfully tried out its new "Trophy" anti-missile system on its own tanks, Israel now is installing the same defense against anti-tank missiles on the U.S. vehicles (Arutz-7, 6/24/10). Israel has made many innovations in military matters, as well as in medicine, computer technology, and agriculture, from which the U.S. benefits.
MIDEAST BRIEFING FOR CONGRESSMEN The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) sponsored a Middle East briefing to Members of Congress by Prof. Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs. Dr. Rubin is shocked by the disparity between the realty of the Mideast and the illusions by which the West perceives the Mideast. For example, the West keeps pressing Israel for "confidence-building" concessions to the Arabs. But the Arabs and informed Israelis know there will not be a comprehensive peace. Why not? The Palestinian Arabs are "intransigent." They do not compromise nor make concessions. Fatah's radical leaders believe they can attain total victory i.e., destroy Israel, without having to compromise. Palestinian Arab moderates are too weak to exert influence. Abbas has named a hardliner radical, Muhammad Ghaneim, as his successor. Therefore, gimmicks will not produce a solution. The Obama administration believed that if it cooled down the U.S. relationship with Israel, it would gain a strategic advantage with the rest of the Mideast. Did not happen. The U.S. did not gain popularity. The Arabs are not strongly assisting the U.S. against Iran. Actually, the U.S. lost position strategically. The Turkish Islamist group, IHH, planned violence on the flotilla and secured condemnation of Israel, sympathy for Hamas, and calls for lifting the embargo. The radicals gained status and are encouraged to be ore provocative. Another setback for the U.S. is Western policies that fail to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, in dealing with radicals, who run Iran, Western appeasement or charm cannot distract them from their goals. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the Arabs will knuckle under to them. Europe would appease Iran more, too. Fired up by the success of Iranian radicalism, Muslims all over would fall in with it. Iran will have gotten nuclear weapons regardless of U.S. opposition. Radicalism would dominate the Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands would join radical organizations. Could they be contained, as U.S. policymakers may suppose? Not those hardened radicals. U.S. appeasement of jihadists is worse than was the European appeasement of the Nazis. The Europeans also thought they could buy off the radicals of their day, but at least they knew the danger facing them. By contrast, the West does not realize how dangerous its enemy is. As ZOA puts it, "Only when Palestinians reject the idea that it is a religious and national duty to murder Jews and to celebrate those among them who act on this instruction will there be any prospect of peace." Meanwhile, the U.S. should condemn the Palestinian Authority as an evil regime that promotes terrorism (6/23/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.) Prof. Rubin's analysis may be hard to hear but it is harder to refute. Some of my readers might denounce it, but he makes perfect sense. There is another possibility besides Arab appeasement of Iran.
Arabs may develop their own nuclear weapons. That is not a happy
prospect, either, for it adds to the risk of nuclear war.
FIRING GEN. MCCHRYSTAL AND FREEING POLLARD President Obama just fired the country's greatest fighting general, to demonstrate that the top civilian authority outranks high military authority. Yet when people suggest that a U.S. President free Jonathan Pollard, they are told that the security establishment would not let him. Let them think of Gen. McChrystal, and then revise their assessment (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/23/10). 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: PLACE NOT YOUR TRUST IN PRINCES
Posted by Isi Leibler, June 24, 2010. |
|
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to receive a red carpet reception from President Barack Obama at the White House combined with a reaffirmation about the "unshakeable US-Israel alliance." However we should not delude ourselves. It is clear that Obama's recent charm campaign was primarily in response to pressure from the American people and in particular from Jewish Democratic supporters shocked into action by the administration's increasingly negative approach toward Israel and the crass reception accorded to Netanyahu during his last visit. The bonhomie was intended to assuage domestic anger to avert loss of votes and funding for the forthcoming congressional elections. Even though administration officials, including Rahm Emanuel, conceded that they "had screwed up the messaging" and are unlikely to repeat their previous boorish humiliation of Israel, there are no signs that the US administration is about to modify its policy.
TWO RECENT events reaffirm this. The greatest disappointment was the US betrayal at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. Obama reneged on his promise to maintain the policy of former US administrations and continue to veto repeated Arab efforts to isolate Israel at these conferences. He endorsed a resolution which omitted any mention of Iran but specifically targeted Israel, demanding that it sign the NPT and submit to inspections of its facilities. While Obama subsequently disingenuously shed crocodile tears expressing disappointment that Israel had been singled out, his willingness to sacrifice the Jewish state on such a crucial security issue heightened concerns that the US is no longer a reliable ally. In the aftermath of the vehement international condemnation following the Gaza flotilla interception, Obama made little effort to curb the anti-Israel hysteria. Instead, he pressured Israel to co-opt international observers to its inquiry and failed to condemn the proposed United Nations Human Rights Council demand for an international inquiry which would unquestionably be a replay of the outrageous Goldstone Report. In this context, Vice President Joseph Biden's positive declaration endorsing Israel's right to blockade ships to prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza sounded somewhat like a good cop, bad cop routine. The perception of the US failing to support long-standing allies was highlighted by its tepid response to the unprovoked sinking of the South Korean naval corvette by a North Korean submarine. To Israelis, this conveyed a chilling interpretation of Obama's concept of an alliance. His inability to retain the support of traditional US allies was also exemplified when Turkey and Brazil displayed their contempt by undermining the minimal Iran sanctions the US was finally able to impose with grudging approval from Russia and China. US appeasement and renewal of diplomatic relations with Syria, Iran's surrogate state, only encouraged Damascus to strengthen its relations with Teheran, supply Hizbullah with Scuds and intensify its aggressive posturing.
ON A broader level, Obama has reiterated that the US could neither afford nor desired to remain the policeman of the world, preferring to delegate and conduct global affairs in conjunction with other countries and international organizations. To abdicate leadership of the free world during these perilous times is a bad omen, especially if it implies delegating more influence to Europe, Russia or worse to the dysfunctional UN, dominated by Islamic countries. The most bizarre policy proclamation came from White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan. Following a National Security Council pronouncement stipulating that the term "extremist and militant Islam" should no longer be employed, he made the extraordinary assertion that Hizbullah was not "purely a terrorist body" and that he intended to cultivate the "moderate elements." Subsequently in an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan limited Islamic fundamentalism to al-Qaida and opined that the term "war on terror" should be excluded from the American political lexicon. "Our enemy" he said "is not terrorism because terrorism is a tactic or a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear." He added, "Nor do we define our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam to purify oneself or one's community." Such remarks from a high-ranking US official are mind boggling.
IN RELATION to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the US had warned that it would confront any party indulging in provocative statements or acts. Yet while expressing concern regarding Israeli celebrations on Jerusalem Day, the administration remained silent as the PA lobbied the OECD to block Israel's affiliation. Nor did it respond when PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the most "moderate" Palestinian leader, personally participated in a burning ceremony to promote a campaign to boycott products manufactured over the Green Line, a direct violation of the Oslo Accords. They even failed to react when Fatah leaders reiterated their right to launch armed resistance unless their demands were fulfilled. American friends of Israel should thus be aware that despite Obama's charm offensive, US policy is no less ominous now than it was during Netanyahu's previous visit to Washington. However public opinion is a factor that a Democratic administration does take into account and Israel can take comfort in the fact that support from the American people and both houses of Congress have strengthened considerably since the Gaza flotilla imbroglio. In this context, Netanyahu must now clearly spell out his game plan and ensure that Israel is not again confronted by accusations of having misled the administration. When he meets with Obama, he should assure him that short of endangering its security, the country will do all in its power to avoid embarrassing the US. But he must be definitive and inform the administration which areas are negotiable while simultaneously drawing red lines which his government cannot contemplate crossing. He must emphatically reject returning to the 1949 armistice lines on the grounds that it would pose a longterm existential threat to the Jewish state. He must reiterate that Israel will only extend concessions based on reciprocity and that the Palestinians must cease their provocations and incitement. He must clearly elucidate building policies in Jerusalem and make it known that irrespective of what happens, the building freeze will not be renewed in the major settlement blocs that the Bush administration had agreed would remain within Israel. If Netanyahu fails to reach a full understanding over Iran, he must request greater transparency in the relationship and be assured that Israel will be kept fully informed and able to provide input. He should also request unequivocal American support against global boycotts and pressures at the UN and other international organizations, including an assurance that in future the US will divert pressures against Israel's ambiguous nuclear deterrent. Instead of whispering and making light of differences, Netanyahu must speak plainly and unequivocally to ensure that Israelis and our friends abroad understand our position. Should he continue fudging the issues by basking in the superficial warmth of pleasantries, he will be setting us up for a second and possibly much more unpleasant confrontation with our only global ally. Contact Isi Leibler by email at
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post |
|
FROM ISRAEL: A TIGHT PLACE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 23, 2010. |
|
I asked the question in my last post as to whether there will be gain with regard to the Security Cabinet's decision to allow all goods but those weapon-related into Gaza via the land crossings from Israel. This remains a dubious proposition. Whatever the rationale for what was decided, there is the clear danger that Israel will be seen as weak, and having caved to Hamas and terrorist forces. On the one hand, Blair has made positive statements about our rights, without question, to keep weapons out of Gaza — a nod to the sea blockade. On the other hand, already we're hearing — not just from the UN but also from Obama — about how this isn't enough for the people of Gaza. It's the old story, with which we are well familiar: Give them a finger, and they want our hand. It's never enough. When statements are made about the need for the situation to improve for the people of Gaza, always implicit is that it's on Israel to do something about this. Never is there a clear and forthright statement that Hamas, which controls Gaza, is responsible for this situation. In fact, neither is there any direct statement about responsibility on the part of Egypt — which is to Gaza's south and controls the Rafah crossing — to do more for the Gazans. ~~~~~~~~~~ We clearly see how ludicrous — and maliced — this whole situation is when we read the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs briefing, "The Myth of the Siege of Gaza," by Lt. Col. (ret.) Yonatan Halevi, a senior researcher on radical Islam: "[In addition to all of the goods brought in from Israel via the crossings] there is also an established economic system of Palestinian imports from Egypt via hundreds of tunnels operating under the control of a Hamas government that grants approval for operating them and collects taxes from their owners. The tunnel network has increased imports from Egypt to Gaza from $30 million annually during the years 1994-2006 to more than $650 million annually. Given the abundance of supply, the price of diesel fuel and gasoline, delivered to Gaza through pipes from Egypt, is half that of the price in Israel. Mind-boggling, is it not? UNRWA would maintain that it will not deal with the cement black market of Hamas tunnels and thus needs cement brought in via the Israeli crossings to build schools. But to say there can be no reconstruction of Gaza without unfettered access to building material via the crossings is nonsense. Halevi further says: "Gaza is not cut off from the outside world. In the last year, the markets of Gaza have been flooded with produce and merchandise. In fact, in 2009, a total of 30,576 truckloads of humanitarian commodities passed from Israel into Gaza. From June 2007 (the date of the Hamas military takeover of Gaza), overall monetary transfers to Gaza have totaled over $5 billion from governmental and extragovernmental sources. The governor of the Central Bank of the Palestinian Authority, Jihad al-Wazir, confirmed that 56 percent of the PA budget is designated for Gaza. Gaza receives additional aid funds directly from Iran, and the Arab countries." http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=4123& TTL=The_Myth_of_the_Siege_of_Gaza ~~~~~~~~~~ The reality of what is happening in Gaza simply bears no resemblance to "the myth" — as Halevi refers to it. That myth is designed to damage Israel, as well as to court international sympathy and support. Unfortunately (once more) our government has not been forceful enough in promoting the truth and countering that myth. ~~~~~~~~~~ I call your attention, as well, to the fact that over 50% of the PA budget is allocated for Gaza. This explodes another myth of major proportions: that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are completely separate. If you are in the US, you might want to contact your representatives in Congress and ask them why your government is supporting Hamas. Money is fungible: If money allocated by the US to the PA is not designated by budget line item to go to Hamas, it still frees up other money that can be sent. Besides which, there is legitimate reason to ask why the US should support the PA at all, if it is so closely allied with Hamas. Include the URL above for the article by Lt. Col. Halevi. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, headed by Dore Gold, is a highly credible institute, and Halevi is a superbly reliable source. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ Among those strongly of the opinion that loosening the restrictions on materials permitted into Gaza was a bad idea is Caroline Glick. One point that she makes is worthy of particular note: "The economic sanctions the government is now cancelling were not simply legal, they were required by international law. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires states and non-state actors to deny support of any kind to terrorist organizations. And here, in a bid to win international "legitimacy" for its lawful blockade of Gaza, Israel has bowed to US pressure to unlawfully facilitate the economic prosperity of an area controlled by an illegal terrorist organization." http://www.carolineglick.com/ e/2010/06/the-high-price- of-coalition-st.php Glick also fingers Defense Minister Ehud Barak in regard to this: "According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is the serial bungler." She's right on mark here, and its worth reading her full comments on this subject (which I will return to it in due course). What I ponder now is exactly who is running the show. Does Netanyahu cave to Barak as well as to Obama? Or is Barak convincing him to cave to Obama? Perhaps most damning at present is her charge that Barak allegedly convinced Netanyahu to send the naval commandos onto the Marmara equipped only with paintball guns, as this would garner greater support from Obama. ~~~~~~~~~~ Commentator Moshe Dann, writing in YNet, addresses the same concerns. Dann writes of, "Barak's failure to anticipate the danger to IDF soldiers sent to stop the Gaza flotilla, his stubborn refusal to consult military and intelligence experts..."
The fault for what happened, then, would lie not with poor intelligence, but with the arrogance of a minister who thought he didn't need to rely on that intelligence. ~~~~~~~~~~ So, it seems to me that it's time to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu as well. Be forceful but courteous. Using your own words, tell him that he wears the mantle as prime minister of the nation of Israel and he must be relied upon to make decisions with courage and backbone. Say that relying upon the advice of Ehud Barak serves the nation ill. It's time for him to make decisions more consonant with the will of the people, who voted for the right wing.
~~~~~~~~~~ The next round of confrontation with foreign ships seeking to break the blockade of Gaza indeed does seem to be around the corner. The ship I wrote about last, the Julia, has not left port, but a second ship was given permission to go by the Lebanese government and is on its way, first to Cyprus and then — if it receives clearance in Cyprus — towards Gaza. Last week Defense Minister Barak warned the Lebanese government that it is responsible for these ships. But in a turn-about maneuver, the Lebanese have sent a letter to the UN holding Israel responsible for anything that happens to the ships. Israel is preparing vigorously for this next confrontation, both from a military and a PR perspective. ~~~~~~~~~~ Is this true? It's huge if it is. According to the Islam Times website — which is being cited in various quarters — Israeli jets landed in Saudi Arabia last week and unloaded military equipment at an airport in the northwest. This is said to be in advance of a strike on Iran. IMRA is carrying a report from the Arabic FARS news agency, in poor translation, that says the same thing. This report further says that, "the Zionist entity has created for himself a military base in Tabuk North West Saudi Arabia." ~~~~~~~~~~ About three months ago, Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat announced a development project for the city that involved the demolition of illegally constructed Arab homes in Silwan, in eastern Jerusalem. At that time, Netanyahu put a stop to it. But now the municipality's Local Planning and Construction Committee has given the go-ahead. In all, there were 88 structures that were built illegally on land that was "green": zoned for a park and extensive recreational area. But the owners of 66 of these homes will be given the opportunity to apply for retroactive legalization. Twenty-two structures within the area known as Gan Hamelech (King's Garden), all built without permits in an area for which housing was not zoned, will come down. In a gesture of enormous magnanimity, the municipality will provide those whose homes will be demolished with new, legal homes elsewhere in the area. ~~~~~~~~~~ Needless to say, there are objections in many quarters: from the left wing here, from the PA, from the US government. This is being represented as an "anti-Arab" move that is destructive to the "sense of trust" that needs to be developed between Israel and the PA. The old, familiar line. This project is even being called "ethnic cleansing," although it is not remotely that. PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat announced yesterday that, "I sent a notice this morning from the Palestinian president to the US, in which he asked the American administration to intervene directly so that the Israeli project is cancelled. "We vehemently denounce the decision, which will result in the demolition of 22 houses in Silwan." Give me a break! ~~~~~~~~~~ Residents claim to be against the demolition of their homes (never mind that they'll get new ones). But most enlightening was what one person involved with this municipal planning told the JPost: "What the residents say to the press and what they say to us are two different things." The betting is that these residents are coached from the outside, by persons eager for an opportunity to stir things up and make Israel look bad for the international media. In point of fact, the Jerusalem administration has negotiated with individual residents, to reach a place of understanding with as many of them as possible. They addressed issues of concern such as roads, parking, and fire fighting equipment. ~~~~~~~~~~ Among those who registered distress over this plan was Ehud Barak, leveling his criticism from the US, and ever eager to please the US. Showing his true colors once again, he said the plan "lacked common sense" and a "sense of timing." He indicated that he would take this up with the prime minister on his return. And there we are. It will be shameful indeed if Netanyahu caves on this. While at first there was no word from the prime minister's office, there was then a statement that the prime minister "hopes to solve" the dispute. ~~~~~~~~~~ Mayor Barkat, however, has had his say in response to Barak: "Rather than support the municipality's effort to strengthen the city and tackle the serious neglect the eastern part of the city has inherited over the years, the defense minister acts without checking the facts. Jerusalem City Councilman Hilik Bar, a member of Barak's own Labor party, then released a statement as well: "The King's Garden plan is an important project that could have an impact on both the value of the land and the houses in Silwan, and improve the quality of life for its residents. ~~~~~~~~~~ This bears close watching. Either we are a sovereign state that follow the rule of law, or we are not. If you are contacting Netanyahu, as I suggested above, it would be prudent to mention this as well: Do not cave to Barak's demands that the Gan Hamelech project be put on hold again! ~~~~~~~~~~ In a related issue, Arab squatters — some 40 people comprising three families — are living in an old synagogue building in Silwan. This is not "merely" a Jewish building, it is a hundred-year old building that has historical, religious and cultural significance. Known as the Hechel Shlomo Synagogue, at one time it served the Yemenite community of the area, which was forced to leave after violence in 1938. It is 500 feet from the contested Beit Yehonatan. The non-profit organization Ateret Cohanim claims ownership of the synagogue building as well as Beit Yehonatan. According to a court ruling, additions made to the building by the Arab family holding it must be destroyed, and the building must be returned to its original owners. But the police have not acted on this. Jewish residents of the area, who maintain that Arab residents are favored, say they will evacuate the building themselves on July 4, if the police fail to act. Ten members of the Knesset, from National Union, Habayit Hayehudi, Shas, Likud, and UTJ, have said they will assist the Jewish residents with the evacuation if the police fail to act. They have sent a letter to this effect to the prime minister. In an entirely different context, Netanyahu has just made the statement, "No one is above the law." Let's see if he means it. Will he see to it that the court ruling is carried out, or will be he — fearful of manipulated world opinion and accusations of being "anti-Arab" — back off? Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL, HUMAN DECENCY, COMMON HUMANITY
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 23, 2010. |
|
This letter was sent
Dear Rev Alison I was deeply but deeply disturbed to read the extremely biased and one sided report to be presented to the Methodist Conference. I am a speaker on the Middle East and an historian and it beggars belief that that account could be accepted as historical truth. It is about as biased as an account of a history of the Tory Party that George Galloway might write. It is to the everlasting shame of the Methodist Church if it were to accept such a shoddy piece of writing. As a Christian it is even more reprehensible that a Church should be a party to disseminating something quite so unsavoury. I recently read a blog by Dr Sue Garrard of Keele University and I attach it below for your consideration. Yours sincerely Jean A Evans |
|
Fintan O'Toole thinks that Israel regards itself as 'exempt from the demands of common humanity' (via Z Word Blog). Iain Banks thinks that 'simple human decency' means nothing to Israel (see this normblog post). Two well-known writers, very anxious to tell the world that Israel lacks humanity. Israel's not like the rest of us, the rest of the human family. Compared to other nations, it's inhuman. It doesn't recognize what everyone else knows about, the simple requirements of being decently human. It ought to recognize these things, it isn't hard to do so, since they're so simple; and most other people do, since they're part of common humanity. Leave aside the sinister provenance of that claim, and let's just consider it on its own. Turkey has killed between 30,000 and 40,000 Kurds in the last 30 years; it occupies North Cyprus; it blockades Armenia and denies its own historical genocide. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Sri Lanka, at the same time that Israel was fighting in Gaza (around 1300 dead) killed about 25,000 of its own civilians in the course of repressing an insurgency. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Sudan has killed something in the order of 200,000 people in Darfur, with countless rapes and tortures alongside. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Iran rapes and tortures and murders its own dissidents who ask for democracy; it hangs young gays, it oppresses women. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Yemen is blockading South Yemen, it lets no food, medicine or water through; unlike Israel, which lets around 15,000 tons of supplies into Gaza every week. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Egypt is considering a law to strip their citizenship from any Egyptian who marries an Israeli; it persecutes Copts; it blockades Gaza. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Russia kills 25,000 to 50,000 Chechens, and almost completely razes the capital city of Grozny; its soldiers inflict hideous tortures on their prisoners before killing them; investigative journalists are murdered. But Israel lacks simple human decency. China kills somewhere between half a million and one and a quarter million Tibetans in the course of quashing Tibet's independence. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. In Pakistan, Christian churches are burned, hundreds of Ahmadiyyas are killed, violence towards women is endemic. But Israel lacks simple human decency. In Saudi Arabia, no churches are allowed, no Israeli Jews may enter, women are subject to gender apartheid. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Congo: what can one say about Congo? More than that 5 million — 5 million — people have been killed in its wars, alongside innumerable rapes and hideous tortures? But Israel lacks simple human decency. Now, here's one especially for Iain Banks: the USA and the UK initiate a war in Iraq in which more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. France trained and armed the Hutu genocidaires who killed around 800,000 civilians in the Rwanda genocide, and continued to protect them even as they lost power to the incoming Tutsis. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Three things to note. First, most of the other cases I've mentioned have involved far worse horrors than anything Israel has done. But Israel is the one which Banks and O'Toole charge, not with acting wrongly, or having bad judgement, but with being deliberately impervious to morality, with not even rising to the most basic level of decency. Banks and O'Toole (and indeed many others) level this charge at Israel alone. We won't be hearing them say that the Chinese are deliberately impervious to morality, or that the Turks lack simple human decency. Only Israel. Why is this? Second, we can't in fact leave aside the sinister provenance of these charges. O'Toole at least claims to know about the Holocaust, and what led to that horror; it's possible that Banks knows something about it too. It's a commonplace of historical explanation that one of the enabling factors was the dehumanization of the Jews, the constant Nazi propaganda about how they weren't fully human, how they didn't have the normal moral sentiments and beliefs, about how they saw themselves as the chosen people, above ordinary morality. Here we see these dehumanizing lies being reproduced, 60 years later, about Israel, and only about Israel. Why is this? Third, and most importantly, every point I've made in this post has been made before, by many others, many many times: forcefully, cogently, analytically; both passionately and dispassionately; with humour and with despair. It hasn't made the slightest difference to the likes of Banks and O'Toole. Nor to the many others shouting or whispering at us, in the teeth of the evidence, that Gaza is the new Warsaw Ghetto, and that Israel is really Nazi Germany come again — and so it's fine to hate Israel, it's to your credit to hate it, it shows the world that you have simple human decency. Why is this? And where will it lead? Eve Garrard |
|
PALESTINIANS ARE "MAJOR ACTORS IN THE DELEGITIMIZATION OF ISRAEL,"
Posted by Sanne DeWitt, June 23, 2010. |
| This was written by Janine Zacharia |
|
Israeli national security adviser Uzi Arad on Tuesday described the Palestinians as "major actors in the delegitimization of Israel." "In trying to make peace" via the indirect U.S.-led talks, "we are embracing an adversary who is conducting a very effective battle against us internationally." Arad said that Israel still aspires to peace with the Palestinians, but he was skeptical of the value of Israel putting forth any bold new peace initiative. "If we do make an initiative, which incorporates further concessions, it would only validate their current rejectionist position, leading them to say, 'If we wait long enough there will be some more,'" Arad said, referring to the Palestinians. On Iran, Arad did not directly address the likelihood that Israel would strike militarily to set back the country's nuclear program. "I don't see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy," Arad said of a possible Israeli strike. "They only discuss the efficacy, which is interesting. It suggests that people understand the problem. And they are not questioning the right." He also noted what Israeli officials have perceived as a shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, citing a subtle change in rhetoric. Officials say they think Obama is now more willing to employ military force, in the event it becomes necessary, to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. "All of us did take notice that the United States changed the definition of its policy on Iran, from one that said a nuclear Iran would be 'unacceptable,' to one in which it said that the United States 'is determined to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear.' There is determination there. There is activism," Arad said. (Washington Post) Sanne DeWitt distributes the IACEB newletter. Contact her at skdewitt@comcast.net |
|
U.S. BILL AGAINST LIBEL TOURISM; ALUMNUS CRITICIZES SUSPENSION OF MSU
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2010. |
|
U.S. BILL AGAINST LIBEL TOURISM U.S. Senators Leahy and Sessions have introduced a bill against libel tourism. Libel tourism is the use of foreign courts, that poorly protect freedom of the press, to bring wrongful defamation suits against authors that criticize Islamism. Between the burden of proving it is not libel and the burden of high legal costs, authors are intimidated. The result is repression in favor of Islamist ideology and terrorism. [The same abuse could be used by wealthy people for other cause.] London is one jurisdiction that favors lawsuits for libel. Entrenched there, the late Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz brought dozens of lawfare suits. He forced 40 authors to retract and apologize, until he encountered Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil, which documents Mr. Mahfouz's financing of terrorism. Although Ms. Ehrenfeld did not publish nor market her book there, an English court took up Mahfouz's libel suit against her. [Two copies of her book had been purchased in England by Internet, so the court claimed jurisdiction.] The court ruled that Ehrenfeld should pay a big fine, Mahfouz's sizable legal fees, retract her statements about him, and apologize. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge English jurisdiction. She counter sued on free press grounds in New York. New York lacked jurisdiction, however. So that state, followed by six others, enacted "Rachel's Law," authorizing jurisdiction. Now Congress has its own bill. It protects American authors from foreign attempts to undermine their first amendment rights by means of frivolous suits (ACD update, 6/22/10).
ALUMNUS CRITICIZES U.C. IRVINE SUSPENSION OF MUSLIM STUDENTS UNION In a letter to the L.A. Times, Omar Kurdi, an alumnus of U.C. Irvine, criticized the suspension of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) there. He attributed the suspension to an "alleged" disruption of a speech by the Israeli Ambassador. In the incident, 11 students were arrested; they also face university discipline. Mr. Kurdi calls this a chilling blow to university activism. He also says that the organization's suspension suffocates Muslim student life there. According to Kurdi, it was pressure from the Zionist Organization of America and Jewish donors that prompted the University decision. He calls their effort an extreme attempt to "stifle criticism" of Israel. Half his letter digresses to the flotilla incident and the Goldstone report about the combat in Gaza that called Israeli action a war crime. He concludes protest against Israel is reasonable. He calls the Gaza blockade illegal and the nine people killed, "humanitarian workers." He says that the Foreign Press Association in Israel criticized Israel for "stealing" passengers' photos and then presenting them in a way that distorted reality (6/22/10 letter reprinted by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York). I saw a video of the Ambassador's good-natured attempt to speak and stated willingness to answer all questions, but he was shouted down by the Muslim students and supporters. That rowdy behavior is not criticism of Israel but an attempt to chill defense of Israel. Hence the justified arrests not by Zionists but by police. Kurdi omitted mentioning the years of MSU intimidation of opposition and its illegal fund-raising for a terrorist organization. This illegality is serious. That the Zionist Organization of America (of which I am a member) brought the violations of law, of freedom of speech, and of University rules to University and public attention is to its credit. The absence of Muslim activities formerly planned by MSU should have been thought of by MSU, before trying to squelch opponents' speech and raising funds for terrorists. Kurdi wants us to feel sorry for the MSU and its members. Their viciousness and apparently un-American illegality does not warrant sympathy. The Goldstone report had no more veracity and logic than Kurdi's letter. Whether Israel acted criminally or not is irrelevant to whether people may protest against it. Of course they may. The question is how. MSU does not protest in a decent manner. As we have reported elsewhere, the blockade was legal and the nine people killed on the flotilla were assailants, brought in to attack Israeli boarders. "Humanitarian workers," indeed! Certainly, since the ship ran a blockade and its Islamists on board attacked by prearrangement, wounding several, Israel was right to confiscate passengers' film, in preparation for investigation. The ship was a war zone and a crime scene. Whether Israel doctored the film, I have seen no evidence. We reported that Reuters doctored a couple of photos in favor of the Islamists. Kurdi failed to mention that. In any case, it is irrelevant to U.C. Irvine, where the question of the day is whether people will be allowed to present their views without being shouted down or, as on some campuses, mobbed.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEEN ISRAEL AND ARABS AFFECTING U.S. The main difference between Israel and the Arab states is that Israel is a modern state and the Arab ones are not. Israel has technologies of life but Iran has industries of death. For examples, Rambam Hospital in Haifa, has pioneered in multiple sclerosis, treatment of burns, and embryonic stem cells. Most computer microprocessors were invented in Israel for Intel. Apple's "flash memory" also was invented in Israel. Israel is important to the U.S. economy. Between 1967 and 1987 [when Israel administered all the Territories], per capita income for Palestinian Arabs tripled. After Arafat formed and controlled the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), GDP declined 40%. [The P.A. started after 1993, so those figures are not complete, but I have seen others that amount to the same effect.] The P.A. remains stuck in the mode of jihad and conquest. The U.S. needs to base its Mideast policy on the fact that Israel is its greatest asset in the region (George Gilder, 5/25/10, Middle East Forum). Israel is pro-American and a reliable ally, whereas the rest of the Mideast is not and much of it sympathizes with jihad against the U.S.
ISRAEL DISCRIMINATES IN BUILDING EVACUATION National Union MK Uriel Ariel has observed Israeli government discrimination in which buildings to have evacuated. How so? There are about 50 illegal Jewish building and thousands of illegal Arab ones [he may mean just in Jerusalem], but the government now demolishes them in pairs, one Jewish one for each Arab one; it expedites the schedule for demolishing Jews ones and delays the schedule for demolishing Arab ones. Public Security Minister Yitzcvhak Aharonowitz admitted that diplomatic and political considerations govern current policy. In Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood, three buildings are owned by Jews: two residences and the Yemenite Synagogue built in 1890. In the late1930s, the Yemenites were forced by Arab pogroms to abandon the building. Four Arab families have occupied it since 1938. In 2008, an Israeli court ordered police to cooperate in evacuating the squatters, the rooms added illegally razed, and the building restored. The police, however, have taken no action [as usual, when Arabs are concerned]. MK Ariel says that on July 4, he and other Jewish nationalists will evacuate the squatters themselves. Min. Aharonowitz commented that MK Ariel has parliamentary immunity to arrest, but the others do not. The court order states that the police should cooperate in the evacuation, but does not require people wishing to conduct the eviction to get police permission. On July 4, PM Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Obama (Arutz-7, 6/23/10). One can foresee clashes leading to violence and media headlines blaming Jews for trying to enforce their rights, but not blaming the government for failing to enforce Jews' rights, and not blaming the Arabs for depriving Jews of their rights. Remember that this strife started because Britain did not run the Mandate under a regime of law and order. Why does Netanyahu bother meeting with Obama? Obama makes more and more demands to make Israel weaker and weaker and its and America's Arab enemies stronger and stronger and to solve less and less. Netanyahu thinks that if he makes a concession, he will relieve pressure on Israel and win foreign, at least Western goodwill. But there is no foreign goodwill to be won, and acting accommodating, meaning appearing weak, does not win approval. The West is, itself, appeasing the Arabs. And the Arabs cannot be appeased, for they are in a degree of jihad, whose goal is not to compromise but to conquer. Nor can Obama be appeased. His goal is to serve the Palestinian Arabs, among others. He is relentless, though he does engage in damage control for his obvious excesses. He covers up his own mistakes by blaming big companies or his predecessor. He shakes down big companies, and pursues them with a vengeance. Some companies think he will exempt some of their important business necessities from harsh legislation and regulation, if they agree to support his medical insurance bill or other bills. They support it, and he reneges. 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:
|
|
PROTEST THE DESTRUCTION OF JEWISH HOMES IN BAT AYIN
Posted by AFSI, June 23, 2010. |
|
Dear AFSI friends, The destruction of homes and yeshivas and places holy to Jews is immoral, inhumane, and inexcusable. Israel expends its energies on destroying Jewish lives in a vain effort to appease its enemies. This is intolerable. Please write to PM Netanyahu protesting this wanton destruction. His email addresses are: memshala@pmo.gov.il; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; pm_en2@it.pmo.gov.il. While you are protesting this destruction, be sure to mention your opposition to plans to destroy the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar on July 4. The destruction of a Jewish home or three story brick building is equally reprehensible. The tragedy of a Jewish government destroying Jewish homes and communities is especially apparent today, as we approach the 5th anniversary, this Tisha B'Av, July 20, of the expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif/Gaza and the Shomrom, and the total destruction of their communities. The results of this abomination are the on-going suffering of the Jewish refugees from Gush Katif, and the bombing of Sderot, the 2nd Lebanon war, Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone report, and the continuing flotilla fiascos. The Israeli government must understand that each "sacrifice for peace" is another victory for Israel's enemies. This below was written by Nadia Matar of the Women in Green. Contact her at nmatar@netvision.net.il |
|
Reaction by Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) and the Judea Action Committee to this morning's destruction of two houses in Bat Ayin by tens of Yassam and police forces The murderers of policeman Yehoshua Sofer HY"D who was murdered by Arabs last week in the southern Hevron Hills were not caught yet, but that did not bother the police to allocate tens of troops to attack Jews. 
This Wednesday morning at 5:30am, tens of police and yassam forces arrived in "Mitzpe Erez", in the Jewish community of Bat Ayin, not with paintball guns as in the terror flotilla, but rather with batons and machine guns, and destroyed two houses that were built in the Bat Ayin forest after and in reaction to the murder of Erez Levanon HY"D. In a letter that the families wrote a few days ago when they heard that their houses were slated for destruction they say: 
"Our settling in the forest is not an irresponsible picnic by young couples who are looking to relax but rather a clear statement of growth and expansion at a place where the life of Erez Levanon HY"D was taken away cruelly and heinously, with the clear purpose of scaring us and paralyzing us so we should not dare to go out and expand. Our settling Mitzpe Erez is the one and real answer to all those who try to paralyze and silence us — whether it is the external enemy or the government, especially at a time of the "freeze" whose meaning is-the destruction of the settlement enterprise and is very dangerous for the future of the Jewish People". We, members of Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) and the Judea Action Committee strengthen the hands of our brothers in Bat Ayin and call upon the People of Israel to help rebuild the houses that were destroyed. That is exactly why we founded, a few months ago, the YIBANEH fund for building and expansion in the hills of Judea. The Yibaneh fund will donate, already this morning 5000NIS ($1250) for the rebuilding of Mitzpe Erez and we hope many more will join. With love for 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. Helen Freedman is Executive Director.
|
|
WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS? THE PJAK OR THE MEK
Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, June 23, 2010. |
|
Dear friends, Please read this article carefully. The future of U.S. Policy toward Iran, and toward the Iranian opposition, depends on understanding clearly who are our friends, and who are our enemies. The State Department was right to put the MEK on the terrorism list. Treasury was wrong to put PJAK (an Iranian Kurdish opposition group that is the biggest threat to the regime) on its list of "specially-designated nationals" for alleged terrorist ties.
|
|
PJAK is a danger only to the Islamic regime A bipartisan group of House members last week unveiled a resolution in support of the Iranian "resistance," a code word for an opposition group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) that has been on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations since its inception in the late 1980s. The MEK has a long record of carrying out violent attacks inside Iran. During the period leading up to the 1979 revolution, the group proudly murdered U.S. military officers and civilians working in Iran. And while the group's current leadership and its apologists claim that those attacks were carried out by a splinter group no longer associated with the MEK, eyewitnesses tell me that the MEK continued to celebrate the anniversary of those murders in ceremonies and song in their training camps inside Iraq all through the 1980s. In the power struggle that followed the 1979 revolution, the MEK actively promoted the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and planted a bomb that wiped out the leadership of the Islamic Republican Party led by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, arguably the last of the "moderate" leaders of the revolution. More recently, MEK operatives inside Iran have carried out hit-and-run terrorist attacks on regime officials and have planted bombs in urban areas that have randomly killed civilians. The MEK and its supporters call these attacks acts of "resistance" against the regime. Senior State Department officials have stated that their condemnation of the MEK's use of random violence against civilians stems from a desire not to use a "double standard" when it comes to terrorism. The MEK and its supporters claim that keeping the MEK on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations benefits the Iranian regime. Some even argue, incorrectly, that the group was placed on the list in 1994 by the Clinton administration as a sop to the regime. (While the Clinton folks kept the MEK on the list in hopes it would encourage a rapprochement with Tehran, the MEK was placed on the list years earlier). Contrast the MEK's record of random violence against civilians with the use of violence by the Free Life Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PJAK, a group that was designated by the Treasury Department as a terrorist organization in February 2009. PJAK guerrillas operate inside Iran in trained groups. Their primary mission is political: That is, they seek to spread a message that Iranian Kurds must abandon tribalism and traditional politics if they want to aspire to democratic self-governance. Indeed, at PJAK camps I visited in northern Iraq in October 2007, the emphasis was on the political indoctrination of new members, not military training. PJAK prides itself on its inclusiveness: More than 30 percent of its guerrilla fighters and leadership are women. PJAK makes no bones about its use of violence. Indeed, a Google search of the terms "PJAK attack" results in dozens of incidents in which PJAK guerrillas have attacked Iranian military targets and bases inside Iran. Almost all of these attacks have targeted the Revolutionary Guard Corps. But PJAK uses violence in defense of the Kurdish population, not as an instrument of terror against civilians. In contrast to the MEK, PJAK has never planted bombs in public areas or targeted regime officials for assassination. In an interview in Europe, PJAK Secretary General Abdulrahman Haj Ahmadi dismissed a recent claim by the Iranian regime to have captured a PJAK guerrilla fighter and dragged him through the streets of a Kurdish town. "This could not have happened because our fighters always operate in groups. They never go out alone," he said. In other words, when PJAK does engage in violence, it operates as an organized militia, not as a terrorist organization. PJAK suspended its military operations after last year's disputed presidential election in Iran, "to give the United States and Israel time to convince Turkey to end its growing strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr. Ahmadi told me. But after the execution of five Kurdish political prisoners by the regime on May 9, the group reluctantly resumed military operations, and in a single week, it claimed to have killed more than 100 Revolutionary Guards, many of them senior officers, in a series of coordinated military attacks against IRGC bases and outposts. Scores of PJAK political operatives are awaiting death sentences in Iranian jails for their role in organizing nonviolent protests over the past year. PJAK's effectiveness as a political organization and its selective use of violence in defense of the Kurdish population have prompted the Iranian regime to deem the group its main enemy. Through its Turkish ally, Tehran continues to insist that PJAK be banned in the United States and Europe and has received assistance from Interpol in arresting PJAK leaders in Europe. U.S. lawmakers would be wiser to demand that the Treasury Department drop its restrictions on PJAK, which is dedicated to a secular, democratic Iran, than to waste time on the MEK, a Marxist Islamist organization that not only uses terrorism as a political tactic but is widely discredited among ordinary Iranians because of its support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Removing PJAK from Treasury's list of "specially designated nationals" would not demonstrate a double standard toward terror, as some Obama administration officials claim. It would strike a blow at the very heart of the Iranian regime, which has never hesitated to use terror to achieve its ends at home and abroad. Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He
authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran"
and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction
books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at
www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at
timmerman.road@verizon.net
This article appeared yesterday in the Washington Times
|
|
THE HIGH PRICE OF COALITION STABILITY
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 22, 2010. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his colleagues are doing their best to put a pretty face on an ugly situation. After nearly three weeks of deliberations, Netanyahu and his government caved in to massive US pressure to ease, if not end, Israel's blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. On Sunday the government announced that all economic sanctions on Gaza will be immediately lifted. Henceforth, Hamas-controlled Gaza will have an effectively open economic border with Israel. Israel will only prohibit the transfer of military material. Even dual-use items, like cement, will be allowed in if international officials claim that they are to be used in their humanitarian projects. Netanyahu and his colleagues argue that these new concessions have now given Israel the international legitimacy it needs to maintain its naval blockade of the Gaza coast. But this is untrue. Even as he welcomed Netanyahu's latest capitulation, US President Barack Obama made clear that he expects Israel to continue making unreciprocated concessions to Hamas. Following the government's announcement, the White House declared, "We will work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Quartet and other international partners to ensure these arrangements are implemented as quickly and effectively as possible and to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank." In plain English that means that the administration doesn't trust Israel. It will escalate its pressure on Israel by among other things, pressuring it to provide members of the illegal Hamas regime in Gaza greater access to Judea and Samaria.
AS IF anticipating its next capitulation, government spokesmen told the media that in addition to ending economic sanctions on Gaza, Israel is now considering permitting the EU to station inspectors at its land crossings into Gaza. That is, Israel is considering a move that will constitute a first step towards surrendering its sovereign control over its borders. The economic sanctions the government is now cancelling were not simply legal, they were required by international law. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires states and non-state actors to deny support of any kind to terrorist organizations. And here, in a bid to win international "legitimacy" for its lawful blockade of Gaza, Israel has bowed to US pressure to unlawfully facilitate the economic prosperity of an area controlled by an illegal terrorist organization. There is something pathetic about the Prime Minister's office's protestations that by bowing to White House pressure the nations of the world will now accept our right to defend ourselves from an Iranian-controlled terrorist organization committed to the genocide of the Jewish people. After all, we have heard these hollow words many times before. This notion that unilateral Israeli capitulation to terrorists would bring Israel international "legitimacy" is of course how former prime minister Ariel Sharon justified his strategically indefensible decision to cede Gaza — and the international border between Gaza and Egypt — to Palestinian terrorists. If they attack us after we leave, he claimed, we'll have all the international support in the world to really destroy them. Today, the government argues, all we have to do is sell them spaghetti and cilantro and the international community will suddenly rally to our side. According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is the serial bungler. Ten years ago, he argued that his decision to relinquish Israel's security zone in south Lebanon to Hizbullah guaranteed that Israel would have international legitimacy to really take it to the Iranian proxy army if it dared to attack us after we left. Barak is also the deep strategic thinker who brought us the Palestinian terror war. Barak promised that if Yasser Arafat rejected his offer at Camp David and so demonstrated that his commitment to destroy the Jewish state trumped his interest in establishing a Palestinian state, that the international community would rally around Israel and we'd have all the international legitimacy we needed to defeat the PA. And in the lead-up to the Mavi Marmara fiasco, it was reportedly Barak who decided it would be a terrific idea to outfit the naval commandos with paintball guns. Doing so, he promised would convince the Obama administration to support Israel against Hamas. A key question that needs to be considered is what makes policymakers like Barak advance such colossally stupid and dangerous policies time after time. Israel's history since 1993, when then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and then foreign minister Shimon Peres opted to embrace Arafat and the PLO, bring thousands of PLO terrorists to the outskirts of Israel's major cities and give them weapons and international legitimacy indicates that three factors come into play. First there is the fact that many of Israel's leading politicians are simply not that smart. They are happy to be led by an ideologically radical media that have insisted since the 1980s that Israel must withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Not only are they happy to be led by the media, they are loath to dispute its misrepresentation of reality. And so the second cause of serial bungling on the part of politicians like Barak is that they are, in the end, sheep, not leaders.
THE FINAL major cause of Israel's strategic idiocy is corruption. On Monday morning, the police announced that they recommend indicting Sharon's sons Omri and Gilad Sharon for soliciting bribes on behalf of their father. After an eight-year investigation, the police said they believe that Sharon received $3 million in bribes from former Stasi-aligned Austrian banker Martin Schlaff. Schlaff, whose former attorney Dov Weisglass served as Sharon's chief of staff, was the majority share owner in the Jericho casino. He also reportedly intended to build another casino on the ruins of the destroyed Israeli community Elei Sinai in the northern Gaza Strip if and when Israel expelled its residents. There can be no doubt that Sharon's alleged corruption and his fear of the far-left legal fraternity that investigated his alleged corruption played a significant role in his decision to abandon his campaign pledge to voters, toss strategic sanity to the seven winds, expel ten thousand Israelis from their homes and transfer the Gaza Strip lock, stock and barrel to Hamas and Fatah terrorists. Like Sharon, Barak has been the subject of several corruption probes. Barak is also known to have had strong indirect connections to Schlaff. For instance, during his tenure as prime minister, Barak sent shock waves through the country when, with no prior warning, he announced that he was ceding Israel's rights to the natural gas deposits discovered off the Gaza shore. Barak's move precipitated a deal between the PA and British Gas to develop the gas deposits. Media reports exposed that Schlaff and Arafat's economic bag man Muhammed Rashid were major shareholders in British Gas. During his stint as a private citizen, in 2006 Barak sought to lobby Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin to permit Orascom, the Egyptian telecom provider, to expand its ten percent ownership share in Partner, Israel's second-largest cellular telephone company. Israeli law prohibits foreign entities from owning more than a ten percent share in Israeli telecommunications firms. Diskin refused to meet with him and banned the deal. Rashid and other Schlaff associates are reportedly major shareholders in Orascom. Barak and Sharon are only the tip of the iceberg. Schlaff's connections to Israeli politicians run far and wide. Most of the leading founders of Kadima, including Ehud Olmert and Haim Ramon have personal ties to Schlaff. So too does former Shas leader Aryeh Deri. The ongoing criminal probes against Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman include, among other things, investigations into his allegedly prolific business ties to Schlaff.
REGARDLESS OF whether these ties to agents of corruption are criminal or not, it is obvious that they have influenced the policy preferences of more than one major politician in Israel. And regardless of what stands behind his poor judgment, the fact is that it is this judgment that is driving Israel's strategic direction. It is also apparent, that Barak is being handsomely rewarded by the Obama administration for his actions. Barak is currently on yet another junket to Washington where he is being given the red carpet treatment. While the premier is forced to conduct international diplomacy with Quartet chairman Tony Blair, Barak is feted by the White House, State Department and Pentagon on a regular basis. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to end its public campaign to overthrow the Netanyahu government in exchange for Netanyahu's effective concession of control over national policy to Barak. Barak has used this control to force the government to accede to every American demand. So far, he has convinced Netanyahu to take a back seat to Obama on Iran; to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria at least until September; to effectively ban Jewish construction in northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem; to embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood; to accept US mediated indirect negotiations with Fatah; and to pretend that the Obama administration is a credible ally to Israel. Before heading to Washington, Barak reportedly gave Netanyahu an ultimatum: Either make massive concessions to Fatah that will allow Obama to claim victory in the peace process, or Labor will bolt the coalition. So too, Barak is reportedly behind Netanyahu's latest bid to bring Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni into his government. Netanyahu and his spokesmen defend both Barak's primacy in the government, and their interest in bringing Kadima into the coalition by noting that the Left's partnership ensures political stability. If Labor were to bolt from the coalition, the government would be less likely to survive until the next scheduled election in 2013. There is certainly truth to this assertion. With Labor inside the coalition, Kadima has no relevance. So too, rightist parties are unable to bring down the coalition. This would be a decisive argument if coalition stability enabled Netanyahu to govern more effectively. But the opposite is true. Netanyahu knows the folly of his decisions. He recognizes Obama's hostility to Israel. He also knows that the US president is not going to do a thing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Stability should be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Netanyahu did not seek the premiership to achieve the goal of overseeing a stable government. He sought to lead the country to secure and strengthen it. As his latest concession to Barak makes clear, the price of governing stability is the abandonment of his leadership goals.
Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com
|
|
TURKISH RUMORS ABOUT TURKS KILLED BY KURDS; IS ISRAEL'S EASING OF BLOCKADE A BLUNDER?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 22, 2010. |
|
OBAMA WANTS ANOTHER PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE, AT EXPENSE OF U.S. The Obama administration, in seconding the Quartet statement, referred to a "U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank." This commitment is backed by donations and pledges of tax funds surpassing a billion dollars (IMRA, 6/21/10). Why do those people of Gaza and Judea-Samaria "deserve" an independent state? What have they done to deserve anything, including our scarce tax revenue? They support terrorist dictatorships, dedicated to war, conquest, and genocide. They do this in behalf of a religious view that considers itself superior to others to the point of repressing other ones (not to mention its own people and women). They consider its followers exclusively entitled to the Mideast. They deem Christians bad and Jews sub-human. Hatred and violence are their norm. They not only betrayed Israeli offers of peace, they betrayed their hosts in Jordan, then Lebanon, and then Kuwait, trying to take over the first two countries and helping Saddam conquer the third. The punchline is that the Palestinian Arabs are anti-American. Their colleagues in jihad attack the U.S.. The U.S. used to be a country that punished murderers and acted in strategic self-defense. One must conclude that the Palestinian Arabs are among the most undeserving of people. Statehood would reward their 90 years of terrorism. It would punish their victims in Israel, of whom they have murdered thousands after and violating and rejecting peace agreements. It also would strengthen the forces of jihad against civilization. If they were a separate nationality, they might be entitled to a separate state, but they are part of the Arab nationality. Nor do they have as good a claim to the area as the Jewish people do. The Palestine Mandate and associated WWI peace treaties make that clear. Bear in mind that they already were given 79% of Palestine, which is known as Jordan. Sovereignty would not solve anything. How can it solve the problem, which is jihad, a drive to conquer the whole world and impose a version of Islam upon it? Worse, statehood would exacerbate existing problems. Sovereignty would confer the right to arm and to invite foreign armies inside, alongside Israel. Israeli retaliation against attacks emanating from the new state would be called an invasion, which the biased UN would condemn. Since the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) in both halves continues to preach and promote terrorism, the new Arab state would continue to permit terrorist attacks on Israel. The new state would disclaim responsibility, and get the UN to condemn retaliation. If President Obama wants to encourage war, genocide, and strengthen the forces of jihad against the U.S., he is deploying our tax dollars and diplomacy the right way.
TIMES SQ. BOMBER PLEADS GUILTY Suspect Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to all 10 counts in the attempted bombing of Times Square, New York. Unapologetic, he portrayed himself as a soldier of Islam fighting against those who kill Muslims. This portrayal depicted the current U.S. wars as wars on Muslims. He admitted being helped by the Taliban of Pakistan (Benjamin Weiser, NY Times, 6/22/10, A1). He identifies himself as a "soldier of Islam." No patriotism. This indicates a problem in immigration, Americanization, and Pakistan. Shahzad perceives the U.S. wars as being against Islam. The war in Iraq started with Saddam invading another country, trying to capture the world's main oil sources, committing genocide, developing weapons of mass-destruction, and violating Security Resolutions intended to restrict proliferation of nuclear weapons. That was not a war on Muslims but to defend ourselves, and in doing so, to protect some Muslims from others. The war in Afghanistan was triggered by 9/11, though al-Qaida and allied jihadists had been attacking U.S. facilities for some time. Apparently the "soldier of Islam" does not recognize non-Muslim self-defense. Neither does he recognize that the jihad he fought for oppresses and attacks Muslims more than do non-Muslims. Saddam was wiping out the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq and the Muslim Kurds in northern Iraq. Muslims are bombing each other all over. Not that he seems to care. The guilty plea spares us the great expense, risk, and distraction of a trial, especially expensive and risky in Manhattan. The newspaper referred to Shahzad as a "suspect." When the suspect confesses, should it be
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON AIDING TERRORISM, AND FLOTILLA The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on aiding terrorist groups. The issue was drawn narrowly. The justices were split. The Court as a whole recognized the infringement on freedom of speech, but felt that terrorism is an immediate threat to life warranting a crackdown on those who support terrorist organizations. The support in this case was teaching terrorist groups how to reach their objectives by making peace. The case and case law are complex. The ruling was not sweeping. The overall rule is that "material support" for a designated terrorist organization is prohibited. The principle is that helping the organization helps terrorism, even if the nature of that help is not itself facilitating a particular terrorist act. On the other hand, each type of indirect help may have to be interpreted judicially to see whether it qualifies as assisting terrorism (Adam Liptak, NY Times, 6/22/10, A1). International terrorists use both violence and diplomacy in an attempt to impose dictatorship. Helping them negotiate is helping their criminal goals and reinforcing their criminal means. By that standard, was the flotilla legal or illegal? The purpose of the flotilla was to end the legal Israeli blockade, imposed to keep weapons from terrorists, by running the blockade and embarrassing Israel in the media. That makes the flotilla illegal. People claimed that the purpose was humanitarian, to bring goods in. But the goods could have been sent in legally from Israel. The presence of goods on the ship was a cover for the real purpose. The ship was used by Islamists to provoke a battle, which the media could be depended on to misinterpret against Israel. Israel could be depended on to get the truth out too slowly to affect the general mis-impression that most governments want disseminated. The Islamists aboard are terrorists. Their presence was illegal. Not fully proved but reasonably suspected on the basis of evidence is Turkish governmental collusion with the Islamists aboard. To be an accomplice of terrorism is illegal.
ISRAELI OFFICIALS CONTRADICT OWN GOVERNMENT Two high-ranking Israeli officials contradicted or made difficulties for their own government. The Israeli Ambassador to Michael Oren referred to Jonathan Pollard, convicted of transferring U.S. secret documents about the Arabs to Israel, as having been in a rogue operation. He did say that, after 25 years in prison, Israel would welcome Pollard's release. That statement, however, implies, if you think about it, that Israel has not been trying to get Pollard released. Years ago, the government of Israel recognized that Pollard was not in a rogue operation. Actually, the governments of Israel have not been trying to get Pollard released. They have behaved as if trying to keep him in prison, so he could not embarrass them over their complicity in his spying and in covering it up. He is discreet, but they are afraid. Nor have they much conscience over a fellow Jew and Israeli. (He has dual citizenship, and his information probably saved thousands of Israeli lives from Saddam.) Pollard was given a disproportionate sentence, by means of breaking the plea bargain with him. He also was mistreated in prison as badly as anyone in Abu Graib. Defense Secretary Barak reinforced U.S. complaints about the Jerusalem Mayor's plan to convert part of the Silwan neighborhood into an archeological park, legalize one Jewish and 66 illegal Arab buildings and demolish 22 other illegal Arab buildings. Barak said the plan lacks common sense and a sense of timing. The U.S. appears poised to raise an outcry over this exercise of Israeli sovereignty in its capital, and Barak's remarks would reinforce the outcry (Arutz-7, 6/22/10). Both of those officials are leftists. Leftists undermine rival regimes of Israel. Barak is suspected of plotting with the White House to displace Netanyahu. Upon his return from a visit with Obama, he immediately called for expanding the ruling coalition, which would hem Netanyahu in between avowed leftists. Since the coalition is stable, the only reason for Barak's call is to change Israeli policy to one the Israeli Left and the State Dept. would prefer. Barak, who is defense Minister, oddly has authority over building in Judea-Samaria. He abuses his authority to please his radical left supporters at the expense of others. He does not resolve disputes over the legality of Jews' houses, but has them torn down. Most Arabs' illegal houses he does not enforce demolition orders against. Netanyahu would be wise to expel these officials from his government.
U.S. TRAVEL ADVISORIES FOR JUDEA-SAMARIA AND JERUSALEM The U.S. State Dept. has issued travel advisories for Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem. It prohibits its employees, unless authorized for some mission, not to travel at night on highway 443, recently re-opened to Arab traffic, lest they be victimized by sporadic terrorist attacks. Also, in reaction to terrorist attacks, Israeli security forces may close off certain highways without notice. Highway 443 is a major link between Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion Airport and Tel Aviv. Since the highway was reopened to Arabs, Arabs have thrown rocks at presumed Jews. The same State Dept. prohibition applies to Judea-Samaria and to Jerusalem's Old City at night and between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Fridays, the peak of the Muslim Sabbath. Israel's many goodwill gestures of removing roadblocks often have been followed not by goodwill but by shootings. U.S. training of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police to fight against terrorism has not eradicated terrorism. [Even if the police were deployed against terrorism, the P.A. indoctrinates its people in terrorism, providing a steady supply.] Roadblocks and checkpoints were removed at the behest of the U.S., although it is not suggested that the subsequent shootings were done at the behest of the U.S.. [The U.S. was warned that shootings would follow, but did not care.] Earlier shootings were the reason for the roadblocks in the first place. The State Dept. warning reads, in part, "U.S. citizens have been killed, seriously injured, or detained and deported as a result of encounters with IDF operations in Gaza and the West Bank." This implies that it is the result of IDF encounters with Americans (Arutz-7, 6/22/10). The IDF does not attack Americans. But some of the people attacked by Arab terrorists are Americans. One time it must have been deliberate, when U.S. officials went in a clearly marked convoy in Gaza. The specific daytime prohibition in the Old City must be because Muslims often tear out of their Friday holy services to become "holy terrors."
LEBANESE FLOTILLA SPONSOR SPOUTS JIHAD The sponsor of the Lebanese flotilla, Yasser Qashlak, a Palestinian Arab, spouts jihadist sentiment. One statement was, "Even if our leaders sign peace agreements, we will not respect them. Our children will return to Palestine." He also said that the Israelis' homelands are in Europe, No wonder some people call this a confrontation flotilla! (IMRA, 6/22/10.) No peace, just mass-expulsion. Actually, that is what the Arabs attempted more than once, before. The first big attempt resulted in an Arab flight. Apparently, the Lebanese flotilla sponsor wants to attempt mass-expulsion of the Jews, again. Mr. Qashlak may not even know that half the Israeli families were refugees from Arab oppression and expulsion. The other half also originated in Judea and Israel. He also may not know that three fourths of the Arab families in Israel and the Territories have no roots there before the mass-migration of modern Zionism. The rest were deposited either in the course of conquering the Christians and Jews or by transfer from the Caucasus part of the Turkish Empire. If he knew Jewish history, he would know that Europe cannot digest Jews, although Jews are capable of assimilating where the country is tolerant. The question remains open whether Muslims are capable of assimilating where the country is tolerant, or will they try to take it over. Muslim leaders in Europe have made statements about taking over there and imposing radical Islam upon the native population. A reader insists he is not anti-Jewish but suggests that the Arabs and Jews form a single country in Israel and the Territories. If his plan does not include the descendants of Arab refugees, it would bring into Israel extensive terrorism. If his plan does include the refugee descendants, they would take over Israel. Then that people imbued with the need for vengeance, would expel or murder all the Jews. Sounds more like the "final solution" than a real solution. And he calls Zionists Nazi-like?
OFFICIAL ISRAELI REACTION TO AMBASSADOR'S MISSTATEMENT ON POLLARD Israeli Ambassador Oren more or less retracted his statement that Jonathan Pollard spied for a rogue Israeli operation. PM Netanyahu stated outright that Pollard worked for the government of Israel. When Netanyahu was seeking to get back into power, he said he would do what he could to get Pollard released. Since climbing back into power, he has refused to meet representatives of Pollard. He has not asked the President of the U.S. to release Pollard. He was promised support from Members of Congress, if he did (IMRA, 6/22/10). The U.S. breach of its plea bargain with Pollard, its keeping him some years in a mental ward, and naked on a cold stone floor, and in solitary confinement, and without medical treatment of certain illnesses that have been progressing, and his disproportionate sentence make him a political prisoner. The customary sentence would have been fair enough. The way the U.S. treated this person who broke our laws but did not harm the U.S. and who was not charged with harming the U.S., is in itself unjust. For all the supposed clannishness of Jews, most American Jewish leaders fail to raise the issue in their meetings with the President. The head of the Zionist Organization of America once did so, and pointedly was not invited back. There were rumors that Pollard had harmed the U.S., but those were smears. Other spies had actually assisted the North Vietnamese when at war with the U.S. and had assisted the Soviets to liquidate some of our agents. The indignation with which Pollard was met was disproportionate, too. The U.S. regularly spies on Israel. Hypocrisy renders indignation hollow.
CANADA ADDS SANCTIONS ON IRAN The government of Canada added its own sanctions on Iran. These deal with uranium and other matters. Canada explains what sort of regime the sanctions were imposed upon and why. Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust, but propose one of their own, against Israel. They defrauded their country's election and murder "freedom-seeking Iranians just for aspiring to live in a free society." We must not just wait for the terrorist regime to gain nuclear weapons. Canada urges the G8 and G20 summits it is hosting to work together with Canada on this (IMRA, 6/22/10). The most effective sanctions would involve petro-fuel shipments and banking facilities. On those, China, among others, refuses to cooperate. Wall St. Journal columnist Gerald F. Seib considers China's vote for Security Council sanctions and letting its currency float against the dollar as victories for Obama. But he noted that the float and sanctions are minor, and get China off the hook. Then it is not a victory but stalling until Iran gets nuclear weapons.
TURKISH RUMORS ABOUT TURKS KILLED BY KURDS The Kurdish rebellion against Turkey both from Iran and within Turkey has ramped up, lately. The Kurds claim that Turkey broke its promises of reconciliation. In any case, recently, 12 Turkish troops were killed at a border post and a barracks. Rumors flew, attributing the deaths to the U.S. withholding intelligence and to alleged Israeli assistance to the Kurds. Both Turkey and the U.S. denied any withholding of intelligence (Mark Champion, Wall St. J., 6/22/10, A13). How unfortunate to find Turkey prey to wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories regardless of facts and of probabilities. Neither the U.S. nor Israel wants to harm Turkish soldiers. The last thing either country would want is to take on a country as powerful as Turkey, for no benefit, and at the expense of any hope of restoring the alliance with Turkey. The U.S. already is over-committed and trying to slip out of commitments. Israel has enough enemies. Other wild conspiracy theories about Israel come from my own readers. When I asserted that Israel does not attack Americans, one reader said it does, naming Rachel Corrie, the dual-citizen Turk on the flotilla, and "peaceful demonstrators" in Judea-Samaria. He calls someone who differs with him a liar. To lie, one has to know one's point is mistaken. My articles have explained that Rachel Corrie was not attacked. She fell under a bulldozer whose driver could not see her attempt to prevent him from clearing an area terrorists fire from. The Turk, whose dual American citizenship was incidental to the situation was not attacked. My articles have cited extensive evidence that the Islamists planned to attack the Israeli commandos, and did. Other articles explained that the anti-security fence protesters become riotous and attack the troops with rocks. Some non-violence! The troops usually defend themselves with riot-control methods. Since that reader is diligent about examining my articles, he knows their content in this, and he hasn't produced evidence to the contrary. Then it isn't he who should call someone else a liar.
IRANIAN SHIPPING NEWS, UN SANCTIONS, AND GAZA EMBARGO Iran indicated that it was sending more aid through the sea embargo of Gaza. It states that the pair of ships will not have a military escort. Iran's Navy indicated that if its parliament passes a law require it to inspect the ships of countries that inspect Iranian ships, it is ready to do so (IMRA, 6/22/10). No military escort, less chance of war. Now that Israel is letting through just about all civilian goods, there is no need for Iran to try to run the blockade. Its purpose is more obviously to try to get the blockade ended, so Iran, caught trying to smuggle war material in, could ship it in without its ship being confiscated by Israel. Iran is the country that claims its nuclear development is peaceful, too. Turkey showed how to induce pressure to end the embargo — you tell people they will go to Paradise if they start a fight with Israeli boarders and get killed in the process. Then the world condemns not those who initiate the violence but those who quell it. That is the power of scapegoating. Inspecting ships because its own ships are inspected sounds like the childish tit-for-tat done by diplomats, when one country expels those from another, and then the other country retaliates in kind but without cause. Incidentally, during WWII, the two sides usually observed diplomatic immunity. At the outbreak of war, they let most diplomats return home, and interned the rest, but respected their persons. Post-Shah Iran did not respect diplomatic immunity, when it captured the U.S. embassy and held its personnel captive. Neither did Arafat, when he gave his PLO men an order to execute the U.S. ambassador and another U.S. diplomat, after capturing a U.S. embassy in Africa. Terrorists do not respect basic law of civilization.
IS ISRAEL'S EASING OF BLOCKADE A BLUNDER? Is Israel's easing of the blockade of Gaza a blunder? The easing was authorized to appease world public opinion. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) cites Donald Kagan's On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace as determining that in the past 3,000 years, appeasement has been tried often but never worked. Appeasement certainly does not work for Israel. When Israel makes a concession, its opponents claim a victory and call that concession a first step, demand more concessions, and offer nothing of their own. Thus the increase in goods for Gaza is called a victory and used as precedent for demanding more of Israel. The concession is like a reward for the flotilla. Some parties, such as Tony Blair, complained that Israel's attempt at goodwill wasn't enough. Exchanging concessions for complaints is a poor way to relieve pressure. By weakening the embargo, as the world wants, Israel strengthens the Hamas regime and takes a greater risk that more material will be diverted from Gaza civilians to Hamas. Hamas stands for dispossession and genocide (6/22/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member). Incidentally, a reader denied my contention that Pollard did not spy against the U.S.. I contend a difference between spying on and spying against. Soviets spied against the U.S., because the information they gathered was used against the U.S.. Pollard spied on the U.S., because the documents he copied involved Arab military movements are were used for Israeli security and not against the U.S.. 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 AND THE SURRENDER OF THE WEST
Posted by Reifenberg, Fred, June 22, 2010. |
|
This was written by Shelby Steele and in appeared yesterday in the Wall Street Journal as an Opinion piece. Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It's nothing more than history repeating. We don't learn, because life doesn't work like that We're all programmed like SHEOPLE. |
|
One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again. The most interesting voice in all the fallout surrounding the Gaza flotilla incident is that sanctimonious and meddling voice known as "world opinion." At every turn "world opinion," like a school marm, takes offense and condemns Israel for yet another infraction of the world's moral sensibility. And this voice has achieved an international political legitimacy so that even the silliest condemnation of Israel is an opportunity for self-congratulation. Rock bands now find moral imprimatur in canceling their summer tour stops in Israel (Elvis Costello, the Pixies, the Gorillaz, the Klaxons). A demonstrator at an anti-Israel rally in New York carries a sign depicting the skull and crossbones drawn over the word "Israel." White House correspondent Helen Thomas, in one of the ugliest incarnations of this voice, calls on Jews to move back to Poland. And of course the United Nations and other international organizations smugly pass one condemnatory resolution after another against Israel while the Obama administration either joins in or demurs with a wink. Bret Stephens discusses Iran's nuclear program and ambitions. Also, James Freeman talks about the financial reform's effects on small businesses and small banks. This is something new in the world, this almost complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations. And if Helen Thomas's remarks were pathetic and ugly, didn't they also point to the end game of this isolation effort: the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation? There is a chilling familiarity in all this. One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again. "World opinion" labors mightily to make Israel look like South Africa looked in its apartheid era — a nation beyond the moral pale. And it projects onto Israel the same sin that made apartheid South Africa so untouchable: white supremacy. Somehow "world opinion" has moved away from the old 20th century view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a complicated territorial dispute between two long-suffering peoples. Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people. Israel announces it's partially lifting its land blockade of Gaza. The move follows international criticism of the Jewish state after last month's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship bound for Palestinian territory. Video courtesy of Reuters. This is now — figuratively in some quarters and literally in others — the moral template through which Israel is seen. It doesn't matter that much of the world may actually know better. This template has become propriety itself, a form of good manners, a political correctness. Thus it is good manners to be outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza, and it is bad manners to be outraged at Hamas's recent attack on a school because it educated girls, or at the thousands of rockets Hamas has fired into Israeli towns — or even at the fact that Hamas is armed and funded by Iran. The world wants independent investigations of Israel, not of Hamas. One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past — racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on. When the Israeli commandos boarded that last boat in the flotilla and, after being attacked with metal rods, killed nine of their attackers, they were acting in a world without the moral authority to give them the benefit of the doubt. By appearances they were shock troopers from a largely white First World nation willing to slaughter even "peace activists" in order to enforce a blockade against the impoverished brown people of Gaza. Thus the irony: In the eyes of a morally compromised Western world, the Israelis looked like the Gestapo. This, of course, is not the reality of modern Israel. Israel does not seek to oppress or occupy — and certainly not to annihilate — the Palestinians in the pursuit of some atavistic Jewish supremacy. But the merest echo of the shameful Western past is enough to chill support for Israel in the West. The West also lacks the self-assurance to see the Palestinians accurately. Here again it is safer in the white West to see the Palestinians as they advertise themselves — as an "occupied" people denied sovereignty and simple human dignity by a white Western colonizer. The West is simply too vulnerable to the racist stigma to object to this "neo-colonial" characterization. Our problem in the West is understandable. We don't want to lose more moral authority than we already have. So we choose not to see certain things that are right in front of us. For example, we ignore that the Palestinians — and for that matter much of the Middle East — are driven to militancy and war not by legitimate complaints against Israel or the West but by an internalized sense of inferiority. If the Palestinians got everything they want — a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon — they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man. And the quickest cover for inferiority is hatred. The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity — no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity. In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem. This must have much to do with why Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's famous Camp David offer of 2000 in which Israel offered more than 90% of what the Palestinians had demanded. To have accepted that offer would have been to forgo hatred as consolation and meaning. Thus it would have plunged the Palestinians — and by implication the broader Muslim world — into a confrontation with their inferiority relative to modernity. Arafat knew that without the Jews to hate an all-defining cohesion would leave the Muslim world. So he said no to peace. And this recalcitrance in the Muslim world, this attraction to the consolations of hatred, is one of the world's great problems today — whether in the suburbs of Paris and London, or in Kabul and Karachi, or in Queens, N.Y., and Gaza. The fervor for hatred as deliverance may not define the Muslim world, but it has become a drug that consoles elements of that world in the larger competition with the West. This is the problem we in the West have no easy solution to, and we scapegoat Israel — admonish it to behave better — so as not to feel helpless. We see our own vulnerability there. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see his graphic art. |
|
U.S. TAX MONEY FUNDING TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN
Posted by Susana K-M, June 22, 2010. |
|
This is called "Congressional Report: U.S. tax money funding Taliban in Afghanistan." It was written by Nancy A. Youssef. "Sobering and shocking", investigation, released Monday, subject of subcommittee hearing today Private security contractors protecting the convoys that supply U.S. military bases in Afghanistan are paying millions of dollars a week in "passage bribes" to the Taliban and other insurgent groups to travel along Afghan roads, a congressional investigation released Monday has found. The payments, which are reimbursed by the U.S. government, help fund the very enemy the U.S. is attempting to defeat and renew questions about the U.S. dependence on private contractors, who outnumber American troops in Afghanistan, 130,000 to 93,000. The report's author called the findings of the six-month investigation "sobering and shocking." "This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others," wrote Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., the chairman of the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. "Not only does the system run afoul of the (Defense) Department's own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan." Concerns over whether U.S. contracting is fueling Afghanistan's rampant corruption have existed for years, but only earlier this month did Michele Flournoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, establish a task force in Afghanistan to investigate the effects. Maj. John Redfield, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Afghanistan, said, "We take these accusations seriously." The subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing into its investigation Tuesday. Nearly every company listed in the report is associated with senior Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, the minister of defense, a provincial governor and a senior Afghan army official. One of those companies, Host Nation Trucking, transports about 70 percent of all goods to U.S. troops stationed at 200 bases and combat outposts throughout Afghanistan, running 6,000 to 8,000 delivery missions a month. The $2.16 billion contract called on HNT truckers to provide their own security, but didn't call for any oversight into how HNT and other companies did that. The investigation found that HNT has contracted with seven other companies to carry the cargo, but only one of those actually owns trucks. The others hire local Afghans, whose trucks sometimes bear the U.S. flag. The truckers pay as much as $1,500 a truck to "nearly every Afghan governor, police chief and local military unit whose territory the company passed," en route to a U.S. base, according to the 79-page report. The report interviewed a major who sat in on a May 2009 meeting between the military and an HNT contractor about goods transported in Paktika province. The contractor complained that he was paying $150,000 a month to get supplies to Forward Operating Base Sharana. Tierney said he was unable to determine how much was spent on such payments, but he said it could reach millions a week. The report alleges that neither the contactors nor the military know specifically how the trucks arrive safely at bases when many of the country's roads are regular targets of Taliban attacks. The report quoted e-mails, PowerPoint presentations and meeting notes of HNT officials alerting local military commanders to the problem but the report found the military did little in response. "The Department of Defense has been largely blind to potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting. U.S. military logisticians have little visibility into what happens to their trucks on the road and virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided," the report found. (Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.) Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
URGENT ACTION TO PROTEST DESTRUCTION OF OD YOSEF CHAI YESHIVA
Posted by AFSI, June 22, 2010. |
|
Dear Fellow Jews: We cannot let a yeshiva/shul in Israel be destroyed. Allow me to explain. By Rabbi Pesach Lerner,
The following article appeared on Arutz Sheva news on Sunday, May 9, 2010: |
|
The IDF's Civilian Administration issued a demolition order Sunday against the spacious building that houses Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Yitzhar, in Samaria. Local residents believe that authorities are purposely punishing the yeshiva because of a confrontation with the IDF that took place on Independence Day, and also because security forces hold the yeshiva's students responsible for various attacks against Arabs in recent months and years, including the burning of a carpet in a mosque at the nearby village of Yassuf. "It turns out that the authorities are making special efforts to hurt the yeshiva in an unfair and vindictive way," a yeshiva spokesman said Sunday. "It should be noted that the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution." The destruction order, the residents said, cited an 11 year old work-stoppage order — one that they had never heard of until now. The building took years to build and cost over $1 million. Dear friends, the yeshiva administration, the regional councils, etc., are all challenging this destructive order. Individuals within the government are asking questions, but we have a responsibility to do all that we can to ensure that this order gets overturned. We must publicly urge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to forcefully and publically rescind this order. We cannot sit back and allow a yeshiva, a beautiful center of Torah and Tefillah, to be destroyed. Each of us must send daily emails, send daily faxes, and make daily phone calls to the Prime Minister of Israel protesting this inconceivable action. People need to send letters to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC and to the Israeli Consulate in New York. We must demand that our community organizations, our rabbis, our entire community, speak out. We cannot allow this Chilul Hashem, this desecration of G-d's name, to take place. Please send an email, send a fax, and make a call, now. Tell the Prime Minister to protect the yeshiva building in Yitzhar and prevent it from being destroyed. Contact Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at: Telephone 011-972-2-670-5532 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary of the Israel government) 011-972-2-675-3227 011-972-2-640-8457 Fax (send to all three numbers) — 011-972-2-563-2580 (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary of the Israel government) 011-972-2-670-5369 011-972-2-649-6659 Email (send to all three email addresses) — memshala@pmo.gov.il (attention: Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary of the Israel government) bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) For the contact information of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC or the consulate office nearest to you, please click here. Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman is Executive Director. |
|
THREE DAYS IN CHEVRON
Posted by Alyse Lichtenfeld, June 22, 2010. |
|
It was way back in January when my parents asked if I would be interested in extending my eighth-grade Schechter Israel trip for an extra week, the additional time to include several days in Chevron volunteering at the preschool gan. Of course they knew I would say yes — I had helped out I realized that this wasn't like a Sunday barbeque on my grandparents' condominium balcony in Highland Park. at the gan last year while my parents toured Chevron for a day. But this time I wouldn't be returning to our hotel in Jerusalem. This time I would be staying alone in Chevron. As the rest of the Schechter class prepared for a Sunday morning departure to the airport, my friend, Sarah, a new Olah from Chicago, met me at the Lev Yerushalayim Hotel. I said goodbye to my eighth-grade classmates and Sarah and I proceeded to the central bus station where we boarded the bus to Chevron. It took about an hour until the bus crossed from Kiryat Arba into the Jewish section of Chevron. Sarah had never been to Chevron before so my dad provided me with the instructions. I was to get off at the stop by the Maarat HaMachpela, walk into the Gutnick Center snack shop and call the preschool director to take me to the gan. Naturally, I didn't follow Dad's instructions and instead, got off at Beit Hadassah, confident that I would recall the way to the gan by memory after last year's visit. I could only imagine what my parents were thinking when I woke them up at 2 a.m. Chicago time and told them that Sarah and I were lost. After a few minutes of phone time, I tried to re-collect my bearings. I looked ahead into what seemed like an Arab neighborhood and then quickly decided to head back toward the bus stop. All the time, I kept peering toward the dusty side streets until I finally got to the point where the surroundings appeared familiar. That's when I worked up the courage to ask the first person I saw, "Eich magi'im l'gan yeladim?" I must have understood his response because a couple of minutes later, Sarah and I heard the shouts of young children. I hustled to the next corner and there was thegan. Chevron security director Yoni Bleichard met me downstairs and took my luggage to his office where he e-mailed my parents to let them know I had arrived. He brought me to the gan and I immediately began working with the preschool kids, reading stories, making Shavuot decorations, serving lunch and constantly improving my Hebrew. The children are so cute and friendly. The girls, especially, liked to play with my hair and would constantly surround me and pose for pictures. It was just the way I remembered it from last year. I handed out thirty packages of stickers which I had brought from Chicago. It felt good to bring gifts from the U.S. After school, Rebbetzin Batsheva Cohen from Chabad brought me to her house. She told me to take the baby stroller along with her four-year-old son and his two friends and walk to the Beit Hadassah to pick up the Cohen's baby. We passed many Chevron residents along the streets, both Jewish and Arab, but I was already becoming comfortable traveling alone and remembered the way around without a problem. I returned to the rebbetzin's house with baby Menucha Rachel and then helped prepare dinner. After we finished eating, the Cohens showed me the apartment where I would be staying. My dad had told me that I would living at the bnei sherut girls' dormitory with Israeli girls who were doing volunteer service in Chevron. But it turned out that there were no other girls there that week and I had the entire apartment to myself. I admit to being a little scared at first, but the building was located right next to the Cohens and the gan. Still, I could tell my parents were shocked when I called them at 4 p.m. Chicago time to tell them I was alone for the night. The next morning, I arrived at the gan at 8:30. I saw some of the kids in the five and six-yearold class who remembered me from last year. But my favorite age is the three and four-year-old group and I was glad to have this assignment. The girls are so cute and friendly. The boys, of course, are completely wild, fighting with each other and pretending they're in the army, but that's the reality of life in Chevron which is surrounded by IDF soldiers ensuring that the Jewish community is safe. After the gan closed for the day, I rode in the preschool van and went to Yoni's house. Yoni and Rabbi Hochbaum were actually at my house in Highland Park last year and Yoni had told me that he had a daughter who was my age. Yoni's daughter showed me around for a while and we made Shavuot treats for the soldiers stationed in Chevron. Every week, the community honors the soldiers with treats and pizza. I've seen ladies handing out tiny Tehillim books to the soldiers on my other visits. It's obvious that the Chevron residents support and appreciate all of the soldiers. After leaving the Bleichards, I returned to the Cohen's house where I spent the next few hours on their rooftop patio cooking eggplants for dinner. As I prepared the food, I could hear Arab prayer calls bellowing loudly in the background. It made me realize that this wasn't like a Sunday barbeque on my grandparents' condominium balcony in Highland Park. After dinner, I returned to my apartment and just relaxed on the bed as I listened to music and scanned for radio stations on my I-pod. I made sure to call my parents and let them know how the day went before finally falling asleep at midnight. The next morning was Erev Shavuot. The gan was closed so Rebbetzin Cohen had me take her children to the Avraham Avinu playground. I began thinking to myself and felt proud and responsible, knowing that for the past few days the Cohens had entrusted their young children with me, an eight-grader, whom they had never before met. It's such a different feeling being 5000 miles away from the overprotective atmosphere of the Chicago suburbs. As I watched the Chevron children playing and running through the streets and courtyards, I saw some of the boys and girls displaying the stickers that I handed out on Sunday. The kids were so cute and vivacious! After bringing back the Cohen's children, I got cleaned up and got ready to leave. There were just four days left in my one-week extension and I still had friends and family to visit in other cities. I put my stuff in Rebbetzin Cohen's car and she drove me through Chevron's winding streets to the Gutnick Center. Peering out of the window, I couldn't believe that I had found the way to the gan on my own last Sunday. I know classmates who aren't even allowed to cross busy streets near their homes. But in Israel, kids seem to grow up faster. It's something I've noticed on all my previous trips. We arrived at the Gutnick Center and waited for my family friend, Yahel, to drive me to Kibbutz Erez near Sderot for Shavuot. As we stood near the tree-lined grounds by the gift shop, I could see the Maarat HaMachpela just a few hundred feet in the background. I looked toward the old stone steps next to the ancient building. On our first visit to Chevron, my dad explained that those were the seven steps, beyond which Jews were never allowed to pray. Yet, I had been fortunate enough to have entered the Maarat HaMachpela two different times. I've even met a man that actually went into the cave in 1967. As Yahel's blue car pulled up, I thought about how Avraham purchased the caves and the very field upon which I was standing. I know that is why Jews still live here. I was glad that my parents, the Chevron community and the people from the Chevron Fund helped arrange my stay and I'm looking forward to my next visit to Israel and another chance to come to Chevron and work in the preschool gan.
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.
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: A PARTIAL SURRENDER?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 21, 2010. |
|
For supporters of Israel, it was exceedingly difficult to read the news that the Israeli government has reversed itself with regard to restrictions on items going through land crossings into Gaza. Now all civilian goods will be permitted through, with only weapons and "war supporting materiel" being blocked. Being cute, one government representative announced, "Yes to coriander, no to Kassams." This decision was made by the Septet, or (inner) Security Cabinet. The most difficult part of the announcement concerned the fact that it was made with the cooperation of Tony Blair, envoy to the Middle East for the Quartet. Blair, it was said, vetted the announcement. As if we have surrendered our sovereignty (have we?) and require the approval of the Quartet for what we do. ~~~~~~~~~~ Before we come to that conclusion, I'd like to take a closer look. The situation is extremely tense and complex: The original restrictions on what went into Gaza had a dual purpose. One, most definitely, was keeping weapons and materiel that could be used in making weapons and bunkers for weapons (fertilizer, concrete, etc.) out of the hands of Hamas. The other, however, was to weaken Hamas, which is an illegitimate terrorist entity at our border, by restricting certain items. Thus, in the main, what went through the crossings were basic goods that filled humanitarian needs: medicines, basic foods, fuels, etc. Sufficient quantities of these items went in so there truly was not the humanitarian crisis we have been charged with creating. All in all, close to a ton of goods per person was permitted into Gaza between the end of Cast Lead, our military operation in late 2008 and early 2009, and recent weeks. Other specialty items went in as well. I've written about this over time: Glass to repair windows before winter, salt for operating water purifiers, large numbers of cattle to be slaughtered prior to a holiday, etc. But luxury items, such as gourmet foods or high-end furniture — which would serve primarily the Hamas people who had generous funds at their disposal — and certain commercial items — which would increase the money those same Hamas people had — were not permitted in. It is not true that no commercial items went in. Certain basic items for those in need went in via humanitarian, or NGO, groups. World Food Bank, UN, etc. But the PA (yes, you read this correctly) also coordinated the needs of commercial vendors, supplying lists of what they required to supply the market. Now all commercial and luxury items will be let in, with the noted weapons-related exceptions. ~~~~~~~~~~ What this means is that the Security Cabinet has given up on trying to weaken Hamas via this method. There is no question but that this action will strengthen Hamas — both in terms of goods and financial gain, and in prestige because this will be touted as a moral victory over Israel. The charge is going to be made, I have no doubt, that if we could do this now we could have done this all along and that we were hurting the people of Gaza unnecessarily or arbitrarily. I hope that what I've written here makes it clear that this is not the case. We had very specific goals in mind with regard to weakening Hamas, and those were legitimate goals. What has happened is that the goals, or the strategy, has shifted. ~~~~~~~~~~ The question, then, is why the shift. It is related directly and most obviously to the entire flotilla situation — a situation that is hardly resolved. Since the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, we have maintained a sea blockade of Gaza. This is legal according to international law, and a legitimate way to defend ourselves. We are at war with Hamas, which fires missiles and rockets at our civilian population. A key way to bring in those missiles and rockets would be via the Mediterranean. Anyone who doubts that this is a viable means of bringing in weapons, along with and actually more effective than the use of tunnels between Gaza and the Sinai, need only recall the Karine-A weapons ship the IDF captured in 2002. That ship was carrying weapons for the PA, which then controlled Gaza. But consider what it was carrying: $100 million in arms, including rockets, missiles, anti-tank mines, 700,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, etc. We have no intention of allowing a Karine-A type vessel to successfully make it to the shores of Gaza. In fact, neither do we intend to allow smaller quantities of weaponry (more sophisticated than what was available in 2002) to be smuggled in the holds of ships that reach Gaza. Actually, I suspect that it is necessary to stop ships bound for Gaza while out in international waters (it's legal). For we have the lessons of the Karine-A: Its weaponry was packed in waterproof containers, so that the military equipment could be thrown overboard and then picked up, piecemeal, by small fishing vessels. ~~~~~~~~~~ For all the recent ballyhoo about bringing humanitarian aid, the purpose of the flotilla was clearly to break the Israeli siege of Gaza. Were that to happen, the Israeli population would be at greater risk, because it is certain that weapons would then be brought to the coastline. Those attempting to aid Hamas played it smart however, charging that insufficient quantities of humanitarian aid were permitted by Israel via land crossings, so that it was necessary to bring additional aid via sea. (The Turkish ship, the Mamara, if you remember, carried humanitarian supplies — but supplies that were essentially worthless, such as expired medications.) These charges muddied the waters (forgive the pun) and made Israel's task more difficult. There was a greater cry against Israel's action because of some suspicion — on the part of those who weren't simply blatantly anti-Israel and rejoicing at the opportunity to lambaste us — that maybe there really was a need to bring in additional humanitarian supplies and Israel was being intransigent. ~~~~~~~~~~ What the Security Cabinet has done, with its decision, is to make the issues more clearly black and white. If everything except weaponry and military materiel can go into Gaza via land, without limit, there can no longer be a claim that the ships are needed to bring in humanitarian aid. Those on the ships are unmasked in their intentions. In making this decision, then the Security Cabinet is giving the absolute security need to maintain the sea blockade priority over the desire to weaken Hamas in terms of commerce and access to goods. Consider now what Blair has said: "Let me state right at the outset that Israel has the complete right to protect its security and to keep arms out of Gaza." This is a gambit, a gamble, but the hope, the expectation, is that we will now find more support for our sea blockade within the international community. So, is this decision a surrender of sovereignty on the part of Israel, or a clever way to shift strategy and turn the tables on those supporting Hamas? ~~~~~~~~~~ What is certain is that we are going to need whatever support we can garner in the days and weeks ahead with regard to our right to stop ships from reaching Gaza's coast. The government of Lebanon has given the go-ahead for a ship to sail from Tripoli, stop in Cyprus, and then head for Gaza. The "activists" on board this ship are all female — the group's leader called this a "new secret weapon," because Israel won't fire on women. The French-registered ship is called the Julia, but this particular voyage is dubbed the Mariam. It is going to Cyprus first in an effort to circumvent violation of SC Resolution 1701, which calls for a cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel. (This does mean they are anticipating hostilities, does it not?) The organizer of this venture is Yasser Kashlak, a Syrian of Palestinian origin who heads the Free Palestine Movement. A movement to "free Palestine" is not exactly about humanitarian aid to Gaza; it is suspected that there is a connection between this group and Hezbollah. The ship is said to be carrying humanitarian aid, but it's not clear what rationale will be presented for its mission in light of Israel's new policy. Following this, we may still have to deal with ships from Iran and perhaps elsewhere. ~~~~~~~~~~ The other day I shared a short video of Congressman Mike Pence asking the president, "Whose side are you on?" Now I ask the same of UNRWA, but my question is purely rhetorical. Christopher Gunness, UNRWA spokesman, has told Reuters that, "We need to have the blockade fully lifted." UNRWA's concern is that the rebuilding of Gaza, following Cast Lead, is difficult because of Israel's restrictions on building materials. Rest assured, Gunness is not concerned that sending in unmonitored quantities of metal, concrete, etc. might lead to materials falling into the hands of Hamas, which would use it in manufacturing weapons, launching pads, underground bunkers and the like. He registered no satisfaction about the fact that Israel has said that there are plans to meet with international agencies in the next few days to discuss advancing such projects as the construction of schools and hospitals. The fact remains that there has to be careful monitoring of what goes in and how materials will be used. And so, Gunness grouses that, "The Israeli strategy is to make the international community talk about a bag of cement here, a project there. We need full unfettered access through all the crossings." Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
BEHIND ISRAELI YESHIVA DEMOLITION ORDER;
ASTOUNDING QUARTET STATEMENT ON GAZA, BLOCKADE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 21, 2010. |
|
HAMAS BALKS AT UNITY WITH PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY THAT EGYPT PROPOSES Hamas is balking at the unity document drafted by Egypt. Egypt refuses to change the draft document. A provision in it authorizes Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces to control the whole area and to recognize no other forces. Hamas does not want to give up its militia (IMRA, 6/19/10). Without its militia, Hamas could not easily take over the P.A.. Neither could it defend itself from P.A. persecution.
LEBANESE POLITICS IN THE SHADOW OF SYRIA Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt declared Hizbullah's militia vital to defending Lebanon's natural resources. He also called for civil rights for the descendants of Palestinian refugees (IMRA, 6/19/10). Mr. Jumblatt formerly was allied to the independence movement. At that time, President Bush encouraged it to overthrow the Syrian overlords. Bush encouraged democracy elsewhere, notably helping to free Ukraine form dictatorship. Apparently, then Bush was beaten down by liberals, who were the party of "no," rejecting his proposed economic reforms and nominations. He also was disappointed with the slow progress of the wars and Israel's unwillingness to send in sufficient forces in its war with Hizbullah to crush Hizbullah. He ended his activist phase and let Secretary of State Rice pursue an anti-Israel policy of opposing all its measures of defense against Arab terrorists. Hizbullah faced down the other militias. It dominates Lebanon. Syrian influence is being restored. Jumblatt sees that the democratic revolutionaries cannot protect his people. He therefore accommodates Hizbullah, for immediate survival. He now is everybody's friend but Israel's. Except for Syria, which used to suck the wealth out of the Lebanese economy, there are no foreign threats to Lebanon's natural resources. Even if there were, there is no reason for one religious faction to have the armed forces needed to defend the country. The Lebanese Army would be the proper repository for such forces.
FILM AND NOTES PROVE FLOTILLA INTENT ON VIOLENCE Photographers documented the voyage visually and by notes. This evidence testifies to the IHH leader meeting with the several dozen activists before the commandos arrived, and instructing them to throw the Israelis into the sea. This was attempted, though one fell onto a lower deck when thrown. The audience shouted Islamic war chants. They were prepared not to surrender and to be martyrs. I saw that, with the translation, on this video: (IMRA, 6/20/10). If the world were fair, it would acknowledge that this was an Islamist set-up and war voyage.
ISRAEL CRITICIZED WHEN RELAXING GAZA EMBARGO In other news, Israel indicated it plans to ban only materiel of war from Gaza. The U.S. reacted by praising Israel but asking for more. Germany asked for a total end of the embargo. Both Palestinian Arab factions denounced the Israel relaxation of the embargo as not complete (IMRA, 6/20/10). What does one make of these differing reactions? The Obama administration, with poor re-election prospects, realizes it went too far against Israel. It has returned to the former State Dept. model of babying Israel along to excessive concessions that threaten its national security, rather than demand so much at once as to be recognized for the pro-Arab appeasement and anti-Zionism it is. The German reaction shows that each step of appeasement is just the start for demands for another step. Therefore, Israel gets no relief from criticism. It would be wiser not to take first steps. Instead it should inure itself to criticism, but learn to explain its own case. The Arab reaction shows that no Israeli good will gesture receives reciprocity, is appreciated or gets by without criticism. The Arabs are in a war to the death. Therefore, Israel should do nothing to strengthen them or weaken itself. A broader perspective appears in today's Wall St. Journal. Shelly Steele of the Hoover Institution explains the problem as: (1) The West crippling itself with feelings of guilt now over past exploitation of foreign areas; and (2) The world making Israel a scapegoat. "World opinion" is the new club with which to beat Israel. Perhaps Arafat rejected Israeli withdrawal from almost all of Judea-Samaria and Gaza, because without having Israel to hate, the Arabs would lose their unity (6/21/10, A23). Western guilt is peculiar, because it overlooks the great values of Western civilization and its bringing foreign people out of poverty. It also overlooks the imperialist tendencies of some Third World movements, such as jihad.
LEBANESE PHALANGE HEAD INTERPRETS DRUZE STATEMENT ON HIZBULLAH The head of the Lebanese Phalange, a Christian faction, Amin Gemayal, interprets the comment of the head of the Lebanese Druze as implementing a set of conditions. Druze leader Jumblatt had voiced approval of Hizbullah retaining it militia (IMRA, 6/20/10). Mr. Gemayal must be referring to the aftermath of the clash between Hizbullah and other militias. The Lebanese Army did not oppose Hizbullah. Hizbullah easily won. Jumblatt had to plead for mercy. Mercy probably was granted on condition of support for an independent Hizbullah militia. The Security Council banned independent militias. Apparently, Security Council resolutions are meant only for Israel to obey. The Arabs do not.
SAUDI ARABIA EVALUATES REHABILITATION OF AL-QAIDA, KNOCKS GUANTANAMO 
Saudi Arabia is evaluating its rehabilitation program for al-Qaida and other terrorists. About 300 terrorists have taken the course. Some 120 were sent from Guantanamo. Of them, 25 are known to have resumed terrorism. Some were killed or recaptured. The Saudis say that the rate of recidivism of those from Guantanamo is more than double for the rest. Why? They suggest it is the harsh treatment at Guantanamo (IMRA, 6/20/10). Perhaps. But one should take into account that many had been released from Guantanamo earlier, leaving the more hardened desperadoes to be released to Saudi Arabia more recently. What would one expect?
BEHIND ISRAELI YESHIVA DEMOLITION ORDER, AND ZIONISM The government of Israel has issued a demolition order against Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva (and synagogue) in Yitzhar, Samaria. The government bases its authority for doing so on an 11-year old order for work stoppage over a violation of some regulation, that the people involved today were not aware of. "...the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution." It took years and $1 million to build, with the help of many student volunteers. Before laying out their funds, the two primary donors had checked with the government, which assured them of its authorization to build. The government installed the infrastructure and authorized the mortgage. Indeed, many governmental agencies participated in the process of getting a finished building. How, then, can it be called illegal, now? The Yeshiva originally was in Joseph's Tomb in Schechm (the original Nablus). However, the IDF abandoned protection of Joseph's Tomb, and the Arabs destroyed it. In Israel and in Judaism, destroying a synagogue is a serious matter, a desecration. If Israel allows it now, what can Israel say to foreign countries that do likewise? Residents of the area suspect the government's motives. There was a confrontation with the government at the yeshiva on Independence Day. Security officials suspect that students committed several acts of arson against Arabs, including a mosque. Government lawyers must have searched through old records to find a pretext for punishing the yeshiva. But the residents suggest not punishing the yeshiva for individuals' crimes (Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive V.P., National Council of Young Israel, from Jewish community of Hebron, 6/20/10). Vandalizing mosques is a serous crime. Hateful graffiti hurts feelings and arouses vengeance. Whoever did it should be punished. But the government does not know who did it or it would prosecute. Then why is it punishing anyway? The government is vindictive, or has a vendetta, against religious and nationalist Jews who maintain the Zionist movement. Not content with withdrawing from Gaza, which let terrorists turn Gaza into a terrorist base for attacking Israel, the leftwingers, particularly Defense Min. Barak, are harassing the Jews of Judea-Samaria. Meanwhile, PM Netanyahu has given orders not to demolish illegal Arab buildings. We have the spectacle of a Jewish state asserting itself to be a government of law, while it discriminates in favor of Arab enemies and against Jewish patriots. An anti-Zionist reader claims that Zionism is not part of Judaism. Tell that to Moses. Moses was the first Zionist leader. He was a prophet recognized not only by Judaism but also by Christianity and Islam. Over the centuries, rabbis led followers out of exile and into the homeland. Modern Zionism was initiated largely by secularist idealist Jews, who came in peace.
GAZA BLOCKADE PROTESTERS IN OAKLAND BLOCK CHINESE SHIP About 500 protesters against the Gaza blockade arrived at the port of Oakland, California, on Sunday, to block an Israeli ship. Later they announced proudly that they were the first to block an Israeli ship from an American port. The only problem with their statement is that the Israeli ship was late. The protesters had blocked a Chinese ship. The longshoremen did not cross their picket line, not wanting to get into fistfights they anticipate by such a challenge to the peace loving idealists. Asked about the mistake, the Israeli Consul remarked that the protesters just want to make a certain impression, facts, to them, are secondary. Indeed, they demonstrated an incorrect knowledge of what happened to the flotilla. They compared the enforcement of a legal blockade [in which Israel lets the goods through after inspecting them] with piracy, which is robbery. They attributed the deaths of some passengers to "murder" by the IDF. Actually, Israel warned the ships of the legitimate Israeli blockade. Israel troops rappelled onto ships armed only with paintball guns and pistols. They immediately were mobbed by Islamists wielding iron clubs, knives, and, soon, captured pistols. Some troops were taken prisoner. However, "the Israelis were able to regroup, defend themselves, ward off the terrorist activists, tend to their wounded, and gain control of the boat that had been set on a near act-of-war course." Most of those killed belonged to Turkish Islamist organizations. Some were known to have wished for death as "martyrs" (Arutz-7, 6/21/10). What misguided people came to Oakland! Israel imposed a partial blockade primarily because Hamas tries to import weapons for active warfare and of a terrorist nature in preference to peaceful negotiation. 
Efrat is a Jewish town in Judea, founded by Zionist idealists who believe in coexistence with Arabs. Efrat still gets along well with its Arab neighbors. Within municipal borders are agricultural tracts farmed by Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Arabs. There also is a joint Arab-Jewish clothing store. Efrat and its Arab neighbors help each other with medical equipment. Difficulties arise from the language barrier. To overcome the language barrier, Ariel strengthened its Arab language curriculum. Israel requires Arabic as a second language [for non-Arab], but results are unsatisfactory. Ariel wants proficiency in Arabic for its 3,000 students. The town sought teachers from the P.A.. Nearby Arabs favor the plan, but are afraid to participate in the teeth of a P.A. boycott of Israeli territorial goods (Arutz-7, 6/21/10). Left alone, the two peoples might harmonize. Unlike claims by an anti-Zionist commenter, Zionism and Israelis are not exclusivist and not "racist." The same cannot be said for the P.A., which seeks exclusive control over the whole country and on the basis of racist notions of Jewish evil and inferiority and Muslim Arab supremacism, doctrines found throughout the Mideast. Helping the Arabs fosters racism. Israelis comprise all sorts of races, religions, and nationalities. The country holds more than a million non-Jews, including Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, and non-Arab Christians. Israel has given sanctuary to Vietnamese boat people, Africans, and homosexuals fleeing for their lives from the P.A.. Among the Jews, about half are directly from the Mideast or are blacks from Ethiopia, brown-skinned people from India, and converts from a South American tribe. The reader, however, emphasizes the color of the more established Ashkenazi Israelis. He condemns them as white supremacists. But he is the one who emphasizes color as if a code for sin. Who then is the racist? As for the P.A., it imposes capital punishment for selling land to Jews. If the reader really were interested in tolerance and coexistence, he would switch sides. But like the Oakland protestors, he is interested in making a negative impression of Israel, facts being inconsequential to him.
AHMADINEJAD: LIBERATE U.S.; JEWS ARE SUB-HUMAN Smarting under U.S. sanctions that nevertheless he says will not stop him, President Ahmadinejad of Iran said he intends to liberate the U.S. from its "undemocratic and bullying government." Enlightening us on the make-up of Israel, Ahmadinejad also said, "the West" had "gathered the filthiest and greatest of criminals, who only appear to be human from all corners of the earth... so that they would occupy the lands of Palestine." (Arutz-7, 6/21/10). Here is an opportunity for people who purport to object to racism to condemn Ahmadinejad for it. If they read this and do not condemn him, then they demonstrate my deduction that the cry of "racism" is a demagogic club for cowing opposition, not a sincere disgust. Where did the people of Palestine come from? The West did not gather up Jews, and soon after authorizing the Mandate, block Jews' entry. The Soviet Union started out blocking masses of Zionists trained in agriculture. Under the Eastern Roman Empire, at the time of the rise of Islam a large Jewish population had remained in Judea, enough to raise an army to help the Muslims defeat the Byzantines. But the Arabs took over, then the Turks, then the British. Turkey used to bring in foreign Muslims to replace the dwindling population, so desolate had it let the area become. Some Jewish families remained. Groups of Jews kept making their way back to their homeland. In modern times, there arrived the idealistic Zionist pioneers, undoing the Muslims' desolation. Zionist rebuilding attracted masses of Arab immigrants, seeking jobs. In 1946, Britain violated its Mandate and split off the bulk of Palestine, giving it to the Hashemites, forming Jordan. When the Zionists expelled the British, Jewish displaced persons emptied out of the concentration camps in Europe and British ones. Then the Arab states expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews from their ancient, Mideastern areas. There later was a massive influx of Soviet Jews. Then there was a sizeable rescue of Jews from Ethiopia. Ahmadinejad treats the victims of Nazi persecution with the same bigotry as did the Nazis. The epithet, "Zionazi," perverts reality. Ahamdinejad is Nazi-like. As for the U.S., it could use more democracy. We will not learn how to get it from Ahmadinejad, who stole his election, tortures protesters, blocks their media access, and helped Hizbullah repress a democratic Lebanese movement. Let him liberate his own country from its "undemocratic and bullying government!"
A CASE OF ISRAEL-P.A. COOPERATION The Israeli Civil Administration worked out with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) an arrangement for 50 Israeli tour guides to enter Bethlehem, P.A.. Tour groups originating in the State of Israel not longer will have to change guides upon entering Bethlehem. [That was my experience before there was a P.A..] The plan is expected to boost tourism in both areas. In preparation, the guides were themselves given a tour of Bethlehem (IMRA, 6/21/10).
ASTOUNDING QUARTET STATEMENT ON GAZA AND BLOCKADE 
The Quartet stated these points: 1. We need a solution that addresses Israel's security needs by ending arms smuggling into Gaza; 2. Unifies the whole Palestinian Authority (P.A.) area under the P.A.; 3. Allows goods and people into and out from Gaza; 4. The flow should be from land portals, not via unnecessary and irresponsible "confrontation"; 5. Hamas should end its "deplorable" detention of its Israeli captive and cease violating its "international obligation" to allow the Red Cross to access him. 6. Israel and the P.A. should resume proximity talks, leading to bilateral negotiations and "an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors." This is a defeat for the flotilla, which sought to open up sea access to Gaza for a huge importation of weapons (IMRA, 6/21/10). The Quartet statement is astounding for its tone of fairness. On the other hand, it retains the unattainable principles espoused by international organizations. Sure, Hamas should stop smuggling arms. Who will make it? Dedicated as both parts of the P.A. are to destroying Israel and to maintaining their undemocratic rule, how can they leave in peace with Israel? Why should they get a state after years of terrorism? Shouldn't their criminality disqualify them, even if their claim to the country were valid? The Quartet statement seems more like the old effort to get Israel to make suicidal concessions to an existential enemy. When an international organization has nothing to contribute to a solution but pious hopes, why does it propose risks for the victims of jihad?
P.A. TEACHING ITS PEOPLE TO THINK OF ISRAELI CITIES AS STOLEN FROM THEM The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) renewed its commitment not to incite feeling against Israel, and it self-contradictorily renewed its incitement against Israel. Thus the P.A. re-broadcast a documentary it had taken off the air half a year ago, claiming Israeli cities as belonging to it: "The West Bank and Gaza have another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the [Mediterranean] sea, from ...Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa] enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the occupation [Israel] in 1948. To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias, near a famous lake, the Sea of Galilee. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world." [In Israel, Jaffa is a minor port.] [PA TV (Fatah), June 21, 2010, and dozens of times 2007 — 2009] "For more examples of PA TV presenting a world without Israel see: 1. PA TV quiz in which "Palestine" replaces Israel http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=2394 2. PA TV again to children: All Israel is "Palestine http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=2254 3. PA to Israelis: Go to Europe and Ethiopia — Israel is "stolen" land
When they think of those cities as theirs, they will think they must seize them from Israel. Thus the P.A. is imbuing its people with a desire for war.
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:
|
|
DOES WHAT THEY SAY ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ACTIONS? THE TROUBLE ISRAEL AND THE
WEST HAVE IN TRYING TO MAKE PEACE WITH ARABS AND MUSLIMS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 20, 2010. |
|
Excellent! I have been writing about the ignored agenda of Islamic hostility to all "infidels" (non-believers in Islam) and couldn't have said it better. The nations who themselves are, by Koranic laws mandated for overthrow and subjugation as non-Islamic states, find it perfectly acceptable when the Jewish Nation/State is viciously attacked and threatened with annihilation by Muslims. The 'idea' of a two-state solution is ludicrous when we observe Muslim Islamists blowing up each across the globe. How can we in the Free West insist that Israel surrender to the Muslim Arabs their Jewish ancestral homeland to a hostile State within the body of Israel? From that center the Muslim Islamists could launch missiles and suicide bombers — all dictated by Koranic law and guidance from Mohammed's "Hadith" (Oral Law). There are no "moderate" Muslims because of their customs and the teachings of submission to Allah (Islam means Submission). The Koran says Muslims cannot deviate in their mission to conquer all people and force them into a Global Caliphate subject to strict Shari'a Laws and dominated by the perceived superiority of Muslims and their pagan desert god, Allah. A Muslim State next to and within Israel is a death sentence to the Jewish State no matter how its purpose is obfuscated with the language of a false peace. This was written by Attorney Lee S. Bender, Vice President of the
Greater Philadelphia District of the Zionist Organization of America.
It appeared June 18, 2010 in Israel Behind the News in Israel.
|
|
When the core of your enemy's doctrine and religion calls for your subjugation and/or annihilation, it makes achieving co-existence improbable. This is the insurmountable problem in a decades-long peace "process." Islam teaches that they are superior, while non-Muslim infidels are inherently inferior and must be dominated. Therefore, the success of tiny Israel, the state of the Jews, defies what Allah has told them will happen, and is taken as an affront to their honor — especially since they have not been able to defeat it militarily. The root of the problem may be in the Koran itself. Here are some notable excerpts: Koranic Doctrine Regarding "Infidels," Jews and Christians, and Peacemaking:
Jihad can be invoked for the sole purpose of turning Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam — in other words, to allow for the prevalence of Islamic edicts and the protection of Muslims. The conflict only is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam, so that the religion reigns supreme, that is the ultimate goal of Islam establish Sharia law throughout the world, non-believers (infidels) are treated as dhimmi (second-class citizens under rule of Muslims, with limited rights): there are only three choices for non-Muslims: conversion, subjugation or death — this is mainstream Islam as per teachings of Muhammad (From The Al Quaeda Reader) Palestinian-Arabs groups have expounded on these concepts: Palestine Liberation Organization Charter (ratified 1964) Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it... Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination. Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong. (From MidEastWeb.org). It is important to note that the PLO was established by the Arab League when Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan — three years before Israel captured them in a defensive in 1967. Fatah Constitution Fateh, or Fatah (which means "victory" or "conquest") is the leading organization within the Palestinian "resistance." The date of the Fatah constitution is not given, circa 1964 though it was reaffirmed at its August 2009 convention. It states, inter alia: Article (4) The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism. Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method. Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.... Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated. (From MidEastWeb.org). The Khartoum Resolution of 1967 Heads of state from eight Arab countries met for a summit in Khartoum, Sudan shortly after the 1967 Six-Day War. The resulting formulation became known as "Three Nos" and formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states aligned against Israel through the late: NO peace with Israel; NO recognition of Israel; NO negotiations with Israel Since then, only two Arab states have signed peace treaties with Israel: Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The remaining 20 still abide by these principles. The Hamas (Islamic Resistence Movement) Charter (1988) Preamble: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it... Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realized. Article (7) The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: 'The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him' Article (8) Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes Article (11) The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.... This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgment. Article (13) Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors Article (15)... It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses)..... It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.ã?? Article (31)Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions — Islam, Christianity and Judaism — to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that. (From MidEastWeb.org). Palestinian Basic Law (ratified 2002) 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. 3. Arabic shall be the official language. (From MidEastWeb.org). Perhaps these explain Palestinian rejectionism: why they incite hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis in their schools, mosques, and media; shun peace talks and direct negotiations; violate their international obligations under the Oslo Accords; engage in terrorism against Israeli civilians; call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, and "lawfare" against Israelis in foreign courts. By contrast, the State of Israel has offered its outstretched hand from the outset and declared as follows: Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948) THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel. WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East. (From Israel Ministry of Foreign Affair) Israel has been the ancestral home of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years — more than 1,500 years before the founding of Islam. Since 1922 when the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate recognized "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for reconstituting the Jewish "National Home" in Palestine, international agreement has recognized Israel as the Jewish people's state. There already exists an Arab state created out of the original Palestine Mandate — Jordan, which is on 78% of the land and has a population that is 70% Palestinian Arabs. The lone Jewish state in the world, Israel, exists on the remaining 22% of the land — the very part of which a second Arab state would be created. There are currently 22 Arab League states (not even counting Iran), all Muslim-dominated, none democratic, on a land mass over 600 times that of Israel, with a population of 350,000,000, compared to 5,500,000 Jews in Israel, which is the size of New Jersey. Moreover, there is a bloc of 57 Muslim states in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, with a population of 1.5 billion. So, who are the "infidels" against humanity, decency and tolerance? And why should tiny Israel be forced to make concessions? And who are Israel's "partners for peace" supposed to be on the Palestinian-Arab side? Fatah? Hamas? These "revelations" about Islamic doctrine and the governing documents of Hamas, Fatah, the PLO and the like are not secrets. Radical Islam, with its virulent, theologically based anti-semitism, surges through the Muslim realm, spread with Saudi and Iranian funding, to media, mosques and madrassas throughout the Islamic world. Are we — Western governments, media and the populace — just so arrogant or paternalistic that we cannot possibly accept that a people could actually harbor such nasty, ugly beliefs — and act on them? Are we so "politically correct" that we are afraid to be judgmental against others, and their beliefs, no matter how brutal and dangerous? Ultimately, Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, Arabs and Islam is not territorial, but rather existential. Unfortunately, peaceful coexistence as co-equals in a pluralistic society is not one of the choices that Islamic law gives to non-Muslims. In essence, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when Islam is dominant, triumphant and everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state and ultimate caliphate. And to establish that "peace," Muslims must wage war — global jihadi warfare against nonbelievers is mandated until hegemony is established throughout the entire world. We all need to read their words, because nothing less than our liberty, freedom and Western Judeo-Christian core values are at stake. 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 |
|
FROM ISRAEL: EMBRACING THE LINK
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 20, 2010. |
|
The charges being leveled against Israel are so off the wall, so outrageous, that I think now is the time to begin to address the connection of American Jews to Israel. For there is the danger — no, more than a danger, sometimes it is the reality — that some American Jews, hearing these charges and fearful that even some small part of them may be true, will see themselves as morally elevated if they separate themselves from Israel. Those who love Israel, who see themselves as intrinsically connected to the Jewish state, will feel outrage at these perfidious charges. They will understand that Israel need not be perfect to be embraced, and that where there are problems (not remotely of the caliber that is suggested) they must be addressed constructively and with a willing heart. But sadly, tragically, this is less the case than it once was. I've seen the evidence myself and heard much that is anecdotal. There are Jews, frequently progressive or left in their political orientation, who are not divorced from their identity as Jews and may even be religiously observant, but are devoid of deep concern for or devotion to Israel. In some cases they actually believe themselves to be functioning at a more spiritual level if they are "just" religious and not involved in the politics or the "dirty business" of running and defending a state. I make no bones about it: I mourn for this alarming state of affairs. ~~~~~~~~~~ This situation has to be addressed at two levels at once, in my opinion. As I indicated yesterday, this is long procedure that cannot be corrected with any quick fix. There is, first, the need to counter the false charges and set the record straight. American Jews, like just about everyone else, have been subjected to twisted Arab PR and distorted media reports — the real story of Israel is not making it wide-scale. Thus is there confusion about what Israel is all about, with acceptance of fallacious ideas, such as that we "took" Palestinian land. ~~~~~~~~~~ But there is something else that needs to be addressed. And that is Israel as our Jewish heritage. It is here that the essential link is made. One cannot be conversant with the Tanakh — the Bible — without understanding G-d's promise to the Jewish people concerning the land, and the ancient settling of that land. One cannot know anything about archeological finds without understanding the extensive roots we have here in this land (and most particularly in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria). One cannot know history without recognizing that over the course of 3,000 years, Jews alone have had an independent nation here and Jews alone have made Jerusalem their capital. One cannot know Jewish liturgy without knowing the prayers for Jerusalem. One cannot know Jewish law without recognizing certain mitzvot (commandments) can be fulfilled only in the land. No other people has ever been banished from its original land for 2,000 years (except for a remnant population), only to return, have an ingathering, and revive its ancient language. No other people has fought wars repeatedly at such odds, and remained resilient. For me, the hand of G-d is clear in this. We have prospered, and settled our incoming refugees, as no other nation in the world, all the while promoting medical advances and academic achievements, maintaining the most humane and moral standards for our fighting forces, and even reaching out to the world to lend assistance (as in Haiti). How has this essential link been lost? In the face of all of this, how could Israel become relatively inconsequential for some Jews? I struggle with the question. ~~~~~~~~~~ When Helen Thomas made her obscene comments about how the Jews living in Israel should return to places like Poland whence they had come, there were responses to her that essentially said that this was a terrible thing to suggest because the nations such as Poland had treated Jews horrendously. I felt that while factually true, this was the wrong answer. This means that if the nations of the world should welcome us with open arms, we would have no rationale for remaining here. Yes, Israel was a haven after the Holocaust, and yes the existence of Israel prior to the Holocaust would have prevented it from happening. But the most essential reasons for being here are deeper and more extensive than this. This is what Jews — as well as others! — are called upon to understand. And this is precisely what the Arab world does not want people to know, because the truth defeats their aims. ~~~~~~~~~~ Other subjects to follow shortly, but I include here a link to a superb short video on how the Muslim mind works. It's on the mark, and I encourage you to see it to the end and share it broadly:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
HAMODIA EDITORIAL:THAT NONE BE FORGOTTEN
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 20, 2010. |
|
The editorial below which ran June 8, 2010 in Hamodia is a deeply principled statement and a welcome change — albeit with one fatal flaw. While we applaud the editorial's main thesis, it is both puzzling and galling to repeatedly be assailed with the canard so prevalent in the American Jewish Community, namely that there does not seem to be anything practical which can be done to help Jonathan Pollard. It is puzzling because it simply is not true; and it is galling in light of the massive efforts and hyperbolic publicity that the American Jewish Community Leaders, their organizations and related media arms have invested in other recent cases. Never, in 25 years, has the American Jewish leadership done anything remotely similar for Jonathan Pollard! What is more, the others were certainly not "the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim for one who was moser nefesh for Am Yisrael!" The gross failure of the American Jewish leaders to advocate even minimally for Pollard was exposed when President Obama recently sat down with 31 Jewish Congressmen to find out what he might do to improve relations with Israel and the American Jewish Community. Imagine how simple it would have been for the Jewish Congressmen (or even just one or two of them) to say: "Mr. President, Jonathan Pollard's release would go a long way to reassuring Jews world-wide of your fairness and your concern for Israel. Please sign Pollard's commutation papers which are sitting on your desk and send him home to Israel. " But the Jewish Congressmen had never heard from their Jewish constituents (aka the Jewish leaders) that Pollard is an issue to anyone, so they did not bring up Pollard's name at all when they sat with the President. Intensive lobbying should have been on-going for months ever since the failed clemency bid when Bush left office, but it never started at all. Since January 21, 2010, the American Jewish leadership (which did precious little prior to the last clemency bid) has once again thrown Pollard under the bus and moved on, disingenuously claiming that there is nothing that can be done for Pollard. That has been their lame excuse for 25 years! There is, in fact, plenty that can be done to help Pollard! Just look at the intensive, endless, hyperbolic lobbying that the American Jewish leadership (most notably led by the Agudah and Chabad) have been doing for Shalom Rubashkin; or the hysterical campaign that was waged for the late Martin Grossman! The grossly disproportionate efforts that were made in these other cases put the lie to all the excuses! Don't tell us that there is nothing that can be done for Pollard! Do exactly as much for Pollard as is being done for Rubashkin and as was done for Grossman! In Pollard's case, it would be 25 years late in coming, but better late than continuing to recycle lame excuses ad infinitum! Except for the repetition of the pernicious little white lie, that there does not seem to be anything that can be done in a practical mode to help Pollard, a recent Hamodia Editorial: "That None Be Forgotten" is a welcome change in a world that has gone all but silent on Pollard. It is a principled wake-up call to the Jewish People. It follows below. |
|
"What's new?" That question — in one form or another — is repeated probably millions of times a day in conversations around the globe. The overwhelming majority of human conversations — at least those with some substance — revolve around a new development of sorts. News is of course the lifeblood of the media, with this publication being no exception. The same is true for the rest of the publishing industry. From historical features that appear in magazines to full-length books, all have to contain something new and noteworthy, or they could not sell. The invention of a vast array of technological gadgets has made the global distribution of news a near-instantaneous affair and this, together with the advent of all-news-all-the-time 24-hour news reporting, has dramatically shortened the journey from front-page headline to the trash heap of history. Even as certain stories continue to dominate much of the media's attention — for a current example, the BP oil spill — the focus is always on a new angle. Even the most relevant and important stories are, in the absence of a fresh development, pushed to the side like stale bread. But as Jews, we have to stop every so often to ask ourselves if this approach to our conversations and mindset is the right one. Certainly we all have the power within us to find new meaning, a new sense of relevance, in something that is important — even if there are no new developments. One example is the plight of Jonathan Pollard. As the Bush presidency drew to a close, there was a flurry of activity on his behalf. The White House was besieged with letters and calls pleading for his pardon, stressing the shocking injustice of his case. Countless tefillos were prayed on behalf of Yehonoson ben Malkah, a precious Yid who has spent the past 8,965 days — nearly 25 years — in prison because of his singular dedication to the safety of his brethren in Eretz Yisrael. When to the chagrin and great disappointment of the Jewish community Bush left office without commuting the sentence, the Jewish media ran news articles and analysis pieces about it, and the story was on the tongues of people in shuls, in offices, and on street corners. In the past seventeen months, with no breaking news, talk of Pollard's plight has all but disappeared. As the team of devoted askanim led by Rabbi Pesach Lerner continues to try to find new avenues of hishtadlus, the hearts and thoughts of most of the community have become focused elsewhere. In the meantime, Jonathan Pollard continues to languish in his dreary cell in North Carolina, feeling alone and abandoned by all except his devoted wife and closest supporters. What is unique about Pollard's case is not only the unfathomable travesty of his continued imprisonment, but the fact that at this point there doesn't seem to be any practical avenue of hishtadlus. The tragic ongoing saga of Gilad ben Aviva Shalit is another example of a crucial story all too often ignored. In contrast to Pollard, who is being unfairly imprisoned in a country that is essentially a medinah shel chessed, Shalit is being held by ruthless Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Despite their vaunted reputation, neither the IDF nor the various Israeli intelligence agencies have been able to bring him home, and a series of intense negotiations with Hamas over his release has so far yielded nothing more than proof — in the form of a video — that he is still alive. As the world dallies, Gilad remains in the hands of some of the most heinous murderers of our era. Numerous other cases come to mind, including the yeshivah bachurim who remain imprisoned in Japan after they unwittingly became couriers for another man's criminal enterprise. While their trials do receive considerable attention, in the long gaps before and after they are all but forgotten. We at Hamodia have a particular challenge in this regard. As a media outlet, our main mission is to be your primary source for news. At the same time, it is our obligation to keep a spotlight on many of the crucial and important issues of the day, ranging from community-wide challenges to the tragic plight of individuals such as Gilad Shalit and Jonathan Pollard. As maaminim bnei maaminim we know that the fate of all captives — like everything else in the world — is solely in the Hands of the Ribbono shel Olam. Only the Matir Assurim can free them, and regardless of the naysayers and the pundits, He certainly has the ability to do so at anytime. As Torah Jews there is no limit to the depth of our compassion. We certainly have enough room in our hearts to care and daven for the many Jews in need of yeshuos, among them Gilad ben Aviva and Yehonoson ben Malkah. Starting with this issue, we plan be"H to publish calls for tefillos on their behalf until that glorious day when we will be able to report their release. As we pour out our hearts to Hashem on behalf of all His imprisoned children, we should also make an effort to let Jonathan Pollard know that he has not been forgotten. Though he is not permitted to respond to letters, he receives great chizuk from every piece of mail he gets. The summer months are letter-writing season. Picking up our pens or plying our keyboards to write to family and friends, let us also write to: Jonathan Pollard #09185-016
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
IRAN AGAINST SECURITY COUNCIL; SHIPFULS OF TERRORISTS EN ROUTE TO GAZA
AND OTHER ANTI-ZIONIST NONSENSE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 20, 2010. |
|
IRAN AND TURKEY DECLARE AGAINST 'TERRORISM," BUT... 
In a meeting with the Turkish Ambassador, Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar "called for enhanced cooperation with Turkey in campaign against terrorism, drug-trafficking and organized crime..." (IMRA, 6/19/10). http://www.imra.org.il/ Against terrorism? Yes, the government of Turkey opposes Kurdish terrorism against Turks, but it favors Hamas, which commits terrorism against Israel. Iran subsidizes, trains, and arms the terrorist militias of insurgents in Iraq, of Hamas, Hizbullah, and some units of Fatah. Islamist governments support terrorism not directed at them. They are not against terrorism in principle. They do not share Western principles. They have their own, which is a struggle to the death by any means against whoever is not with them. Obviously in the case of Iraq, Islamists include as their enemies Muslims who are not with them. When non-Muslim enemies defend themselves against Islamists, the Islamists then accuse those defenders of killing Muslims. The Islamists willingly kill dissenting Muslims, as in Afghanistan, but denounce the Allies as anti-Muslims for trying to protect the dissenting Muslims. Who then really is anti-Muslim?
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT NEW YORK ANTI-TERRORISM New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has built a formidable anti-terrorism force that cooperates with other anti-terrorist agencies. His agency has intercepted a number of terrorist plots against the city and arrested many terrorists. The media, however, emphasizes the mistakes that terrorists make. Ignoring the great police work, and implying a lower quality to it, the calls the terrorists crude and stupid. Actually, observes Commissioner Kelly, governmental efforts keep many of the more effective methods and materials from terrorists. Beware of complacency, based on the successes and luck, to date! (Wall St. J., 6/19, A11.) Police work is like a shield. A shield, alone, does not suffice. We also need to overcome radical Muslim ideology, so they don't send swords to test our shields. How can we overcome radical Muslim ideology, without identifying it and having a program to disabuse people of it? Our President refuses to identify it. His program is mostly to appease it, which serves to encourage it.
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT MOSQUE PROPOSED FOR STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK The New York Metropolitan section of the New York Times features a controversy in the borough of Staten Island over a proposed Muslim purchase of a convent for conversion into a mosque. The thrust of the article is to depict solid community opposition as prejudiced. It likens that prejudice to earlier American prejudice against Catholics. A U.S. marine and war veteran asked the prospective purchasers from the Muslim American Society whether they would work to fit in with the community. They answered in the affirmative. Case closed? (Jim Dwyer, 6/20, M1.) Not necessarily. The issue is more complex than presented. This may be a case of prejudice against innocent individuals. But Islam has a principle of allowing deception of non-believers in behalf of the believers. Radical Muslims present themselves as moderate, in order to lull suspicion. The New York Times, if it wants to serve readers rather than its ideology of appeasement, should make readers aware of the practice of deception. The prejudice against Catholics in America started at the tail end of inter-Christian sects' religious wars and oppression in Europe. It overlooked the integration into American life that Catholics were demonstrating. At present, we are not at the tail end of jihad but in the middle of it. Radical Muslims have murdered thousands of Americans, 3,000 within New York City. They claim to speak in the name of their faith. Leaders of their faith, here, do not seriously oppose them. These leaders and their organizations may give some lip service to opposing them, but propose conspiracy theories about 9/11 that would exonerate their co-religionists. They oppose all anti-terrorism measures. Many of the Muslim organizations raise funds for terrorism. International jihad is characterized not only by violence but also by penetration of Wetter society and by propaganda. Most of the mosques are financed by radical Saudi Arabia. From the Internet (and from prisons), Muslim youths are radicalized, some turning to recruiters plying the mosques. Since Islam combines religion and politics, charity and holy war, it is a legitimate question whether a particular mosque project is just a religious site or an outpost of jihad.
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT TURKEY 
Thomas L. Friedman reports growing opposition in Turkey to the Islamist regime and a rapidly growing economy. Mr. Friedman suggests that the regime merely is trying to exert regional influence. "...Erdogan certainly has some Hugo Chavez-Vladimir Putin tendencies. I've never visited a democracy where more people whom I've interviewed asked me not to quote them by name for fear of retribution by Erdogan's circle — in the form of lawsuits, tax investigations or being shut out of government contracts. The media here is rampantly self-centered." (NY Times, 6/20, wk8.) Democracy is not like a rock, existing in one form. Democracy is a dynamic process, requires eternal vigilance to maintain, and often is under attack. It is under attack in Turkey by an Islamist movement seeking to repress it, step by step. It may be too soon to write off Turkish democracy, but it is too late to take it for granted and not too soon to worry about its survival.
IRAN AGAINST SECURITY COUNCIL AND OTHER ANTI-ZIONIST ILLOGIC Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of Iran's parliamentary security and foreign policy commission, said that parliament had ratified a bill authorizing Iranian military forces to retaliate against forced inspection of Iranian vessels. He said that the recently imposed additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear development is evidence, along with U.S. vetoes over resolutions against Israel, that the U.S. had turned the Security Council into its tool. His answer is to restructure the Security Council (IMRA, 6/19/10). When the Security Council and other agencies of the UN act against Israel, anti-Zionists treat them as divine law, not to mention international law. When anti-Zionist countries flout binding Security Council resolutions and consider forcible resistance to their implementation, anti-Zionists fall silent. Their double standard indicates partisanship not based on moral principles. If the Security Council were a U.S. tool, the U.S. would not have to exercise as many vetoes and it would not have to withhold some resolutions and water others down, in order to get something passed. What it gets passed may be too diluted to exert a solid effect. Such was the case with sanctions. Notice what the Iranian parliamentarian thinks passes for logic. He does not show the validity of proposed resolutions that the U.S. vetoed. He just denounces them based on asserted stereotype. His side also exercises a double standard. When Israel does not adhere to a non-binding UN resolution, or does not carry out a binding one that depends on Arab compliance withheld, his side calls Israel a violator of the UN. But when Iran violates treaties and binding resolutions for years, including by duplicity, his side calls the UN a violator. (For more on Iran's reaction to UN, click here.) A similar kind of illogic, double standard, and effrontery characterizes some of my anti-Zionist critics. Examples are the recent accusation that Israel "murdered" civilians in recent Gaza combat, and questions why do I support mass-murder of Arabs. Nowhere do I support mass-murder of Arabs. Naturally, such a libelous accusation is made without evidence. What effrontery! What illogic! "Murder" has a specific meaning. So does "civilian." The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) calls many of its slain terrorists "civilians." Purported humanitarian organizations then count those deaths against Israel. Meanwhile, the P.A., whether Hamas or Fatah, identify the "martyrs" as their militiamen. Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Hamas stores explosives in residential buildings and fights inside or alongside them and behind civilians. One of its methods of fighting is to fire rockets at Israeli schools. Hamas even urged civilians to surround a military site to deter an Israeli raid. Hamas thus encourages civilian deaths. In New York, we call what Hamas does the crime of "depraved indifference." In international law, it is a war crime. International law puts the responsibility for such civilian deaths on Hamas. Nevertheless, the so-called humanitarian organizations do not condemn Hamas for bringing about civilian deaths. They and my anti-Zionist critics blame Israel. What ethical perversity!
SHIPFULS OF TERRORISTS EN ROUTE TO GAZA AND OTHER ANTI-ZIONIST NONSENSE From Iran and Turkey, outfitted by terrorist organizations Hizullah and IHH, admitted by Iranian officials to be ferrying people willing to be "martyrs," ships are sailing for Gaza. Their mission may be stated as humanitarian but it is not. Israel's enemies have discovered that if they force Israel to defend itself by force, the UN, EU, and even the U.S. will condemn Israel. One way of condemning it is to form a Kangaroo court, like the Goldstone Commission. To head off another such court, PM Netanyahu made concessions about a probe and who would observe on it. Concessions do not work, for a scapegoat dealing with enemies who never relent. The Islamist goal is to destroy Israel, not get a fair probe. A fair probe would condemn them, not Israel. Since concessions do not work, UN Secretary-General Ban is going ahead to press for an international probe. Israel is too focused on that to realize the new kind of threat, attempting, by forcing Israel to defend itself, to produce casualties that would be called civilian and blamed on Israel, not the provocateurs. This is a new kind of warfare, deployed in an attempt to deprive Israel of legitimacy. Israel needs to develop a new strategy and tactics of defense. And it must resolve each attack swiftly enough to prevent them from leading to war. This is the top priority [along with stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons]. The basic strategy would be to overcome the enemy by non-violence (Madeline Glick in IMRA, 6/19/10). An anti-Zionist critic abuses the comments box to change the subject, as if unable to find my reports incorrect, and write against me personally, though he does not know me at all. Who can respect such fraud? Will he divert readers from the news I report that he seems unable to rebut, just to deny? Lately he has been prefacing his remarks by calling them what I or Zionists do not want readers to know. This person has proved himself unscrupulous in several ways, particularly by asserting and insisting that I am paid by Israel, which I am not. He implies that I know bad things about Israel that I hide. That is insulting. I do report bad things about Israel, just not the one he and his like-minded fellows fabricate. There are two reasons I do not write what he claims I do not want you to know. One is that his claims are irrelevant and the other is that they distort reality. With few exceptions, I report news and then explain it. His remarks are not about current events.
WARSHIPS EN ROUTE TO PERSIAN GULF? In English too garbled for being sure of much else, a London Arab language media, Al Quds al-Arabi, claims that a dozen U.S. warships and one Israel warship have passed through the Suez Canal, heading to the Persian Gulf. Iran warns Egypt it made a big mistake in not blocking those ships (IMRA, 6/19/10). International waterways are supposed to be free for international shipping. The Six Day War was fought partly to enforce that international law. The import of the report is not clear. Amid Iranian threats to attack any and all, over its nuclear policy, one would expect warships to move closer to the Gulf that Iran menaces. Unfortunately for mankind, Islamists armed with 21st century weapons and 7th century attitudes, may bring to war a world that might have moved beyond that stage. Will civilization survive? (To start to read Iranian reactions to UN resolution against it,
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:
|
|
YITZHAR YESHIVA DEMOLITION WARRANT DATE IS 19 DAYS AWAY
Posted by Zev ben Yehiel, June 20, 2010. |
|
Emergency Appeal We ask our supporters for 3 things. Please sign the petition along with contacting Israeli government officials and donate generously to help us with our campaign. Donations are needed to help us defray our legal and public relation's costs and to keep the yeshiva going. Please sign our petition against the demolition order and pass it on
We are also encouraging concerned people to contact Zvi Hauser, the cabinet secretary of the government who reports directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu. His e-mail is memshala@pmo.gov.il and memshala1@pmo.gov.il The more e-mails he gets, the better. Follow up with hard copy to: Zvi Hauser — Cabinet Secretary
Yitzhar Yeshiva Demolition Warrant Date is 19 Days Away "Save Our Building" is the name of the last-ditch campaign launched by students and supporters of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar. July 4, 2010 marks the demolition date for the yeshiva, located in Samaria. According to a hotly contested order imposed by the IDF's Civil Administration, the 11-year-old building in the town of Yitzhar is not properly authorized, despite amply documented government authorization and funding for its construction. Yeshiva staff, students and supporters, shocked by the May 9th demolition order, have mobilized to prevent the destruction, which many claim to be due to a policy adopted to punish area residents and students for conflicts with the IDF and for alleged acts of retribution against nearby Arab towns. Another theory for the government's allowing the warrant to be issued is that by successfully demolishing a structure with a higher level of authorization than most settlements in Judea and Samaria, the court system will have a precedent for uprooting other buildings and settlements. Sources close to the case emphasized that "legally speaking, the building's status is better than several others in Judea and Samaria." The building has been deemed illegal because it has not received its final approval from the Defense Minister — currently Ehud Barak, who himself helped establish the yeshiva as Prime Minister and who initiated the recent demolition order. "We plan to... gather all the documentation showing how many government offices were involved in the construction of the yeshiva, as well as to pressure... Ehud Barak" to rescind the order, the yeshiva's executive director Itamar Posen told Israel National News. The ruling to raze the large yeshiva building cites an 11-year-old work-stoppage order, which nobody at the yeshiva has any record or recollection of, according to Posen. He estimates that the government has invested some 3-4 million shekels in building the 13,000 square foot facility since the onset of construction in 1999, meaning that the original stop-work order claimed in the May 2010 demolition notice took place at the same time that issuers of the order were funding the work. The facility "was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the relevant authorities to serve as an educational institution," adds Posen. Gush Etzion Regional Council Chief Sha'ul Goldstein notes that "build first, approve later" has long been the model of construction throughout all of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. He cited a study conducted last year of 200 towns, some of which were established as far back as the 1980s. The study found that "every single one of them was first built, and only years later received final approval." Goldstein stresses that Barak's decision is politically motivated. "To accuse us of building illegally," he said, "when a host of government offices helped us, and when this is how the entire State of Israel was built, is simply to lie and deceive." Minister of Science Rabbi Prof. Daniel Herskovitz (Jewish Home) met recently with senior officials in the Ministry of Defense. "They admit that the demolition warrant is a way for them to threaten the yeshiva, which they perceive as a nuisance," he said. Menachem Gottlieb, spokesman for the Honenu civil rights organization, highlighted a historic irony: "The current yeshiva building was constructed to replace the old Od Yosef Chai building at Joseph's Tomb in Shechem. That yeshiva was destroyed by the Arabs — and now Jewish Defense Minister Ehud Barak has set his crosshairs on the same institution." |
|
Zev ben Yehiel writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). |
|
WHEN TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL PEOPLE BECOME IDIOTS
Posted by Susana K-M, June 20, 2010. |
|
This speech was given Feb. 8, 2010 at the Conference in the Global forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Spain. Pilar Rahola is a Spanish Catalan journalist, writer, and former politician and Member of Parliament, and member of the far left. |
|
A meeting in Barcelona with a hundred lawyers and judges.They have come together to hear my opinions on the Middle-Eastern conflict. They know that I am a heterodoxal vessel, in the shipwreck of "single thinking" regarding Israel, which rules in my country. They want to listen to me, because they ask themselves why, if Pilar is a serious journalist, does she risk losing her credibility by defending the bad guys, the guilty? I answer provocatively — You all believe that you are experts in international politics when you talk about Israel, but you really know nothing. Would you dare talk about the conflict in Rwanda, in Kashmir? In Chechnya? — No. Cultured people, when they read about Israel, are ready to believe that Jews have six arms. They are jurists, their turf is not geopolitics. But against Israel they dare, as does everybody else. Why? Because Israel is permanently under the media magnifying glass and the distorted image pollutes the world's brains. And because it is part of what is politically correct, it seems part of solidarity, because talking against Israel is free. So cultured people, when they read about Israel, are ready to believe that Jews have six arms, in the same way that during the Middle Ages people believed all sorts of outrageous things. The first question, then, is why so many intelligent people, when talking about Israel, suddenly become idiots. The problem that those of us who do not demonize Israel have, is that there exists no debate on the conflict. All that exists is the banner; there's no exchange of ideas. We throw slogans at each other; we don't have serious information, we suffer from the "burger journalism" syndrome, full of prejudices, propaganda and simplification. Intellectual thinkers and international journalists have given up on Israel. It doesn't exist. That is why, when someone tries to go beyond the "single thought" of criticizing Israel, he becomes suspect and unfaithful, and is immediately segregated. Why? I've been trying to answer this question for years: why? Why, of all the conflicts in the world, only this one interests them? Why is a tiny country which struggles to survive criminalized? Why does manipulated information triumph so easily? Why are all the people of Israel, reduced to a simple mass of murderous imperialists? Why is there no Palestinian guilt? Why is Arafat a hero and Sharon a monster? Finally, why when Israel is the only country in the World which is threatened with extinction, it is also the only one that nobody considers a victim? I don't believe that there is a single answer to these questions. Just as it is impossible to completely explain the historical evil of anti-Semitism, it is also not possible to totally explain the present-day imbecility of anti-Israelism. Both drink from the fountain of intolerance and lies. Also, if we accept that anti-Israelism is the new form of anti-Semitism, we conclude that circumstances may have changed, but the deepest myths, both of the Medieval Christian anti-Semitism and of the modern political anti-Semitism, are still intact. Those myths are part of the chronicle of Israel. For example, the Medieval Jew accused of killing Christian children to drink their blood connects directly with the Israeli Jew who kills Palestinian children to steal their land. Always they are innocent children and dark Jews. Similarly, the Jewish bankers who wanted to dominate the world through the European banks, according to the myth of the Protocols, connect directly with the idea that the Wall Street Jews want to dominate the World through the White House. Control of the Press, control of Finances, the Universal Conspiracy, all that which has created the historical hatred against the Jews, is found today in hatred of the Israelis. In the subconscious, then, beats the DNA of the Western anti-Semite, which produces an efficient cultural medium. But what beats in the conscious? Why does a renewed intolerance surge with such virulence, centered now, not against the Jewish people, but against the Jewish state? From my point of view, this has historical and geopolitical motives, among others, the decades long bloody Soviet role, the European Anti-Americanism, the West's energy dependency and the growing Islamist phenomenon. But it also emerges from a set of defeats which we suffer as free societies, leading to a strong ethical relativism. The moral defeat of the left. For decades, the left raised the flag of freedom wherever there was injustice. It was the depositary of the utopian hopes of society. It was the great builder of the future. Despite the murderous evil of Stalinism's sinking these utopias, the left has preserved intact its aura of struggle, and still pretends to point out good and evil in the world. Even those who would never vote for leftist options, grant great prestige to leftist intellectuals, and allow them to be the ones who monopolize the concept of solidarity. As they have always done. Thus, those who struggled against Pinochet were freedom-fighters, but Castro's victims, are expelled from the heroes' paradise, and converted into undercover fascists. This historic treason to freedom is reproduced nowadays, with mathematical precision. For example, the leaders of Hezbollah are considered resistance heroes, while pacifists like the Israeli singer Noa, are insulted in the streets of Barcelona. Today too, as yesterday, the left is hawking totalitarian ideologies, falls in love with dictators and, in its offensive against Israel, ignores the destruction of fundamental rights. It hates rabbis, but falls in love with imams; shouts against the Israeli Defense Forces, but applauds Hamas's terrorists; weeps for the Palestinian victims, but scorns the Jewish victims, and when it is touched by Palestinian children, it does it only if it can blame the Israelis. It will never denounce the culture of hatred, or its preparation for murder. A year ago, at the AIPAC conference in Washington I asked the following questions: Why don't we see demonstrations in Europe against the Islamic dictatorships? Why are there no demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of Muslim women? Why are there no declarations against the use of bomb-carrying children in the conflicts in which Islam is involved? Why is the left only obsessed with fighting against two of the most solid democracies of the planet, those which have suffered the bloodiest terrorist attacks, the United States and Israel? Because the left no longer has any ideas, only slogans. It no longer defends rights, but prejudices. And the greatest prejudice of all is the one aimed against Israel. I accuse, then, in a formal manner that the main responsibility for the new anti-Semitic hatred disguised as anti-Zionism, comes from those who should have been there to defend freedom, solidarity and progress. Far from it, they defend despots, forget their victims and remain silent before medieval ideologies which aim at the destruction of free societies. The treason of the left is an authentic treason against modernity. Israel is the world's most watched place, but despite that, it is the world's least understood place. Defeat of Journalism. We have more information in the world than ever before, but we do not have a better informed world. Quite the contrary, the information superhighway connects us anywhere in the planet, but it does not connect us with the truth. Today's journalists do not need maps, since they have Google Earth, they do not need to know History, since they have Wikipedia. The historical journalists, who knew the roots of a conflict, still exist, but they are an endangered species, devoured by that "fast food" journalism which offers hamburger news, to readers who want fast-food information. Israel is the world's most watched place, but despite that, it is the world's least understood place. Of course one must keep in mind the pressure of the great petrodollar lobbies, whose influence upon journalism is subtle but deep. Mass media knows that if it speaks against Israel, it will have no problems. But what would happen if it criticized an Islamic country? Without doubt, it would complicate its existence. Certainly part of the press that writes against Israel, would see themselves mirrored in Mark Twain's ironical sentence: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Defeat of critical thinking. To all this one must add the ethical relativism which defines the present times: it is based not on denying the values of civilization, but rather in their most extreme banality. What is modernity? I explain it with this little tale: If I were lost in an uncharted island, and would want to found a democratic society, I would only need three written documents: The Ten Commandments (which established the first code of modernity. "Thou shalt not murder" founded modern civilization.); The Roman Penal Code; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And with these three texts we would start again. These principles are relativized daily, even by those who claim to be defending them. "Thou shalt not murder" ... depending on who is the target, must think those who, like the demonstrators in Europe, shouted in support of Hamas. "Hurray for Freedom of Speech!"..., or not. For example, several Spanish left-wing organizations tried to take me to court, accusing me of being a negationist, like the Nazis, because I deny the "Palestinian Holocaust". They were attempting to prohibit me from writing articles and to send me to prison. And so on... The social critical mass has lost weight and, at the same time ideological dogmatism has gained weight. In this double turn of events, the strong values of modernity have been substituted by a "weak thinking," vulnerable to manipulation and Manichaeism. Defeat of the United Nations. And with it, a sound defeat of the international organizations which should protect Human Rights. Instead they have become broken puppets in the hands of despots. The United Nations is only useful to Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad, or dangerous demagogues like Hugo Chavez which offers them a planetary loudspeaker where they can spit their hatred. And, of course, to systematically attack Israel. The UN, too exists to fight Israel. Finally, defeat of Islam. Tolerant and cultural Islam suffers today the violent attack of a totalitarian virus which tries to stop its ethical development. This virus uses the name of God to perpetrate the most terrible horrors: lapidate women, enslave them, use youths as human bombs. Let's not forget: They kill us with cellular phones connected to the Middle Ages. If Stalinism destroyed the left, and Nazism destroyed Europe, Islamic fundamentalism is destroying Islam. And it also has an anti-Semitic DNA. Perhaps Islamic anti-Semitism is the most serious intolerant phenomenon of our times; indeed, it contaminates more than 1,400 million people, who are educated, massively, in hatred towards the Jew. The Jews are the thermometer of the world's health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered. In the crossroads of these defeats, is Israel. Orphan and forgotten by a reasonable left, orphan and abandoned by serious journalism, orphan and rejected by a decent UN, and rejected by a tolerant Islam, Israel suffers the paradigm of the 21st Century: the lack of a solid commitment with the values of liberty. Nothing seems strange. Jewish culture represents, as no other does, the metaphor of a concept of civilization which suffers today attacks on all flanks. The Jews are the thermometer of the world's health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered. In the Spanish Middle Ages, in Christian persecutions, in Russian pogroms, in European Fascism, in Islamic fundamentalism. Always, the first enemy of totalitarianism has been the Jew. And, in these times of energy dependency and social uncertainty, Israel embodies, in its own flesh, the eternal Jew. A pariah nation among nations, for a pariah people among peoples. That is why the anti-Semitism of the 21st Century has dressed itself with the efficient disguise of anti-Israelism, or its synonym, anti-Zionism. Is all criticism of Israel anti-Semitism? NO. But all present-day anti-Semitism has turned into prejudice and the demonization of the Jewish State. New clothes for an old hatred. Benjamin Franklin said: "Where liberty is, there is my country." And Albert Einstein added: "The World is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." This is the double commitment, here and now; never remain inactive in front of evil in action and defend the countries of liberty. Thank you. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
DID OBAMA DEAL BLACKMAIL ISRAEL?
Posted by World Net Daily, June 20, 2010. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared yesterday in
World Net Daily
|
|
NEW YORK — The U.S. extracted concessions from Israel in exchange for American opposition to the establishment of a United Nations commission to investigate Israel's commando raid of a flotilla earlier this month that resulted in the deaths of nine violent activists, WND has learned. Separately, an official from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office told WND the Obama administration pressed hard on Israel to ease a blockade on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Israel says the blockade is intended to stop the shipment of weapons into Gaza. The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein, reveals inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore! Earlier this week, Netanyahu's office released a statement that Israel's security cabinet decided to ease the Gaza blockade. The White House yesterday called that decision "a step in the right direction." Obama has called the three-year blockade unsustainable and urged Israel to scale it back dramatically. In the place of a U.N. commission, which had been opposed by the U.S., Israel established its own commission of inquiry into the flotilla incident earlier this month in which violent activists engaged in confrontations with Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, resulting in the deaths of nine activists. The Israeli commission consists of three Israelis and two foreign observers — David Trimble, a Northern Ireland politician and Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Canadian jurist Ken Watkin. Israel had opposed a U.N. commission, believing such an investigative body would be partial. Previous U.N. commissions investigating the Jewish state were seen as biased against Israel, including a probe earlier this year that claimed Israel carried out war crimes during its defensive war in Gaza in 2009 targeting the Hamas terror group. Just yesterday, Israel issued an official complaint against the president of the U.N. Correspondents Association for deliberately barring Israeli officials from responding to the public screening of a documentary film on the events of the Gaza-bound flotilla. The documentary was filmed by one of the flotilla activists. Israel called the film one-sided. An Israeli government official, meanwhile, told WND the Obama administration extracted concessions from the Netanyahu government in exchange for U.S. opposition to a U.N. investigation. The official said the concessions regard an extended freeze on Jewish construction in the strategic West Bank and eastern Jerusalem as well as a resumption of talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state. The developments came as Iran announced it will facilitate the sail of more flotillas to Gaza. Also yesterday, a group of about 150 female activists reportedly prepared to leave Lebanon next week on board a ship called the Miriam. The group said they plan to arrive by sea in Gaza early this coming week. Meanwhile, Israel's Foreign Ministry yesterday released a new video in which the leader of the Turkish group that sent the flotillas earlier this month is seen telling dozens of activists to throw Israeli commandos overboard if they attempt to board the ship. "If they board our ship, we will throw them into the sea, Allah willing!" exclaimed Bulent Yildirim, the head of the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, the Turkish pro-Palestinian group that sent an aid flotilla to Gaza last month. Israel maintains a naval blockade on Hamas-controlled Gaza, fearing if it allows ships to reach the territory, Hamas will be able to transport weaponry for use against Israelis. Israel and the international community numerous times have stopped ships loaded with weapons destined for Gaza. Despite claims of activists, Israel does not block humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel allows a large number of trucks daily to enter Gaza with food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. Israel transfers monthly into Gaza tens of millions of dollars worth of Israeli shekels to ensure the flow of cash in the territory. Anti-Jewish battle cries Activists on Yildrim's flotilla had shouted anti-Jewish battle cries and spoke of using "resistance" against Israel, with one participant stating she saw only two possible outcomes for the boat occupants — "either martyrdom or reaching Gaza." The main flotilla ship was the MV Rachel Corrie, the namesake of a far-left activist from the International Solidarity Movement who died in 2003 while serving as a human shield to protect a terrorist. An Al-Jazeera news report one day before Israel's raid translated by Palestinian Media Watch documented men on the flotilla chanting, "[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" The chant is often used at rallies for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Khaibar is the name of the last Jewish village defeated by Islam's prophet Muhammad in A.D. 628. The battle marked the end of the Jewish presence in Arabia. Al-Jazeera also interviewed a woman on the flotilla who said the participants' goal was "one of two happy endings: either martyrdom or reaching Gaza." WND reported the commander of the six-ship pro-Palestinian flotilla announced beforehand participants were planning to use "resistance" and declared the ship's activists wanted to die as "martyrs" more than they wanted to reach the Gaza Strip, according to Hamas television. |
|
NEW BOOK: "THE PALESTINIAN RIGHT TO ISRAEL" PROVES THERE IS NONE
Posted by Alex Grobman, June 20, 2010. | |
|
This was written by Susan Rosenbluth, the editor and publisher of Jewish Voice and Opinion and Chaim Lauer, former executive vice-president of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, the Jewish Education Association of MetroWest (NJ), and the Board of Jewish Education of Greater Washington. It appeared in Jewish Voice and Opinion. | |
|
If one were to judge a book solely by its title, it would not be unreasonable to worry that historian and prolific author Dr. Alex Grobman had gone over to "the dark side." Not to worry. His new, meticulously researched book, entitled "The Palestinian Right to Israel" (Balfour), firmly establishes that there is none. Just released in April, the book is garnering praise from leading lights well versed in the issue. Steven Emerson, executive director of The Investigative Project on Terror, and author of the national best-seller, "American Jihad: The Terrorists among Us," called Dr. Grobman's new book "phenomenal" and "one of the most important books ever written on the Middle East." "The research is impeccable and the narrative one of the most compelling I have ever read. This book dispels untruths and reveals the real truth behind the creation of the State of Israel," said Mr. Emerson, insisting it should "be required reading for every college student studying the Middle East and, for that matter, anyone who wants to be enlightened on the truth surrounding the State of Israel." In a thoughtful review, H. Chaim Lauer, former executive vice-president of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, the Jewish Education Association of MetroWest (NJ), and the Board of Jewish Education of Greater Washington, said Dr. Grobman "explains why the Jews have a moral and legal right to the land, and why no else does." "The idea of a two-state solution is simply delusional because the Arabs have never accepted the right of the Jews to re-establish their sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Nothing suggests that this will change, if you examine the Fatah and Hamas Charters and witness their attempts to destroy the Jewish state," said Mr. Lauer, who now serves as president and CEO of HCL Resources, Inc, a leading technology enterprise. Myths and Lies In his book, Dr. Grobman details the myths and outright lies employed by the Arabs and their supporters to persuade world opinion that the Jews have no legitimate claim to the land and, thus, are "oppressors and occupiers," while the Arabs are "the true victims." Central to their anti-Jewish argument is that Palestine is a "twice promised land," because, they say, the British pledged it to both Arabs and Jews. Refuting this historical inaccuracy, Dr. Grobman examines the Arab reaction to the Balfour Declaration and Jewish immigration to Palestine that established the precedent for Western dealings with Arabs that continues to this day. He shows that the Arabs have never accepted the right of Jews to re-establish their sovereignty in the land of Israel, and, further, do all they can to refute the historically undeniable fact of the Jewish connection to Israel. Destroying Archeology "Denying the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, especially the city of Jerusalem, is ongoing and endorsed by the Palestinian Authority. It is promoted in the PA's media and its textbooks," said Mr. Lauer, citing Dr. Grobman's book. In fact, the PA has been indefatigable in its attempts to eliminate all evidence of a Jewish past, including the willful destruction of archeologically precious — and irreplaceable — artifacts from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Joseph's Tomb in Nablus (Shechem), and elsewhere. "The Arabs accuse Israeli archeologists of manipulating authentic archeological evidence to justify the Jewish people's right to Israel, and assert that the Jews are not a people at all, and, thus, are not entitled to a country of their own," said Mr. Lauer. In his book, Dr. Grobman analyzes the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel before and after the end of Jewish sovereignty in 70 CE. He provides overwhelming evidence that Jews "never gave up hope of re-establishing their sovereignty in Palestine, a goal that began to be realized during the early Zionist period in the late 19th century." Arabs vs British Using contemporaneous British sources, Dr. Grobman demonstrates that the British never meant to give "Palestine" to anyone but the Jews, and, judging from the evidence presented in "The Palestinian Right to Israel," it is hard to find fault with that original intent. Dr. Grobman reveals the details of the guerrilla war waged by the Arabs, under the leadership of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, against the British and the Jews. In clear violation of an agreement to fight on the side of the West, the Mufti used radio broadcasts from Berlin to urge Arabs to become fifth columns in their home countries and to commit sabotage in order to murder Allied troops and Jews. Demonstrating that there is nothing new under the sun, Dr. Grobman shows that, even before the state was born, the Jews displayed heroic efforts to help the West. "While the Arabs engaged in trying to destroy the British, the Jews played a significant role in helping Allied military forces by providing medical and highly technical assistance to them throughout the Middle East," said Mr. Lauer, citing Dr. Grobman's book. Jewish Aid against Disease For example, the staff of Hadassah Hospital offered weekly lectures and meetings to British medical personnel, acquainting them with regional medical issues, including blood diseases, jaundice, dysentery, anemia, and high blood pressure. Courses were also given on how to deal with infestations of sand flies, worms, poisonous snakes, mosquitoes, and other disease-carrying insects. The Hebrew University's Department of Bacteriology and Hygiene provided anti-typhus and anti-dysentery vaccines. The Zoology Department's research on relapsing cave fever taught the British army to avoid encampments near caves. Dr. Grobman explains that, because malaria was a major debilitating threat to Allied forces, the British Army established ten anti-malaria units, to be sent ahead of their troops to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Burma, Greece, and Italy. Four of these units were under the command of Jewish malaria experts who had pioneered the use of aerial pesticides to kill nests of mosquitoes. Medical expertise to the British effort was provided by the Hebrew University's Department of Parasitology. Enormous Problem Because for so many years history was taken as a given, there was no need throughout most of the 20th century to defend Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The League of Nations and, later, the United Nations both acknowledged its legitimacy. "Questioning Israel's right to exist today, however, is acceptable and even expected and encouraged in some circles, which is why it is imperative to explain how Israel was created," said Mr. Lauer, endorsing Dr. Grobman's book. There are some, however, who, while not denying the facts presented in "The Palestinian Right to Israel," suggest the problem of world-acceptance of Israel's illegitimacy is so enormous, trying to respond to the fabrications is an exercise in futility. "The effort to combat psychotic prejudice with reasonable counterarguments is not only an act of folly, but capitulation," said American-Jewish playwright David Mamet. "One cannot reason a lunatic, or a congeries of the same, out of their delusion, for the delusion is the absence of reason. In essence, one cannot reason with people who do not wish to be swayed by facts." Seekers of Truth Dr. Grobman says he wrote his book for those who are genuinely seeking objective truth. "This book, which provides the weapons and ammunition to obliterate the malicious falsehoods about Israel and the Jewish right to the land, is addressed to them," said Mr. Lauer. People who can use this information include not only Jews, but, especially, Christians, many of whom are seeking to understand the Jewish roots of their faith, Zionism, and the State of Israel. Well-Credentialed Dr. Grobman, a member of the Englewood Orthodox community who holds a doctorate in history from the Hebrew University, is president of the Balfour Trust, an educational outreach organization whose goal is to help Christians do just that. He is also involved with the Institute for Contemporary Jewish Life, a think tank that deals with historical and contemporary issues affecting the Jewish community. The founder and director of the first Holocaust center in the US — developed under the auspices of the Jewish Federation in St Louis — he serves on numerous boards working for an understanding of the Shoah as well as current Israeli issues, and as a consultant for many documentaries and other projects. "The Palestinian Right to Israel" is the latest of dozens of books, articles, and pamphlets he has authored, and fits nicely with his current project: training students how to respond to Arab propaganda on American campuses. There is a reason that the Arab-Israeli conflict continues unabated without any solution in sight, despite the countless official commissions and emissaries who have come to the Middle East to investigate the causes for the dispute. They will never succeed until they understand the truth. In short, they need Dr. Grobman's systematic and methodical exposé of the outrageous Arab claims against the legitimacy of the Jewish state. S.L.R. |
|
CACTI IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 20, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to ...http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
SUPREME COURT CHARGED WITH ILLEGALLY SENDING PARENTS TO JAIL
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, June 19, 2010. |
|
It would seem that the guardians of law and order are in fact criminals engaged in the arbitrary imprisonment of political/religious dissenters. Who would have guessed? The problem is that Israel's Supreme Cult has been making up its own laws and powers on the fly unchallenged for so long that they do not feel bound by anything other than themselves. If they are not seriously curtailed, they will eventually declare the election to the Knesset of people they do not approve as "unconstitutional" and appoint their own choices. All this to protect democracy. It has been commented on in many places that "Leftism" as it is understood today is no longer a political ideology but a psychotic disorder. The essence of psychosis it the existence of an internal fantasy world that is only loosely, if at all, connected to our common reality. Where most of us see innocuous dogs, cats or people, the psychotic sees howling demons that must be destroyed before they consume him. As long as the psychotic is an ordinary person, the harm he can do to himself and others is limited. When he is a judge, head of a secret police unit, general, political leader or whatever, the potential for damage is unbelievable. This below was written by Hillel Fendel, Senior News Editor for Arutz-7 and it appeared today in Arutz-7. |
|
(Israelnationalnews.com) The Israel Law Center says Supreme Court has no authority to issue orders against private individuals, but only against government bodies or their representatives. The Israel Law Center (ILC) filed a "habeas corpus" writ against the Prison Service and Israel Police on Sunday for holding the 43 fathers from Emanuel unlawfully. The suit claims that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority in ordering the parents to be jailed, in that it is permitted to issue orders against government bodies or their representatives, but not against private individuals. Asked why the suit was not filed against the High Court itself for exceeding its authorities, ILC Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner explained to Israel National News, "That was also an option, but the immediate priority was to file suit against those who are holding these citizens illegally — namely, the jails and the police." She further explained that nowhere in the law is it expressly written that the Court is the address for perceived illegal decisions by it itself — "although we wrote in the petition that we expect the Court to exercise judicial review over itself in this case. The High Court of Justice is not permitted to assume the authority of issuing orders against individuals." The High Court sentenced the parents to jail for having aided in the violation of a previous ruling ordering the integration of a Hassidic-religious girls' school in Emanuel. Petitioners, including an organization called Noar Kahalacha, claimed that the school accepted students based on their ethnic background, discriminating against Sephardim — while the parents said that the school's sole standard was religious, and that 27 percent of the students were in fact Sephardic. Noar Kahalacha is a grantee of the New Israel Fund, an organization that has been accused of being downright anti-Israel for its funding of most of the Israeli NGOs that testified against Israel in the Goldstone Committee, among other anti-Israel groups. The Court, headed by Justice Edmond Levy, did not accept the parents' position, and when they refused to send daughters to the "integrated" school, he ordered them to spend two weeks in jail. It is now (Sunday) considering a request to exempt the mothers from going to jail; all sides in the court case agree that this request should be accepted. Taxi Company Precedent — Not Acceptable The original ruling ordering the parents to jail cited a previous District Court ruling in which taxi drivers were served with contempt of court orders for not enforcing a ruling forbidding taxi companies from taking passengers from Ben Gurion International Airport. The ILC said that this precedent is not relevant, in that the District Court is permitted to serve individuals with orders of this nature, while the High Court of Justice is not. "The High Court of Justice was created to defend citizens from the authorities," the petition states, "and it must be limited to this. Defense of a citizen from another citizen is reserved for the criminal and civil courts."` "The High Court expanded the meaning of the law defining its authorities to its most extreme extent," Darshan-Leitner said, "but there is no way to explain the law in a way that will grant it authorities that the law explicitly did not give it. Private citizens are not obligated to follow rulings issued against governmental authorities — even if the ruling comes from the Supreme Court. If such rulings are not implemented, there are various ways of enforcing them — but for the High Court to issue rulings that are not in its jurisdiction is not one of them." 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. |
|
WHAT THEY SAY. WHAT THEY DO. WHY NO ONE
CAN MAKE PEACE WITH ARABS/MUSLIMS
Posted by Susana K-M, June 19, 2010. |
|
..."In essence, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when Islam is dominant, triumphant and everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state and ultimate caliphate. And to establish that "peace," Muslims must wage war — global jihadi warfare against nonbelievers is mandated until hegemony is established throughout the entire world. We all need to read their words, because nothing less than our liberty, freedom and Western Judeo-Christian core values are at stake". This was written by Atty. Lee S. Bender, Vice President of the Greater Philadelphia District of the Zionist Organization of America. |
|
When the core of your enemy's doctrine and religion calls for your subjugation and/or annihilation, it makes achieving co-existence improbable. This is the insurmountable problem in a decades-long peace "process." Islam teaches that they are superior, while non-Muslim infidels are inherently inferior and must be dominated. Therefore, the success of tiny Israel, the state of the Jews, defies what Allah has told them will happen, and is taken as an affront to their honor — especially since they have not been able to defeat it militarily. The root of the problem may be in the Koran itself. Here are some notable excerpts: Koranic Doctrine Regarding "Infidels," Jews and Christians, and Peacemaking:
Jihad can be invoked for the sole purpose of turning Dar al-Harb
into Dar al-Islam — in other words, to allow for the prevalence
of Islamic edicts and the protection of Muslims. The conflict only is
destined to end with the hegemony of Islam, so that the religion
reigns supreme, that is the ultimate goal of Islam establish Sharia
law throughout the world, non-believers (infidels) are treated as
dhimmi (second-class citizens under rule of Muslims, with limited
rights): there are only three choices for non-Muslims: conversion,
subjugation or death — this is mainstream Islam as per teachings of Muhammad
Palestinian-Arabs groups have expounded on these concepts: Palestine Liberation Organization Charter (ratified 1964) Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it... Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination. Article 20:> The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
It is important to note that the PLO was established by the Arab League when Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan — three years before Israel captured them in a defensive in 1967. Fatah Constitution Fateh, or Fatah (which means "victory" or "conquest") is the leading organization within the Palestinian "resistance." The date of the Fatah constitution is not given, circa 1964 though it was reaffirmed at its August 2009 convention. It states, inter alia: Article (4) The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism. Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method. Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.... Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
The Khartoum Resolution of 1967 Heads of state from eight Arab countries met for a summit in Khartoum, Sudan shortly after the 1967 Six-Day War. The resulting formulation became known as "Three Nos" and formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states aligned against Israel through the late: NO peace with Israel; NO recognition of Israel; NO negotiations with Israel Since then, only two Arab states have signed peace treaties with Israel: Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The remaining 20 still abide by these principles. The Hamas (Islamic Resistence Movement) Charter (1988) Preamble: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it... Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realized. Article (7) The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: 'The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him' Article (8) Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes Article (11) The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.... This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgment. Article (13) Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors Article (15)... It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses)..... It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. Article (31)Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the
followers of the three religions — Islam, Christianity and Judaism — to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
Palestinian Basic Law (ratified 2002) 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. 3. Arabic shall be the official language. (From MidEastWeb.org). Perhaps these explain Palestinian rejectionism: why they incite hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis in their schools, mosques, and media; shun peace talks and direct negotiations; violate their international obligations under the Oslo Accords; engage in terrorism against Israeli civilians; call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, and "lawfare" against Israelis in foreign courts. By contrast, the State of Israel has offered its outstretched hand from the outset and declared as follows: Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948) THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel. WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
Israel has been the ancestral home of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years — more than 1,500 years before the founding of Islam. Since 1922 when the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate recognized "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and called for reconstituting the Jewish "National Home" in Palestine, international agreement has recognized Israel as the Jewish people's state. There already exists an Arab state created out of the original Palestine Mandate — Jordan, which is on 78% of the land and has a population that is 70% Palestinian Arabs. The lone Jewish state in the world, Israel, exists on the remaining 22% of the land — the very part of which a second Arab state would be created. There are currently 22 Arab League states (not even counting Iran), all Muslim-dominated, none democratic, on a land mass over 600 times that of Israel, with a population of 350,000,000, compared to 5,500,000 Jews in Israel, which is the size of New Jersey. Moreover, there is a bloc of 57 Muslim states in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, with a population of 1.5 billion. So, who are the "infidels" against humanity, decency and tolerance? And why should tiny Israel be forced to make concessions? And who are Israel's "partners for peace" supposed to be on the Palestinian-Arab side? Fatah? Hamas? These "revelations" about Islamic doctrine and the governing documents of Hamas, Fatah, the PLO and the like are not secrets. Radical Islam, with its virulent, theologically based anti-semitism, surges through the Muslim realm, spread with Saudi and Iranian funding, to media, mosques and madrassas throughout the Islamic world. Are we — Western governments, media and the populace — just so arrogant or paternalistic that we cannot possibly accept that a people could actually harbor such nasty, ugly beliefs — and act on them? Are we so "politically correct" that we are afraid to be judgmental against others, and their beliefs, no matter how brutal and dangerous? Ultimately, Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, Arabs and Islam is not territorial, but rather existential. Unfortunately, peaceful coexistence as co-equals in a pluralistic society is not one of the choices that Islamic law gives to non-Muslims. In essence, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when Islam is dominant, triumphant and everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state and ultimate caliphate. And to establish that "peace," Muslims must wage war — global jihadi warfare against nonbelievers is mandated until hegemony is established throughout the entire world. We all need to read their words, because nothing less than our liberty, freedom and Western Judeo-Christian core values are at stake. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
MORE ON IRANIAN REACTION TO UN SANCTIONS; UN HEAD CRITICIZES ISRAELI
PROBE; FATAH-HAMAS UNITY DEAL NEAR?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2010. |
|
IRANIAN REACTION TO UN SANCTIONS: MORE In further reaction to UN sanctions on it, the parliament of Iran banned all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) not legally required. A member of Iran's parliament characterized the new UN sanctions as an attempt by the U.S. and allies to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights (IMRA, 6/19/10). The UN and U.S. and allies have not imposed sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing civilian nuclear energy. They imposed it to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to try to compel it to comply with the IAEA treaty. The treaty requires disclosure of nuclear facilities, whereas Iran has been dissembling about it. The approved path to civilian nuclear power was never closed to Iran. The member of Iran's parliament is not telling the truth about that. Decades of deception and dissembling in violation of the IAEA treaty demonstrate bad faith. Iran's supporters fail to address that when they assert that Iran seeks only peaceful nuclear development and does comply with the treaty. BRAZIL, TURKEY, AND U.S. ON IRAN NUCLEAR FUEL PROPOSAL After Brazil and Turkey worked out their proposal for putting half of Iran's nuclear fuel under a foreign enrichment process, to prevent it from being used in weaponry, the U.S. went ahead and brought its proposed sanctions to a successful vote in the Security Council. Brazil and Turkey, according to an Iranian officials, are perplexed by the U.S. action (IMRA, 6/19/10). The deal would cover only half of Iran's fuel, leaving the other half under Iran's control and available to convert into weaponry. Given Iran's record of violating the treaty by secret developments, some aspects of which are only done for weaponry, such military development was likely. And since Iran has been boosting its capacity for stockpiling nuclear fuel, more fuel would be available, outside the deal, for military development. The U.S. acted because it did not find the deal credible, especially since the deal relies upon Iran keeping its word, which it does not do. That should not perplex Brazil and Turkey. As new allies of Iran, the question for Brazil and Turkey is whether they possibly missed the fallacy in the deal, whereas the U.S. did not miss.
MAJOR MIDEAST MISCONCEPTION 20: ISRAEL NAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS; SO SHOULD IRAN Some people think that if Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran may build them, too. Sounds logical but is over-simplified. Life is not so simple as that proposition. What complicates matters is the treaty offered by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Some countries signed the treaty; some did not. Those who signed pledged not to develop nuclear weapons and to open certain nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection. Those who did not sign did not make such a pledge or at least are not bound by the prohibition on those who do sign. Iran signed, Israel did not. Iran has violated the treaty for decades by developing nuclear facilities in secret, and taking steps that are not needed for civilian nuclear industry. Rather, they are needed for military nuclear industry. By contrast with Iran, Israel did not violate the treaty. It did not sign the treaty. The hopes that rested with the IAEA have been dashed by the scofflaws Iran and N. Korea. Dependence upon the treaty was based on a naïve assumption that sovereign states would not cheat. Iran has a stated philosophy of war, has been building the armed forces to commit it, and has been sending proxy forces to wage it. Israel has a philosophy of espousing peace. If Israel has a nuclear capability, it is for deterrence. If Iran does not mount an existential attack on Israel, Israel would not use nuclear weapons on Iran. Therefore, If not intent on all-out aggression, Iran will not need nuclear weapons. Complicating matters is Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons. That drive, combined with Iran's ideology of death in battle and that initiating all-out war would be part of Islam's final triumph, has made many U.S., Israeli, and even Arab officials anxious to stop Iran's drive.
UN HEAD CRITICIZES ISRAELI PROBE 
Mr. Ban had suggested that Turkey be represented on the panel. He observed, however, that if what he called an "independent panel" were set up without full cooperation from Israel, it would be "extremely difficult to have a thorough and credible investigation." Mr. Ban also condemned the blockade's continuance. Although Israel is relaxing the blockade somewhat, Ban said Israel should do more to "meet the needs of the people." For background information, journalist Neil MacFarquhar stated that the clash at the flotilla left nine "activists" dead (NY Times, 6/19,A5). They never mention the Israeli casualties. Some, such as the one stabbed in the stomach, is lucky to have survived. If they mentioned Israeli casualties, they might have to mention that those casualties were sustained first. Then people might question the popular canard that the IDF initiated the violence. It is not Israel's duty to meet the needs of the Palestinian Arab people but of its own. Its own people are threatened and attacked by terrorists running Gaza. Hence the blockade. Blockades are a long-recognized form of warfare. Since Ban acts as if he does not know it, he either is ignorant or biased. How can Israel end the blockade with an entity that remains at war with it for the purpose of destroying it, in concert with allies? Hamas surely would attack Israelis more than it does now if there were no embargo. Ban is being one-sided. The UN almost always has been one-sided against Israel. The UN is a political, self-aggrandizing, corrupt organization. Justice is not its goal. The Secretary-General appeases the blocs in the UN. Israel has no bloc in the UN. The various inspections of Israel, culminating in the Goldstone Report, are filled with so much sub-standard methodology, that it takes pages and pages to list their faults. UN reports on Israel are not thorough and not credible. Because of the general global scapegoating of Jews and the specifically anti-Israel ideology of the huge Islamic bloc in the UN, UN reports on Israel are not objective. Ban assumes incorrectly that because a number of foreign countries may be involved, UN reports are objective. When once considers how much whitewashing the UN does of genocide and other serious problems of international security, and how much it fails to solve those problems, one should conclude that the UN is not objective and is a failure. Ban also assumes that Israel cannot handle the conflict of interest in evaluating its actions. However, the IDF is known to conduct professional reviews. People are so busy maligning Israel that they do not stop to notice how hard Israel tries to behave toward the enemy according to the highest standards of law and far more humanely than those countries that presume to judge Israel and in stark contrast to the inhumane ways of its enemies. When the Goldstone report downplayed Hamas' war crimes, it proved the UN incorrigible. Ban now suggests that if the UN set up its own panel, and if Israel did not cooperate with it, it would be "extremely difficult to have a thorough and credible investigation." Israel did not cooperate with the Goldstone investigation, which set out to investigate only Israel (though after being criticized for that, the probe gave lip service to investigating Hamas). Applying Ban's suggestion about the need for Israeli cooperation back in time to the Goldstone investigation, one should at least wonder whether it was thorough and credible. In fact, as my series on the reports showed, the UN did not get Israel's evidence and ignored evidence from private Israeli individuals. Remember my report that Goldstone got in some nice shuteye during testimony by a particularly sharp-thinking Israel journalist, David Bedein? Now, if Ban assumes that Israel cannot handle the conflict of interest in evaluating itself, why does he imply that Turkey, now embracing an Islamist ideology, can handle the conflict of interest on the panel in evaluating Turkish actions that led to the violence on the flotilla? Perhaps Ban envisions his panel not considering Turkey's role. That would be consistent with the Goldstone report hardly considering Hamas' role in the Gaza combat. So Turkey's Islamist regime would sit in judgment on the Jewish state?
FATAH-HAMAS UNITY DEAL NEAR? 
Maan News reports that a deal for Fatah-Hamas unity has been approved in principle and is itemizing the details in a spirit of confidence of success. The Arab League would have the task of identifying which part or parties violate the final agreement (IMRA, 6/19/10). Would the deal set up a popular front like the European ones in which the Communists sought to dominate the others? Would Hamas take over the P.A. army that the U.S. has been training ostensibly to fight Hamas but which some of us suspected, as did Hamas, would end up falling into Hamas' hands and fighting Israel? Some observers also suspected that even if the P.A. army remained independent of Hamas, it would fight Israel, not Hamas. The U.S. kept emphasizing an artificial distinction between Fatah and Hamas as only Hamas being terrorist. What would the U.S. say once the two became unified? Would it say that Hamas reformed, though Hamas is not renouncing jihad? Or would the U.S. admit that Fatah really has the same goal, jihad, as Hamas, and uses the same terrorist means? The U.S. willfully has ignored Fatah's promotion of terrorism.
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:
|
|
THOMAS, TURKEY, AND THE LIBERATION OF ISRAEL
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 19, 2010. |
|
This was written by Victor David Hanson and it appeared June 13, 2010 in the National Review Online. |
|
I like opinions when they say it as it is, and not dodge the basic issues......READ ON !! Pretty much everything about the Israel double standard and what it means wrapped in one article: It is hard to become much more influential than the doyen of the White House press corps, who is given a ceremonial front-rows seat at press briefings and press conferences. So when Helen Thomas suggested that the Israelis should leave their country and "go home" to Poland and Germany, this was not some obscure, eccentric anti-Semite, but a liberal insider who has come to enjoy iconic status and a sense of exemption from criticism. Note that Ms. Thomas did not call for just a West Bank free of Jews. And she did not just wish for the elimination of the nation of Israel itself. Rather, Thomas envisions the departure of Israelis to the sites of the major death camps seven decades ago where six million Jews were gassed. Turkey's role in aiding and abetting the flotilla, and its subsequent anti-Israeli outbursts, were excessive even by the often sick standards of the Middle East — but not exactly new. State-run Turkish television has aired virulent anti-Semitic dramas like the 2006 Valley of the Wolves, in which a Jewish doctor harvests organs from captured Iraqi civilians. Former Turkish prime minister Necmettin Erbakan once claimed that the Jews had instigated World War I in order to create Israel. Israel, Erbakan further asserted, in full-blown Hitlerian prose, was a "disease" and a "bacteria" that needed to be eradicated. The current prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, talks of sending in the Turkish fleet to confront the Israeli blockade, says he is sick of Israeli lies, and warns that his new Turkey is not "a young and rootless nation," as Israel presumably is (note the code word "rootless"). So speaks our NATO partner and E.U. wannabe. This week, in reaction to criticism from the West, Erdogan labeled such concerns "dirty propaganda" — note well, not just propaganda but a "dirty" sort. In an odd way, Thomas's sick suggestions and Turkey's new Islamist and vehemently anti-Israel foreign policy will have a liberating effect on Israel. After all, if the ceremonial head of the White House press corps wants Israel's citizens either gone or dead, there is a legitimate suspicion that things are not quite right in the capital of Israel's staunchest ally. And if the most secular, democratic, and pro-Western Muslim country in the Middle East wishes to pick a fight to prove its Muslim fides, then there is not much hope that Israel is going to win over anyone else in that region. Anti-Semitism as displayed by both Thomas and Turkey's leaders is not predicated on criticizing Israel, much less disagreeing with its foreign policy. Instead, it hinges upon focusing singularly on Israeli behavior, and applying a standard to it that is never extended to any other nation. There are plenty of disputes over borders and land in the world. But to Helen Thomas or the Turkish government, Kashmir or the Russian-Chinese border matters little — although the chances of escalation to nuclear confrontation are far greater there than on the West Bank. Has Thomas ever popped off, "Why don't those Chinese just get the hell out of Tibet?" or "Why don't those Indians just get out of Kashmir?" The Palestinian "refugees" — a majority of whom are the children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of people actually displaced in 1948 — compose a small part of the world's refugee population. There are millions of refugees in Rwanda, the Congo, and Darfur. Well over a half-million Jews were ethnically cleansed from the major Arab capitals between 1947 and 1973, each wave of expulsion cresting after a particular Mideast war. Again, few care to demonstrate for the plight of any of these people. Prime Minister Erdogan has not led any global effort to relocate the starving millions in Darfur, despite his loud concern for "refugees" in Gaza. The United States gives far more millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians than does their Muslim protector in Turkey, who saves cash in winning Palestinian support by practicing anti-Semitism on the cheap. Nor have I heard of any German suicide bomber blowing himself up over lost ancestral land in Danzig or East Prussia, although that land was lost about the same time as some Palestinians left Israel. Few worry that in 1949 tens of thousands of Japanese were forcibly expelled by the Soviet Union from Sakhalin Island. The world likewise cares little for the concept of "occupation" in the abstract; it is only the concrete example of Palestine that earns its opprobrium. We can be assured that President Obama will not bring up Ossetia with President Putin. He will not raise the question of Tibet with the Chinese or occupied Cyprus with Prime Minister Erdogan. Will Helen Thomas ever ask, "How can Turkey be allowed to keep Nicosia a divided city?" Will she worry whether Greeks are allowed to buy property in the Turkish sector of that capital? There is no European outcry over the slaughter of South Koreans in a torpedo attack by a North Korean vessel. I don't recall President Sarkozy weighing in on that particular moral issue. The United Nations is angrier at Israel for enforcing a blockade against its terrorist neighbor than it is at Somalia for allowing pirates to kill and rob right off its coast. There was not much of a global outcry when Iran hijacked a British naval vessel; few in Turkey demonstrated when the French blew up a Greenpeace protest vessel. "Disproportionate" is a term used to condemn Israeli retaliation. It does not apply to other, far more violent reprisals, such as the Russian leveling of Grozny, or the Turkish killing of Kurds, or occasional Hindu mass rioting and murdering of Muslims in India. Does Prime Minister Erdogan wish to allow "peace activists" to interview Kurds detained in his prisons, or to adjudicate the status of Kurds, Armenians, or Christian religious figures who live in Turkey? Can we imagine a peace flotilla of Swedish and British leftists sailing to Cyprus to "liberate" Greek land or investigate the "disappearance" of thousands of Greeks in 1974? And if they did, what would happen to them? About the same as would happen if they blocked a road to interdict a Turkish armored column rolling into Kurdistan. Nor do human-rights violations mean much any more. Iran executes more of its own citizens each year than Israel has killed Palestinians in the course of war in any given year. Syria murders whomever it pleases in Lebanon without worry that any international body will ever condemn its action. I have heard a great deal about the "massacre" or "slaughter" at Jenin, where 52 Palestinians and 23 Israelis died. Indeed, the 2002 propaganda film Jenin, Jenin was a big hit on college campuses. But I have never seen a documentary Hama, Hama commemorating the real 1982 slaughter of somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians by the criminal Assad regime in Syria, with which we now so eagerly wish to restore ties. I find a 1,000-to-1 fatality rule generally applies: Each person killed by the Israel Defense Forces warrants about as much international attention as 1,000 people killed by Africans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, or Arabs. I used to think that oil, Arab demography, fear of Islamic terrorism, and blowback from its close association with the United States explained the global double standard that is applied to Israel. But after the hysteria over the Gaza flotilla, the outbursts of various members of the Turkish government, and Ms. Thomas's candid revelations, I think the mad-dog hatred of Israel is more or less because it is a Jewish state. Period. Let me explain. Intellectuals used to loudly condemn anti-Semitism because it was largely associated with those deemed to be less sophisticated people, often right-wing, who on either racial, nationalistic, or religious grounds regarded Jews as undesirable. Hating Jews was a sign of boorish chauvinism, or of the conspiratorial mind that exuded envy and jealousy of the more successful. But in the last two decades especially, the Left has made anti-Semitism respectable in intellectual circles. The fascistic nature of various Palestinian liberation groups was forgotten, as the "occupied" Palestinians grafted their cause onto that of American blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans. Slurring post-Holocaust Jews was still infra dig, but damning the nation-state of Israel as imperialistic and oppressive was considered principled. No one ever cared to ask: Why Israel and not other, far more egregious examples? In other words, one could now focus inordinately on the Jews by emphasizing that one's criticism was predicated on cosmic issues of human rights and justice. And by defaming Israel the nation, one could vent one's dislike of Jews without being stuck with the traditional boorish label of anti-Semite. So an anti-Semitic bigot like Helen Thomas could navigate perfectly well among the top echelons of Washington society spouting off her hatred of Israel, since her animus was supposedly against Israeli policies rather than those who made them. Only an inadvertent remark finally caught up with her to reveal that what she felt was not anger growing out of a territorial dispute, but furor about the nature of an entire people who should be deported to the sites of the Holocaust. Finally, as I say, all this may have a strangely liberating effect on Israel. We know now that whatever it does, the world, or at least its prominent political and media figures, is going to damn it. Its longtime patron, the United States, now sees not much difference between Israel's democratic achievement and the autocracies around it, which we are now either subsidizing or courting. As a result, the global censors have lost leverage with Israel, since they have proven to be such laughable adjudicators of right and wrong when Israel is involved. Israelis should assume by now that whether they act tentatively or strongly, the negative reaction will be the same. Therefore why not project the image of a strong, unapologetic country to a world that has completely lost its moral bearings, and is more likely to respect Israel's strength than its past concern for meeting an impossible global standard? {my highlighting — Fred Reifenberg}. How odd that the more the activists, political leaders, and media figures issue moral strictures against Israel, the more they prove abjectly amoral. And the more they seek to pressure Israel, the more they are liberating it to do what it feels it must. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il |
|
UNDERSTANDING MUSLIMS' MINDSET
Posted by Amil Imani, June 19, 2010. |
|
Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslims' mindset, and redress any grievances on either side. The Muslims' perennial complaint is that the imperialist West — all colonial powers of the past, as well as the United States of America — have victimized them for decades and even centuries and continue to do so in every conceivable way. The litany of the alleged wrongdoings by the West is encyclopedic. To begin with, the West has shown utter contempt for the legitimate rights of the Muslim nation by arbitrarily dividing much of the Islamic land into fractured entities, plundering its resources, and topping these crimes by installing in its midst its illegitimate stepchild of Israel — a huge thorn in their side, so they complain. "A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable," is an old saw. In fairness to Muslims, there is some substance to their claims against the West. For now, let us focus on the general mindset of Muslims which bears heavily on the hostility toward the West — a serious hostility that may bring about the dreaded Armageddon.
The best, yet difficult resolution of the conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitative clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty. Within the emancipating and accommodating haven of liberty, those who wish to remain Muslim can retain and practice the good teachings of Islam but renounce intolerance, hatred and violence. It takes great effort and courage to ascend from the degrading pit of slavery to the mount of emancipation. Yet, it is both possible and exhilarating to do it, since many have done so successfully and happily. As more and more people leave the shackles of religious slavery, more and more will follow, and the long-suffering Muslims, victimized by Islam itself for far too long, will be a free people in charge of their own life and destiny. It is a painful process of growing up, of asserting one's coming of age, and marching lockstep with the free members of the human race. Slavery of the mind is as evil as the slavery of the body. Islamofascisim enslaves them both. Contact Amil Imani at amil_imani@yahoo.com
|
|
LEFT-WING LOBBYISTS ORCHESTRATE GAZA CAMPAIGN
NEWSMAX.COM
Posted by Ken Timmerman, June 19, 2010. |
|
Dear friends, Here is yet more proof of the nexus between the hard-left and the Islamists. The same folks who brought you moveon.org and now bringing you the Gaza "peace" flotillas, thanks to Internet advocacy and Qatari money. Best,
My articles are
archived at
|
|
An American communications firm best known for shaping the liberal Moveon.org into a national movement has tackled a new project: orchestrating an international anti-Israel campaign aimed at breaking the blockade of the Gaza strip. Fenton Communications, which has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco, signed two contracts last year with Qatar to develop "a communications action plan for an 18-month campaign" aimed at delegitimizing Israel and generating international support for the Hamas-run Gaza strip, documents filed with the Department of Justice show. The campaign, known as the "Al Fakhoora Project," has a very visible Web presence that boasts of rallying 10,000 activists "against the blockade on Gaza." Fenton signed the contracts, worth more than $390,000, with the Office of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the wife of the Qatari ruler, and a separate foundation she chairs. The contracts are ongoing, according to Fenton's Foreign Agent registration forms. U.S. diplomats in the region view the elegant sheikha as a "progressive" force in Qatar, who has partnered in the past with U.S. AID and other U.S. government agencies on projects involving education, women's rights, and the arts. Fenton's Al Fakhoora project is cleverly disguised as a campaign to help students in Gaza in the pursuit of a better education. One of the documents filed with the Department of Justice describes Al Fakhoora as a "student-led campaign to protect education from violence during war or conflicts, specifically in Gaza, and to lead an international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks on schools in Gaza." Robert Perez, the Fenton executive in charge of both accounts who is based in San Francisco, did not return repeated messages from Newsmax. The Qatari sheikha paid Fenton for "developing and managing" the campaign website, "including regularly advising and updating the site with new content," according to the contract documents. The website features a YouTube interview with the Al Fakhoora director, explaining why the group took part in the aid flotilla that attacked Israeli special forces on May 31, and a sidebar boasting that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is mulling a resolution "to condemn Israeli Defense Forces' military attack on the Freedom Flotilla." Fenton's contracts called for the group to assist the sheikha and her Qatar Foundation "in the recruitment of student leaders in US and international college campuses," and "in the recruitment of grass-roots supporters, including NGOs and virtual supporters internationally." It also called on Fenton to:
The cash from Qatar bought a sophisticated U.S. media campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion to generate support for the Hamas-led government and the people of the Gaza strip. It also included a full-scale fundraising effort aimed at generating a war chest of up to $100 million in addition to the money the Qatari sheikha provided. Al Fakhoora Director Farooq Burney explains in a YouTube video about the Gaza flotilla attack that "the purpose of us to join this trip was number one, to allow support, or to enable us to interact with students in Gaza. Our intention was to go there and lend our support to students in Gaza and let them know that people care for them, and people are advocating for them to have access to quality education." Burney says he was carrying 65 computers for schools in Gaza, and that "there was a lot of excitement" among the participants, with "a festive mood" on board the ships. Schools in Gaza are predominantly run by UNWRA, the United Nations agency set up in 1948 to take care of Palestinian refugees. A video exposing anti-Israel incitement taught in UNWRA schools, "For the Sake of Nakba," made by veteran Israeli journalist David Bedein, was shown last week in the U.S. Senate. "Unfortunately," Burney went on, "we were attacked by the Israeli navy. People were killed. People were injured. It was very saddening to see that, to have somebody die in front of you . . . We talk about humanitarian work, we talk about activism. I don't know how much more peaceful this could have been." Video footage taken by shipboard cameras and released by the Israel Defense Forces shows activists suiting up in bulletproof vests and assaulting Israeli commandos with metal bars and clubs as they tried to board the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish "aid" ship Burney describes in his YouTube interview. Other footage, taken from Israeli helicopters, shows the "activists" assaulting an Israeli commando as he is rappelling down to the ship and tossing him off the deck of the ship. The primary weapon the Israeli commandos used during the boarding operation was a Tippman 98 Custom — a paintball gun. Testimony one of the commandos released later described how the "activists" shot this commanding officer in the leg and stabbed him in the stomach before tossing him off the deck. Other "activists" on the lower deck then dragged the officer inside, taking a knife to expand the wound in his stomach. "They cut his ab muscles horizontally and by hand spilled his guts out," the soldier said. "When they finished, they raised him up and walked him on the deck outside. He was conscious the whole time. If you are asking yourself why they did all that here comes the reason. They wanted to show the soldiers their commanders' body so they will be demoralized and scared," the soldier said. "Luckily, when they walked him on the deck, a soldier saw him and managed to shoot the activist that was walking him down the outside corridor. He shot him with a special non lethal bullet that didn't kill him. My commander managed to jump from the deck to the water and swim to an army rescue boat (his guts still out of his body and now in salty sea water). That was how he was saved. The activists that did this to him are alive and now in Turkey and treated as heroes." On Monday, Burney turned up in Qatar, where he addressed a pro-Gaza rally hosted by the Student Council at the School of Islamic Studies at the Qatar Foundation (his funder). "Al Fakhoora has launched an advocacy campaign to file legal charges against Israel and change the public perception in the West about its actions," Burney said, according to an account that appeared in The Peninsula, an English-language daily published in Doha, Qatar. "We need to start somewhere to face the Israeli lobby groups and their sophisticated strategies. The brutal Israeli attack on a humanitarian team with members from 22 nationalities has given us an opportunity to work on the grass root levels and put political and diplomatic pressure on Israel," Burney said. The daylong event at "Education City," one of the sheikha's pet projects, was titled, "Rise and rise again until the siege is broken," and included a breakout session to train activists "how to break the siege within ourselves." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inadvertently may have provided an impetus to the blockade-busting flotillas when she addressed a town hall meeting that Al Jazeera hosted at Qatar's Education City in February. When one participant asked what the United States was doing to help young people in Gaza, she responded, "We have worked to encourage the lifting of the boycotts [sic], and tried to get more important materials into Gaza." President Obama reacted to Israel's interception of the Gaza blockade-busters angrily, calling on Israel to scale back its naval blockade because it had become "unsustainable." That prompted Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., to rip into the president on the floor of the House. "Mr. President, your policy in Israel is unsustainable," Pence said. "The American people are on the side of Israel and Israel's right to defend herself. Mr. President, whose side are you on?" Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net |
|
PALESTINE IQ TEST
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 18, 2010. |
|
This was written by Daniel Pinner and it appeared
January 10, 2010 in Arutz-7
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/ Article.aspx/9250). |
|
Answer these 20 questions, but don't check the answers until you are finished. Check your score and find out its significance at the end. 1. As is well known, Palestine is the Holy Land for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Palestine's sanctity in Islam is expressed in the fact that the Koran mentions Palestine: a) 1,034 times;
2. Jerusalem is the third holiest city for Islam (after Mecca and Medina). In honor of this status, the Koran refers to Jerusalem as: a) Al-Kuds ("The Holy");
3. The Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, is one of Islam's holiest shrines. In accordance with this sanctity, Moslems pray on the Temple Mount: a) facing the Dome of the Rock;
4. The Jewish claim to the Holy Land is that God promised it to them. Moses — the Jewish national leader — is quoted as saying: "O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you...and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has decreed for you". This speech of Moses is recorded in: a) the Book of Exodus;
5. In popular literature, historical discussions, political debates, and other forums, the Palestinians' standard claim is that they are: a) the descendants of the Biblical Philistines (a European tribe originating in Crete, who invaded the Holy Land in the early Biblical period);
6. In the period of history that Palestine was an independent country, its capital city was: a) Jerusalem;
7. The earliest mention of a place called Palestine in history is: a) in the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of Genesis, when God commanded Abraham to go to Palestine;
8. "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine' is alien to us." Who said these words? a) Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel, in a speech to the American Zionist Organization, 1972;
9. "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." Who said this? a) Egyptian dictator, President Gamal Abdul Nasser, addressing the Egyptian parliament, a month after the Six Day War, July 1967;
10. On the eve of Israel's independence in May 1948, approximately 600,000 Arabs lived in the areas that would soon become the State of Israel. When the War of Independence was over (March 1949), 150,000 Arabs were still there. This is why the UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency) officially recognized that the number of Arab refugees was: a) 450,000;
11. In June 1982, the Israel Defense Forces entered south Lebanon to fight against the PLO, which had taken refuge Lebanon in 1970, after having been defeated by Jordan's King Hussein. The total population in southern Lebanon was about 400,000, of whom vast numbers — perhaps as many as 10% — fled northwards to escape the fighting. UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) officially estimated the number of refugees as: a) 40,000;
12. The Palestine National Covenant (the constitution of the PLO) states that "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit" (Article 2). 77% of this "indivisible territorial unit" is today: a) the State of Israel, and the remaining 23% is Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and Gaza;
13. As its name suggests, the raison d'être of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) is to liberate Palestine. Accordingly, the PLO has fought to establish its independent state in: a) the whole of Israel, starting with Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (the "occupied territories");
14. The PLO's purpose, as they and their supporters make clear, is to liberate the "occupied territories" which Israel captured in the Six Day War (5th-10th June 1967). This claim is proven by the historical fact that the PLO was founded: a) in Ramallah, the biggest city in the West Bank, a month after the Six Day War;
15. In the 25-year period 1950-1974, the Arab countries (including Iran) donated a total of $26,476,750 in aid to Palestinian refugees, representing 0.04% (i.e. $1 out of every $2,500) of their combined oil revenue for 1974 alone. The only country in the entire Middle East which gave no aid at all to Palestinian refugees was: a) Israel;
16. Israel has often been accused of "ethnic cleansing" of the Arabs in the "occupied territories". The demography bears this out, because the Arab population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza has: a) plummeted from 6,500,000 in 1967 to 3,000,000 in 2009;
17. Israel has also been accused of "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs who are citizens of the state, and deliberately enforcing policies designed to keep the Arab population small. This, too, is shown by the demography, in that the Israeli Arab population has: a) dropped from slightly over 1,000,000 (40% of the overall population) in 1948 to 750,000 (20% of the population) in 2009;
18. As of 2009, there are five universities (the Islamic University of Hebron; Bir Zeit University; Bethlehem University; Al-Najah University in Shechem [Nablus]; and Al-Ahzar in Gaza), and five religious higher education academies, throughout the so-called "occupied territories." These institutes are: a) all that remain of 25 institutes of higher education, the others having been destroyed by the Israeli occupation forces;
19. Since the Israeli "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in 1967, nine Palestinians have been sentenced to death by the courts and judicially executed, and scores — probably hundreds — more have been executed in extra-judicial killings. All of them, without exception, were executed: a) by the Israeli military occupation authorities;
20. In early October 2005, an estimated 650 people charged the security fence/separation barrier, and an estimated 350 succeeded in crossing it. Security forces responded with bayonets, shotguns, and rubber bullets, killing between ten and fifteen people and injuring dozens more. This incident was given minimal media attention, and has been entirely forgotten, because: a) the world media is biased in Israel's favor;
Did you write down the 20 answers? If so, now you can score them. Scoring:
Your Score Has Meaning! Now add up your score. If your score is 20, then you answered a) to every question. This means that you got every single answer wrong; you are politically correct and base your ideas of the Middle East on standard anti-Israel and pro-Arab propaganda lies rather than on the truth, historical accuracy, and facts. Since you are more concerned with Israel-bashing than truth, and since you parrot every canard peddled by pro-Arab propagandists, you are ideally suited to become president of the United States, Secretary of State, a European career diplomat accredited to the Middle East, a BBC or CNN reporter, or even a journalist for Ha'aretz (a leading Israeli newspaper). If your score is between 21 and 99, then you might have a more open mind than others, and you might know slightly more than the average media report contains. You might be interested in studying more on the subject. If your score is 100, then you answered e) to every question. This means that you got every answer right. This suggests that you have a good, solid knowledge of the issues involved and are uninfluenced by propaganda. But be careful: people infected by independent and honest thought tend to become targets of Islamic terrorists and their left-wing cohorts. At the very least, they get demonized as "right-wing fanatics." If your score is below 20 or above 100, this means that you cannot count properly. Why not consider a career as the Chief Financial Officer of GM or as the Treasury Secretary of the United States? |
|
MOHAMMED'S FANTASY OF THE DOMINANT ALPHA MALE
Posted by Bill Warner, June 18, 2010. |
|
This was written by Kenneth Roberts.
and is archived at
|
|
Mohammed was the dominant alpha male in his society. Mohammed was the quintessential alpha male. His unlimited polygamy, his monopoly on the use of force to dominate others, his monopoly on divine revelation, his claim of special powers not given to others, such as superhuman eloquence (Sahih Bukhari 9,87,127), his claim of 20% of all the plunder stolen in raids...all expressed and reinforced his alpha-ness. We see alpha male behavior throughout the animal kingdom, for instance, in a troop of baboons or a pride of lions. Everyone around the alpha male is subservient to him and exists only to satisfy his urges and to comply with his demands. Of course, the underlings in the group must constantly show the alpha male respect and 'honor', otherwise the alpha male will growl, bare his teeth and bite if necessary, even to the extent of killing to restore his honor. Political Islam works the same way. The Muslim response to disrespect towards Islam is one of the most visible signs of this alpha male instinct to defend 'honor' through violence. The alpha male in Islam is under no obligation to give anything to or help the 'other' outside his immediate group-in any way, shape or form — but only to protect those within his group. The Golden Rule has no place in the animal kingdom, or in Islam. Violence is their mechanism of survival. In Muslim society, the Muslim alpha male respects only another Muslim alpha male and only if he can demonstrate that he has everything under control; otherwise he will be despised. The non-Muslim is at the bottom of the hierarchy and is treated with the utmost contempt. Kafirs are dirty subhumans to a Muslim. The kafir is similar to an animal that has no right to graze the land or drink at the water-hole...an animal, whose only right is to be preyed upon for food. This is the meat of Islamic morals. Jewish ethics are based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, but Mohammed brought a new theocracy based on the primacy of the alpha male. Allah substituted the Arabs for their Jewish cousins... not on the basis of ethics...but on the Arabs' ability to act like alpha males. The Ten Commandments were tossed out and were replaced by Mohammed's 'alpha-ness'. Islamic Sharia law is based on the alpha-ness of Mohammed. An action is 'good', not because God said so on a table of stone, but because Mohammed did so...from stabbing his verbal critics, to raping war captives, to genocide, to plundering unarmed caravans. Mohammed dispensed with the Golden Rule and most of the Ten Commandments, since they were incompatible with his opportunistic ethics...the survival of the fittest...the supremacism of 'the best of people' (i.e. the Arabs), whom Mohammed conscripted to usurp the Israelites, Persians and Romans as the new alphas on the world stage. Mohammed's world is a theocratic dictatorship in which human behavior is motivated by the desire to dominate on the part of those who are allowed to, and fear on the part of those who are selected to be dominated...the dirty kafirs ('najis kufar' in Arabic). Soul-searching is an alien concept in Mohammedan supremacism. In Mohammed's society, there is no need for self-evaluation or self-criticism, apart from asking whether the alpha male is getting his rightful share and his due respect. There is no need for any Muslim to evaluate his behavior beyond this point. The dominance of the Islamic male is proof of Allah's support for Islam, thus, the more domineering a Muslim is, the more Allah is seen to support him. If a Muslim bows to the narcissism of Mohammed or to that of his Islamic head of state, he is ethical enough. Giving to 'others', without being forced to do so, is seen as a sign of weakness unfitting for the alpha male. What generally distinguishes the alpha male is his opportunism. Opportunism is the opposing principle to the Golden Rule. With no Golden Rule, Islam is intrinsically opportunistic. A number of ancient rulers were notable alpha males: Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Nero and Genghis Khan. Mohammed clearly patterned himself on historic examples of pathological narcissism, particularly that of Alexander the Great. For some reason, Mohammed was enraptured by the legend of world-conquering Alexander the Great and claimed this vicious killer as a monotheist and even a proto-Muslim. To the contrary, the historical Alexander was a confirmed polytheist and even claimed for himself the title of 'Son of Amon'...making Alexander the 'Son of God'...of Amon, the principle Egyptian god, 'Lord of truth, father of the gods, maker of men'. Amon-Ra was associated with alpha male dominance, as a woolly ram-headed deity with curved horns. Since rams were considered a symbol of virility, due to their rutting behavior, Amon also became thought of as a fertility deity. The Koran is filled with ancient legends and stories plagiarized from a plethora of pagan, Jewish and Christian texts. Textual analysis has identified precisely what they were. Mohammed's saga of the alpha male Alexander did not come from history...clearly, Mohammed did not get his information that way...but from 'legends'. Due to the discovery of 3rd century texts, we now know where Mohammed got his ideas about Alexander. A highly-romanticized Christian legend composed in the 3rd century A.D. in Alexandria implied that Alexander was a monotheist (far from the truth). However, coins and monuments of Alexander depicted him with ram's horns on his head. 'Dhul-Qarnain' ('the two-horned one') features prominently in the Koran. Mohammed's biographer Ibn Hishaq claimed, 'Dhul-Qarnain is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnain'. It requires no Sherlock Holmes to see that Mohammed's persona was constructed from that of world-conqueror Alexander the Great, combined with that of Moses, conqueror of Canaan. Mohammed's intoxicating fantasy captured the romance, theocracy and military genius of both men and presented him (Mohammed) to the Arabs as the combination of all their alpha qualities rolled into one. Apart from the story of Alexander, the Koran contains aggressive alpha imagery: 'We hurl the truth at falsehood and it knocks out its brains.' (K.21.18) In the Islamic paradise, it is the most aggressive alpha males who receive the highest rewards. (cf. K. 9:111) All in all, we require no message from an Arabian moon god to reveal alpha male behavior to us. Alpha behavior is well known in much of the animal kingdom, as well as in criminal enterprises...such as biker gangs...and in fascist politicians who impose their cult of personality on vulnerable populations. Much of current Islamic rage takes place at the inchoate, psychological level of alpha male narcissism. Alpha behaviors such as honor-killings and cartoon riots defend the 'honor', misogyny and supremacism that Muslim males have a vested interest in maintaining. Of course, Mohammed's supremacist model for society is incompatible with a pluralistic democracy based on non-violence, equality and tolerance in the public and personal spheres. The two models contradict one another. Whether Mohammed's alpha male fantasy has the slightest chance of surviving in the Age of Aquarius, well, that's another story. 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/ |
|
JUST COMEDIANS ARE IN FEAR?
Posted by Susana K-M, June 18, 2010. |
|
This article below is by Julia Gorin and comments on an article by Adam Sherwin called "Bremner fears joke about Islam would mean death." Sherwin's article appeared June 15, 2010 in
The Independent
Goran's article is called "Belatedly, British Comedian Considers Knocking Muslims — and Notices he isn't 'Allowed'." |
Did he only just notice? Or did it take him 20 years into blatant jihad before he thought of knocking Muslims? "Speaking to Sir David Frost in a BBC documentary about the future of satire, Bremner argued that self-censorship was the biggest problem for practitioners of topical comedy today. Uh, even if it doesn't go down badly, Sir. "Because there are people who will say, 'Not only do I not think that's funny but I'm going to kill you' — and that's chilling." About Sir David's "surprise": Don't you just love the way one day the British prototype — necessarily Muslim-loving — is sure to express indignation and outrage over any "insensitive" remarks about Muslims, under the guise of being offended, when really he's terrified but won't acknowledge it. And the next day, he expresses surprise that one could fear for one's life and therefore censor oneself when it comes to knocking Muslims. Does Sir David Frost really think that he hasn't been self-censoring? Indeed, how much poking fun at Islam or Muslims has Frost been doing on Al-Jazeera, which airs his weekly show? He knows the threat to life and limb all too well, and acts accordingly. What a liar Frost is, but good for Bremner for finally calling a spade a spade. My tip for him feeling safer: now that he's on board (i.e. noticed that Muslims are censoring him), perhaps he can convince his fellow frightened comedians to SPREAD THE RISK, damnit. Precisely the point of Facebook's "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day." Duh. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
AFGANISTAN OFFER TO TALIBAN; TURKEY SLANDERED ON PERSECUTION OF JEWS; UN, U.S., AND IRAQI REFUGEES
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2010. |
|
AFGANISTAN OFFER TO TALIBAN 
The government of Afghanistan is trying to get Taliban troops to stand down, leave the "cause," make peace. It has made a new offer of amnesty. Now it would permit retention of weapons by those who pledge to return home. The new offer bears the risk that in their villages, the purportedly ex-Taliban would use those guns to dominate the area in behalf of the Taliban. The theory behind the offer is to enable the ex-Taliban to protect themselves. It is no easier to resign from the terrorist group than it is to retire from a hardened American street gang. The gangs assassinate those who quit. Along with the weapons concessions come offers of education, vocational training, jobs, and village development. The government anticipates rehabilitating 36,000 insurgents within five years (Maria.
PRINCE CHARLES BRINGS ISLAM INTO ISSUE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM Prince Charles has espoused many advanced ideas on improving or preserving the environment. He has gone too far, however, in bringing religion into it and at the wrong time. He criticized the Western heritage in a number of ways, starting with the astronomer, Galileo, for "objectifying nature." His main complaint was against Western materialism. Prince Charles seems to have forgotten that Western science and practicality have raised the standard of living [and freedom] of billions of people. By contrast, the Prince praised Islam as having "no separation between man and nature." He implies that Islam is good for the environment (Wall St. J., 6/17/10). Perhaps in his actual speech, he was more thoughtful. As described in the editorial, he made generalizations that mislead. The main problem with his statement is that it comes at a time when that religion has a radical spearhead striving to oppress the otherwise free British people. They tell us that most Muslims are moderate, but there is little Muslim objection to that spearhead and much sympathy with its thrust of imposing Islamic law on the British. A second problem with the generalization is its falsity. Materialism is healthy. Excessive materialism is not. Disregarding the environment is not limited to the West, and is not excluded from Islamic areas. Bedouin raids and Turkish deforestation helped turn Palestine into a wasteland, until Zionism restored it. Israel is pushing back the desert, which is encroaching further into other areas of the Mideast and southern Africa. Twice Israel had to rescue the people of Gaza who, when not under Israeli rule, turned their aquifer brackish. I have reported on leaky water distribution in Arab-run areas and on lack of proper sewage disposal in the Palestinian Authority. Iran subsidizes gasoline, encouraging people to drive unnecessarily. All over the world, people are getting cars in preference to mass-transit. Under anti-Western Communist rule, the USSR shortened the life span, partly by pollution. China now is trying to reduce its own pollution, but it has become known for building industrial facilities in other countries that are highly polluting.
RUSSIA RAPS U.S., EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN; AND TURKEY The EU now has added sanctions of its own on Iran, as had the U.S., in support of the Security Council sanctions. Russia objects to the additional sanctions. Russia complains that the individual sanctions were imposed without working together with Russia (IMRA, 6/17/10).
TURKEY SLANDERED ON PERSECUTION OF JEWS It was popularly believed that during WWI, Turkey expelled most Palestinian Jews, in an effort to destroy Zionism. In an otherwise dull book on statistics, The Population of Palestine, by Justin McCarthy, that myth is attributed to British, wartime, anti-Turkish propaganda. British officials mis-characterized the evacuation as cruel deportation of Jews. At that time, the world had accepted many false stories of wartime atrocities. Hence this story persuaded many. Scandinavian consular officials and a leading Zionist official had rejected the accusation. Only a few Zionists actually were deported because of Turkish fears that they wanted to break away from the Turkish Empire. What really happened? Realizing that the area was going to become a war zone, Turkey evacuated people of all faiths, and guarded their property for them while they were away. Most were sent elsewhere in the area. Some were sent further away. Later, they returned. This Turkish action saved many lives (p.22). Nowadays, people are so polarized and propagandized, they lack balance and therefore lack accuracy. They fail to make proper distinctions and conclusions. The current mood is, my people right or wrong, you are either with me on everything, and everything about one's opponents is bad, or you are against me. Truth is no object. Emotion rules. An exception is if you are an Israeli far leftist. As prof. Steven Plaut described it, the Israeli far leftist view is, against my country, right or wrong. The Turkish fear for their Empire was well-founded, but was their Empire justified?
ISRAELI DAILY PRO-ARAB IN MISTAKEN AND PERVERSE WAY Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot depicts as a hero an Israeli traitor and spy, Shammai Liebowitz, now serving time in a U.S. prison. The FBI had caught Liebowitz delivering secret documents to Palestinian Arab terrorists. Yediot would have it that Liebowitz is a moral hero, a role model. The accompanying photo showed a wall with graffiti declaring Liebowitz a courageous attorney enjoying respect. The photo was Yediot exhibit A. The problem with the photo as testifying to Liebowitz' greatness and popularity is that Liebowitz was arrested while painting that graffiti on the supermarket wall! (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/18 from Kalman Liebskind of Maariv.) Delivering national military secrets to terrorists who would try to utilize them in order to blow up one's fellow countrymen is hardly a moral model. The newspaper adulation of him appears ethically perverse.
UN, U.S., AND IRAQI REFUGEES The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that 1,800,000 Iraqis have requested asylum in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey. "'The acceptance rate by resettlement countries of UNHCR is referrals now stands at 80 per cent, of which nearly 76 per cent have been accepted by the U.S.,' the UNHCR said." (IMRA, 6/18/10). 
If the English wording of the quotation were clear, those statistics would be. Does it mean that the U.S. determines eligibility for asylum by Iraqis in countries outside the U.S.? Does it mean the U.S. is accepting some refugees? Suppose some of the refugees are genocidal supporters of Saddam, who fear retribution by Shiites. Should they be granted asylum, as if innocent victims and not potential trouble-makers? UNHCR is a separate agency for refugees from UNRWA. UNRWA works only with Palestinian Arab refugees. A significant difference is in how the two agencies operate. UNHCR tries to resettle refugees, so they can settle down in security and normalcy. It spends public funds to resolve the problems. By contrast, UNRWA keeps Palestinian Arabs in a sort of refugee status for generations, consuming ever larger public sums for a problem that increases with population growth and an overly loose definition of "refugee."
EGYPT INTERFERES IN COPTIC RELIGION When Muslims persecute Copts in Egypt, the (authoritarian) government claims inability to control "extremists" that it nevertheless claims to be only a few. Here is a case, however, of Egyptian government outright interference in the Coptic religion. An Egyptian court has ruled that the Coptic Church must allow divorced Copts to remarry within the Church. The Coptic Pope Shenouda rejected the ruling as interference in personal religious practice. He said he respects the law, but the constitution of Egypt allows religious freedom, at least allows each faith to rule itself in religious and personal matters. The judicial ruling contravenes the Bible. Marriage is a holy sacrament and not just an administrative act. There is talk of imprisoning Pope Shenouda. A woman's rights group accused him of imposing his will. However, he enjoys much support from his followers, and they consider govenrment persecution a grave affront. Nor is his stance a novelty in Catholic circles. The government daily, Al Ahram, describes the ruling as an attempt to liberalize the rules of divorce and marriage from the Coptic Pope who is not amenable to reform. Is the Pope forcing his views on individual Copts. No. He says they may marry outside the Church or leave it. Is the government liberalizing? The government, itself, is not liberal. Its Constitution declares Islamic law the basis for Egyptian law. Islamic law is not liberal. It discriminates against females and non-Muslims, obstructs churches, prevents Muslims from changing the religion on their I.D. cards to "Christian," etc.. Islamic law holds apostasy of Muslims to be a capital crime (Raymond Ibrahim, Middle East Forum, 6/16/10, with much documentation Pajamas Media )
IRAN DEVELOPING MISSILE THREAT AGAINST EUROPE 
U.S. intelligence finds Iran developing the capability of launching scores or hundreds of missiles at Europe. Nor would Iran be the only danger. N. Korea is a primary one, but other countries may develop missile capability. The conclusion is a policy to integrate sea-based and land-based missile defenses around NATO allies and U.S. bases. We had better have this system operational by 2020. U.S. Defense Sec. Gates realizes that Russia does not like this plan. Russia claims concern that the U.S. would be able to intercept a Russian retaliation [as if the U.S. would attack Russia]. Not so, says Gates. The U.S. could not intercept an advanced and massive Russian attack. Gates also observes that Russia would object to anything that the U.S., and not Russia, builds (IMRA, 6/18/10). Both Iran and N. Korea are developing long-range missiles capable of reaching into the U.S.. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Perhaps Iran will station missiles in Venezuela doesn't collapse from its failing version of socialism. Note that this problem, like that of the prior article's problem of
Egypt and its Copts, and like the next article's problem of Saudi
Arabia's problem with female radicals, has nothing to do with Israel.
the claims that Israel causes all the problems of the Mideast is
prejudice, not truthful.
S. ARABIA DEALING WITH FEMALE RADICALS With a jolt to its own complacency, Saudi Arabia arrested a female recruiter for al-Qaida, and realized it was not a one-of-a-kind incident. The government found that al-Qaida is attempting to recruit women in particular. The main venue for recruitment is Internet. The government is developing a program to counteract this al-Qaida endeavor. Experts have started producing results, also via Internet, and still are studying the phenomenon. Women are particularly welcome in this government counter-terrorism. The program's objectives are not only to keep women from recruiting, fundraising, and committing violence, but also to shop sheltering male relatives who commit terrorism. For one thing, the government operatives look for signs of female extremism. There were comments about women being susceptible to recruitment because they are emotional [like enraged Muslim male protestors?], also likelier to quit (IMRA, 6/18/10 from Saudi Gazette). How far apart is the government's version of Islam, with its emphasis on bigotry and violence, from "extremism?" How easily do recruiters help Saudis to bridge that gap?
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:
|
|
GAZA ACTIVISTS WERE 'USEFUL IDIOTS' IN A MUCH BIGGER TURKISH POWER GAME
Posted by Daily Alert, June 18, 2010. |
|
This was written by Steven King and it appeared June 9, 2010
in the Irish Examiner
|
|
IN my first year at Queen's in Belfast, no subject exercised the monthly meetings of the students' union more than the name of the hall where our meetings were held. By and large, republican students supported retaining the name, Mandela Hall; unionist students resented what they saw as a political stunt, especially after it was revealed the Mandela in question was the discredited Winnie, not the saintly Nelson. Needless to say, accusations of being in favour of necklace killings and of supporting white supremacy flew back and forth. At least, it was a diversion from what really divided the student body, the tit-for-tat violence on the streets outside, I guess. Of course, for most right-minded people, support for the struggle to end apartheid was a no-brainer. To show your solidarity with the oppressed black majority who were denied the right to vote was important. The only question was how to go about it. Beyond the ivory tower, that meant no South African wine would ever be served in respectable middle class homes. For others, it meant going on marches. But few went very much further. Life in a guerrilla camp in Mozambique didn't appeal. Besides, the ANC had no time for such adventurers. There was no Irish Brigade camped across the Limpopo. Beyond the wilder fringes, there used to be a consensus of aims about Israel/Palestine. Just as the desired goal in South Africa was a prosperous multiracial society, in the Holy Land it was of two secure states living side by side in harmony. But for those who have fallen into the trap of equating white South Africa with the state of Israel, the conflict in the Middle East offers many more — and more comfortable — opportunities to protest than years in the bush in the frontline states. The struggle for Palestinian rights has long since moved beyond the university campuses where the keffiyah became the fashion statement of choice for bourgeois radicals. For a generation to whom Vietnam and South Africa are either faint memories or battles only read about in history books, Palestine is the most perfect cause. Unlike in the Spanish civil war, it's not even as though Ireland, Catholic or Protestant, could be said to have a dog in the race. There are no mutilated nuns to confuse sentiment. For rebels looking for a cause then, Israel makes a classic enemy. Being a Jewish state makes it racist, right? Aren't its most vociferous supporters in the United States? Don't its leaders often seem impervious to criticism? What more is there to know? Sure, they even have the bomb, for heaven's sake. Only the Holocaust prevents even respectable opinion in Ireland from labelling Israel a fascist state. And as causes go, it helps that Gaza seems so much more immediate and urgent than the effects of global warming, so much more winnable than the Tibetan fight for autonomy. Even politicians can join in the act — at almost no cost to themselves. They can visit a refugee camp and feel the Palestinians' pain by day and still have time to retreat to a beach-side five-star hotel to sip cocktails before a slap-up dinner. For the hardcore, that's cheating. So some of these motivated individuals — a ragtag column of faded hippies, D-list celebrities, a long-forgotten Belfast peace campaigner and a few others whom Lenin would have dubbed 'useful idiots' — joined 400 Turkish Islamists on a voyage to break the Israeli blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. They came, they said, bearing medicine and food and toys. What more harmless humanitarian mission could there be? And, in fairness, for many of them, that's probably what it was: a genuine, if misguided, attempt to relieve Gaza's suffering, whoever is to blame for it. After all, no one would pretend the Strip is anything other than a fly-ridden pit of a place. Who could fail to be moved by the conditions there? But for the Turkish activists who drove the mission, the flotilla was all part of a much bigger game. It was a subtle repudiation of Ankara's secular Ataturkist inheritance, a premeditated provocation by a gang of wannabe martyrs bent on violent confrontation and on realigning Turkey away from the west. The pity is that they succeeded in their aims. I ask you, do genuine peace activists chant 'death to the Jews'? And why does the western media turn a blind eye to such scenes which are positively celebrated on Arab TV? Those who went to fight for the Republic in Spain were driven by a thirst for freedom, by positive visions of the future, by a willingness to take serious personal risks. But not a single one of those admirable traits was present on the ship of fools sailing to Gaza. Ah, but if only the Israelis and Palestinians could sort out their differences, all in the region would be well, we're led to believe. It's a tempting trap to fall into. "Both sides are as bad as each other" appeals to fair-minded people. It doesn't involve taking sides and no one will accuse you of being anti-semitic — or a lackey of imperialism either. But the impression that Israel/Palestine is the root of all the Middle East's problems is as misguided as it is pervasive. Imagine, for a second, a world without Israel. Would the problems of the Middle East be healed? Far from it. The conflict with Israel merely serves as an effective cover for the region's collective failure to build stable, just and prosperous societies. The Arab world would do well to rage a bit less against Israel and think a bit more about how to be better governed, better educated, more prosperous — and how to more effectively utilise the talents of the half of its population who happen to be female. CLOSER to home, beyond trying to save its citizens, even the reckless ones, from harm it's never quite clear where the Government thinks its own interests lie. I would suggest they lie not in pandering to sentiment — it's not as though Palestinian suffering is unique in a region that's going backwards according to most indices — but in preventing a nuclear arms race between Iran on the one hand and the Sunni states, led by Saudi Arabia, on the other. Then we would really be talking "serious consequences", for Ireland and the whole world. The deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara were regrettable and most probably avoidable. They deserve full investigation. But to avoid the mistakes of the past, politicians need to go beyond kneejerk reactions to examine the effects of their statements on the Middle East peace process, the moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Iranian efforts to establish hegemony in the region. As for the boats which have been sailing to Gaza, they are neither truly humanitarian missions nor simply vehicles for delivering weapons to Hamas. They are best understood as an armada of people with the kind of bad politics which have been rejected at the polls in Ireland time and again. True, the fact that the flotilla to Gaza was powered by an underlying desire for punishment of the chattering classes' new pariah does not justify Israel's recklessness. But it does help to explain it. 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 |
|
WHERE ARE THE PROTESTS WHEN NON-JEWS KILL?
Posted by Daily Alert, June 18, 2010. |
|
This was written by Barry Cohen and it appeared in The
Australian
|
|
ON May 18 last year the long, bitter war between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government came to an end. After tens of thousands of deaths over decades, it is believed, 40,000 Tamils died during the final few days. On January 17 this year, in Nigeria, about 300 Muslims were slaughtered by Christians. In March 500 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims. On March 26, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean ship, killing 46. On May 28, in Lahore, Pakistan, 95 members of the Ahmedi Islamic sect were killed in an attack on a mosque because they were blasphemous. A few days later six "police" machine-gunned the survivors [critically wounded and in the hospital], killing 12. Detailed lists of this year's suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are not available, but readers will be aware that barely a week passes without suicide bombers causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent families. It has been one continuous slaughter for almost a decade. Then there were the hundreds massacred after last year's Iranian elections and the 400,000 killed in Darfur in recent years. The question that comes to mind is, did anyone notice? Most of these massacres received only a cursory glance from the media but few asked questions. Nobody demanded an independent inquiry. There was some tut-tutting but little else. Where were the demonstrations, protests, marches and letters to the editor by those compassionate souls who demonstrate whenever brutal Western regimes commit an action of which they disapprove? They were nowhere to be seen.
WHICH BRINGS US TO GAZA, and the flotilla of "peace activists" who we had known for weeks would attempt to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza. A little background is essential. Israel had no desire to run Gaza. It wanted to get out and let the Gazans run it themselves, which is what Ariel Sharon did in 2005. In the election that followed, Hamas, committed to the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews, won comfortably. They consolidated their position with open warfare with Fatah and about 2000 Palestinians were killed. If they'd do that to fellow Palestinians, imagine the fate of Israelis. Having established a brutal totalitarian regime, they concentrated their efforts to bring about peace by firing 7000 rockets into Israel, killing 20 Israelis. The inaccuracy of the rockets was little consolation for those who, daily, had rockets whistling over their heads. Finally, Israel decided it had had enough. Hence Operation Cast Lead resulting in 1300 Gazans and 13 Israelis killed. Those who had remained silent as thousands of rockets were lobbed into Israel suddenly crawled out from under their rocks screaming "disproportionate". Some of us had the bad manners to remind them that "disproportionate", had rarely been used during World War II when the Americans bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Allies flattened Germany, killing 670,000. Not much proportionality there. Israel decided not to reoccupy Gaza but to ensure that it did not become a repository for rockets and more sophisticated missiles being smuggled in from Iran and Syria. They placed a blockade on Gaza to ensure that any humanitarian aid came through Ashdod (Israel) or El Arish (Egypt). Hamas did not take kindly to these restrictions, which brings us to the "peace flotilla."As the story unfolded it became clear that Israel's chief mistake was to assume that the flotilla's main goal was to deliver humanitarian aid and that those on the six ships were genuine peace activists caring only for the plight of the Palestinians. Some were, but there was no shortage of thugs spoiling for a fight on the lead boat, the Mavi Marmara. Flotilla organisers had been told that if they wanted aid to reach Gazans they should go through Ashdod or El Arish. One, Greta Berlin, admitted the flotilla's aim was to break the blockade. Much of the media went into overdrive to condemn Israel, with the loudest cries screaming that the blockade was illegal. Those with a knowledge of maritime law said this was nonsense, recounting the American blockade of Nazi Germany and Japan and president John Kennedy's blockade of Cuba during the October 1962 missile crisis. Israel has already stopped hundreds of tonnes of guns and missiles from entering Gaza. What was uncharacteristic was for the Israelis to believe that they were dealing with followers of Gandhi. If not, why had they chosen as their weapon of choice paintball guns? Let me run that past you again; paintball guns. The miracle is that no Israelis were killed. They were, however, brutally beaten with iron bars. Naturally the usual suspects in the left-liberal media screamed "disproportionate". What should the Israelis have done? Allowed themselves to be beaten to death or brought out their Monopoly boards? Israel's critics forget that Hamas is at war with Israel. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But the prize for the hypocrite of the century must surely go to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He accused Israel of "state terrorism, a bloody massacre" and called the attack as being "like 9/11 for Turkey". That is obscene! All this is a bit rich coming from a country that refuses to acknowledge or have an inquiry into the alleged genocide of one million Armenians during World War I. Nor did he mention the nonstop war between Turkey and its Kurdish minority that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of the latter. Israel is not perfect and it makes mistakes but it is not alone. When it does the wrong thing it deserves to be criticised. Anyone who reads the Israeli press would be aware that its severest critics are in Israel. Criticise Israel, by all means, but spare us from the hypocrisy of those whose hands are 100 times more bloodied. 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 |
|
U.S. IS A TOP VILLAIN IN PAKISTAN'S CONSPIRACY TALK
Posted by Mr Arbus, June 17, 2010. |
|
This was written by Sabrina Tavernise and published May 25,
2010 in the New York Times
|
|
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Americans may think that the failed Times Square bomb was planted by a man named Faisal Shahzad. But the view in the Supreme Court Bar Association here in Pakistan's capital is that the culprit was an American "think tank." At War Until recently, Zaid Hamid was an outspoken commentator on Pakistani television. No one seems to know its name, but everyone has an opinion about it. It is powerful and shadowy, and seems to control just about everything in the American government, including President Obama. "They have planted this character Faisal Shahzad to implement their script," said Hashmat Ali Habib, a lawyer and a member of the bar association. Who are they? "You must know, you are from America," he said smiling. "My advice for the American nation is, get free of these think tanks." Conspiracy theory is a national sport in Pakistan, where the main players — the United States, India and Israel — change positions depending on the ebb and flow of history. Since 2001, the United States has taken center stage, looming so large in Pakistan's collective imagination that it sometimes seems to be responsible for everything that goes wrong here. "When the water stops running from the tap, people blame America," said Shaista Sirajuddin, an English professor in Lahore. The problem is more than a peculiar domestic phenomenon for Pakistan. It has grown into a narrative of national victimhood that is a nearly impenetrable barrier to any candid discussion of the problems here. In turn, it is one of the principal obstacles for the United States in its effort to build a stronger alliance with a country to which it gives more than a billion dollars a year in aid. It does not help that no part of the Pakistani state — either the weak civilian government or the powerful military — is willing to risk publicly owning that relationship. One result is that nearly all of American policy toward Pakistan is conducted in secret, a fact that serves only to further feed conspiracies. American military leaders slip quietly in and out of the capital; the Pentagon uses networks of private spies; and the main tool of American policy here, the drone program, is not even publicly acknowledged to exist. "The linchpin of U.S. relations is security, and it's not talked about in public," said Adnan Rehmat, a media analyst in Islamabad. The empty public space fills instead with hard-line pundits and loud Islamic political parties, all projected into Pakistani living rooms by the rambunctious new electronic media, dozens of satellite television networks that weave a black-and-white, prime-time narrative in which the United States is the central villain. "People want simple explanations, like evil America, Zionist-Hindu alliance," said a Pakistani diplomat, who asked not to be named because of the delicate nature of the topic. "It's gone really deep into the national psyche now." One of those pundits is Zaid Hamid, a fast-talking, right-wing television personality who rose to fame on one of Pakistan's 90 new private television channels. He uses Google searches to support his theory that India, Israel and the United States — through their intelligence agencies and the company formerly known as Blackwater — are conspiring to destroy Pakistan. For Mr. Hamid, the case of Mr. Shahzad is one piece of a larger puzzle being assembled to pressure Pakistan. Why, otherwise, the strange inconsistencies, like the bomb's not exploding? "If you connect the dots, you have a pretty exciting story," he said. But the media are only part of the problem. Only a third of Pakistan's population has access to satellite channels, Mr. Rehmat said, and equally powerful are Islamic groups active at the grass roots of Pakistani society. Though Pakistan was created as a haven for Muslims, it was secular at first, and did not harden into an Islamic state on paper until 1949. Intellectuals point to the moment as a kind of original sin, when Islam became embedded in the country's democratic blueprint, handing immense power to Islamic hard-liners, who could claim — despite their small numbers — to be the true guardians of the state. Together with military and political leaders, these groups wield Islamic slogans for personal gain, further shutting down discussion. "We're in this mess because political forces evoke Islam to further their own interests," said Aasim Sajjad, an assistant professor of political economy at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. Lawyers in Pakistan have a strong streak of political Islam. Mr. Habib, who has had militants as clients, argues that Al Qaeda is an American invention. Their pronouncements are infused with anti-Semitism, standard for Islamic groups in the region. "The lobbies are the Jews, maybe some Indians, working in the inner core of the American administration," said Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, vice president of the bar association. Liberals on Pakistan's beleaguered left see the xenophobic patriotism and conspiracy theories as a defense mechanism that deflects all responsibility for society's problems and protects against a reality that is too painful to face. "It's deny, deny, deny," said Nadeem F. Paracha, a columnist for Dawn, an English-language daily. "It's become second nature, like an instinct." Mr. Paracha argues that the denial is dangerous because it hobbles any form of public conversation — for example, about Mr. Shahzad's upper-class background — leaving society unequipped to find remedies for its problems. "We've started to believe our own lies," he said. For those on the left, that view obscures an increasingly disappointing history. For 62 years, Pakistan has lurched from one self-serving government to the next, with little thought given to education or the economy, said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physics professor at Quaid-i-Azam University. Now Pakistan is dependent on the West to pay its bills, a vulnerable position that breeds resentment. "We acknowledge to ourselves privately that Pakistan is a client state of the U.S.," Mr. Hoodbhoy said. "But on the other hand, the U.S. is acting against Muslim interests globally. A sort of self-loathing came about." There are very real reasons for Pakistanis to be skeptical of the United States. It encouraged — and financed — jihadis waging a religious war against the Soviets in the 1980s, while supporting the military autocrat Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, who seeded Pakistan's education system with Islamists. But Mr. Hamid is more interested in the larger plot, like the secret ownership of the Federal Reserve, which he found on the Internet. After three years of fame, his star seems to be falling. This month his show was canceled, and he has had to rely on Facebook and audio CDs to make his points. But it is not the end of the conspiracy. "Someone else will be front row very soon," said Manan Ahmed, a professor of Pakistani history. "It is the mood of the country at the moment." Contact Mr Arbus at mrarbus@yahoo.com |
|
Is the Israeli Left High-Minded or Treasonous and Pathologically Ill?
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 17, 2010. |
|
Letters to the Editor of Azure Re: Assaf Sagiv's "Left in Despair"
Dear Editor; There is a certain weakness of the Western mind that requires that one always insist that all groups of humans are high-minded, morally driven, and decent. This manifests itself in such mantras as "Most Palestinians want Peace," "Most Arabs are Moderate," as well as in the belief that terrorists are just as interested in material comfort and consumerism as are denizens of the suburban West. There seems to be a psychic need to prettify and bend over in respect towards every enemy, and this posture fills Assaf Sagiv's essay. The Israeli radical anti-Israel "academics" he reviews are painted throughout the essay as decent high-minded folks, so devoted to ethical goodness that they are driven to despair and sadness. "The radical left prides itself on purism, on its unwillingness to compromise its principles," writes Sagiv. He is wrong. The Israeli radical Left is as single-mindedly devoted to hatred towards Israel (and increasingly towards Jews) as the American Left is devoted to anti-Americanism. Indeed, since the late 1960s, the virtual raison d'etre of the American radical Left has been anti-Americanism. Since the early 1980s the Israeli Left has become a similar one-issue movement and that one issue is anti-Zionism and hatred of their own country. Anti-Americanism explains every position taken by the Far Left outside of Israel, ironically even its anti-Semitism. A casual look through the web magazine "Counterpunch" will drive home the point. And while Counterpunch is today so openly anti-Semitic as to be properly thought of as an anti-American far-leftist neo-Nazi magazine, one can find published there almost all of the members of the Israeli radical Left Sagiv discusses. Contra Sagiv, the radical Left in Israel (and in America) is less a political phenomenon than it is a psychiatric one. Membership in it and the political positions promoted by it are ultimately reflections of the psychiatric complexes of those self-recruiting to it. The great psychologist Erik Erikson once attributed radical political ideology to an infantile rage against one's parents. And he did so decades before Noam Chomsky or Ilan Pappe. Treating such people as serious ethical thinkers is to join in the charade and become part of the problem. Sagiv, for some reason, fails to mention the large numbers of those he cites who are card carrying members of the Stalinist HADASH communist party. He fails to mention that the ones who are NOT members just think HADASH is too tame. The number of communist anti-Israel professors at Tel Aviv University, many discussed in the essay, is no doubt larger than the sum total of people in all of Eastern Europe who still believe in communism. Some of the great "thinkers" in Sagiv's essay are little more than airheads and frauds. The claim to fame of Ariella Azoulay, who figures prominently in the essay, is her penchant for collecting photos and arranging them tendentiously to make Israel look evil. For some reason Sagiv forgets to mention her also being Adi Ophir's spouse. Then there is Stalinist Shlomo Sand, an expert on the French cinema, who published a book recently filled with recycled Neo-Nazi myths about modern Jews all being converted Khazars, with no legitimate claims to Israel. These are the buffoons whom the essay treats as deep thinkers hyper-ethically sensitive to the point of despair. It is not coincidental that these people have repeatedly embraced as their role models the worst spies and traitors in the country, from Mordecai Vanunu to Anat Kamm to Tali Fahima. Then they turn around and express "despair" that treason failed to garner the votes of the Israeli electorate for them. These are people who want to see Israel annihilated because it will really, really upset Mommy and Daddy. They devote their lives to recreational treason, to public anti-Israel posturing for their anti-Semitic friends. If these people are attacking their own country and their own people, so their friends chant, then just IMAGINE how sublime their sense of justice and ethics must be. In reality, their thinking is as deep as that of Jihad Jane and Taliban John in the US. And increasing numbers of them even collaborate with Holocaust Deniers and Neo-Nazis. A more interesting target group for Azure might have been the Zionist Left, which Sagiv insists is farther away from the anti-Zionists than the former are from the Right. I am skeptical as to whether a Zionist Left even exists at all. What may once have been the Zionist Left long ago split, with half migrating into the Zionist non-Left and the other half joining the Traitors-R-Us. Meretz today differs little from Uri Avnery's little cult. Peace Now differs in nothing significant from the ultras in Yesh Gvul and Ta'ayoush. The slogan of the so-called Zionist Left today is: Israel — Hate it or Leave it! My country must be attacked, right or wrong. The enemies of my country must be supported, right or wrong. The rump Left sees the suicide bombers, jihadists and the Gaza Flotilla terrorists as its ultimate constituency. And the Israel Left is also increasingly anti-democratic and hostile to freedom of speech. Most of those cited in the Sagiv essay could more properly be described as leftwing Neo-fascists. They are openly and explicitly opposed to allowing non-leftists to exercise freedom of speech, and they are openly opposed to allowing Israel to conduct its affairs democratically. The solution to this disease is not pretending that such people are high-minded patriots of a different ethical bend. Only when these Israeli haters of Israel are seen for what they are, a bizarre psychiatric ailment expressing itself in Jewish anti-Semitism, can any real analytic progress take place. The adjective "sad" in Sagiv's headline is not the first that should come to mind in describing these people. Thank you Sincerely yours,
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
|
|
INDIA-ISRAEL COOPERATION; WHAT'S RUSSIA UP TO RE ISRAEL?;
TURKEY OBJECTS TO ISRAELI FLOTILLA PROBE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 17, 2010. |
|
RIGHT CLASHES WITH MUSLIMS AT ENGLISH MILITARY PARADE A Royal Anglian Regiment was marching in Barking, Essex, England, to cheers of thousands of people. The Regiment has just lost several members in Afghanistan. About 40 members of the Muslims Against the Crusades had placards and shouts accusing those soldiers of being murders, rapists, and butchers of civilians, and asking them what they were dying for. Separated by barricades on different sides of the street were about 100 members of the English Defense League. They called the Muslim protesters "scum" and shouted, "Muslim bombers off the street!" Then they crossed the street and attacked the Muslims. Police escorted the Muslims to safety. The many bystanders, not all of whom support the war, resented the protestors hijacking a military parade (ActForAmerica, 6/16/10). The Crusades occurred about a thousand years ago (followed by Muslim conquest of much of Christendom and then liberation of most conquered areas). Many Muslims perceive the current wars as a continuation of the Crusades. They are not. They are wars of defense against renewal of jihad. The Muslim misperception reflects backward views and bias. British troops are not in Afghanistan to fight civilians. Any civilians killed during their operations are killed by mistake or as bystanders. But the terrorists do attack civilians, many of whom are fellow Muslims. Why no Muslim protest against that, if they really care about civilians? The Muslim accusations against the troops are false, defamatory, vile, and shameful. One wonders how many of those protesters themselves had to request political asylum from Islamist regimes. They shame English hospitality. The English Defense League shames English civility. Violence has no place at a parade. Instead of making a bad impression on their own people, thereby setting back their cause, they might have cited the Muslim group as reasons for some program against the domestic Islamist activity and presence and governmental acquiescence to it.
ISRAEL LIBERALIZING GAZA EMBARGO The Israeli Security Cabinet decided to liberalize the Gaza Embargo. Now the pillars of its policy are: 1. Let in more civilian goods. 2. Let in more dual purpose goods utilized under foreign supervision. 3. Retain security procedures intended to prevent admission of war materiel. The Cabinet asks, in return, that foreign governments work diplomatically to get released the kidnapped Israeli held by Hamas (IMRA, 6/17/10).
INDIA-ISRAEL: 1. GROWING COOPERATION Having surpassed Russia as the main foreign military supplier to India, Israel now is having its Israel Aerospace Industry develop the Barak anti-aircraft missile system for India. Last year, military trade between India and Israel reached $9 billion. The two countries jointly develop space technology and train together militarily. "India is also the second-largest economic partner of Israel Currently, the two nations are negotiating an extensive bilateral trade pact. The importance of maintaining this growing partnership is critical, while Europe's Western population declines and Islamic jihad attacks all over the world. In India, leftist parties and pro-Islamic people detest the two countries' growing cooperation, including in military intelligence. They want to sabotage it (Narain Kataria, founder and President of Indian American Intellectual Forum, Katarian@aol.com 8/16). "Indian American Intellectuals Forum is an advocacy group organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. It aims at strengthening Indo-American relationship. It also spreads awareness about the menace of terrorism in this country."
INDIA-ISRAEL: 2. PLOT AGAINST THEIR COOPERATION? 
The prospect of such a film already has upset people in India, Israel, and elsewhere. Is there more to this film project than a misguided and sensationalist notion of presenting a human side to one of the world's most inhuman persons, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people? Is the project, instead, aimed at driving a wedge between the growing Indian and Israeli alliance and Hindu and Jewish friendship? Enter India's most wanted fugitive, Don Dawood Ibrahim. He is suspected of having organized the Mumbai terrorist rampage, in concert with Pakistan's spy agency, ISI. Don Ibrahim happens also to exercise a godfather-like power over Bollywood. The Indian American Intellectuals Forum believes that Ibrahim is behind the film project in an effort to destroy Indian-Israel cooperation. They would isolate India, weaken it militarily, "and balkanize it at an opportune time." (Narain Kataria, President of Indian American Intellectual Forum, 8/16). A rival of the Israel arms industry, the U.S. Defense Dept., stopped Israel from selling some airplane systems to India.
IRAN REACTS AGAINST SANCTIONS vWith the additional Security Council sanctions against Iran comes a need to inspect cargoes destined for Iran. Do they or do they not carry contraband? Iran says that it will not stand for its ships to be inspected at sea. It threatens to fight for its "rights." It tries to intimidate would-be inspectors by boasting of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, which it claims belongs to it, and through which much of the world's oil is shipped. By what right does the UN condemn Iran, which merely is developing peaceful use of nuclear energy, Iran complains? Iran asserts that the UN resolution was passed through the influence of the U.S. and the "Zionist state." (IMRA, 6/17/10). http://www.imra.org.il/ Some Security Council resolutions are passed under the provision of the UN Charter that indicates they are advisory. The one against Iran was under a provision indicating it is mandatory. Like it or not, when the Security Council passes a binding resolution, it has the force of international law. Iran has no right to resist inspection of its ships at sea. Iran, like the flotilla defenders, uses the phrase, "high seas," as if ships are exempt from inspection there. Not so. It depends on the circumstances. If Iranian nuclear development were innocent, why has Iran been violating its UN treaty and then UN sanctions for a couple of decades? A country that threatens to cripple the worlds' economy by blocking an international waterway fits anyone's definition of a rogue state. In this case, it would punish innocent billions of people. Interesting that Iran attributes the sanctions in part to lobbying by Israel. Since the biggest UN member bloc deems Israel its enemy, and since most UN resolutions are against Israel, and since most of them are one-sided or specious, to consider that Israel influenced the Security Council against Iran is ludicrous. Perhaps Iran should learn more about the "Zionist state." For one thing, it has a name, "Israel."
WHAT IS RUSSIA UP TO, REGARDING ISRAEL? The season of Russian tourism in Israel is about to start, but Russia is raising strange objections to air travel with Israel. It is not clear why. Israel does not want a crisis with Russia. A year ago, Russia abolished the need for visas for Israeli visitors. Nevertheless, about a month ago, Russia would not let an Arkia Airlines plane (Israeli) fly from St. Petersburg to Moscow, because the crew did not have visas. Seeking a means to get Russia to relent, Israel grounded a Russian aircraft at Ben-Gurion Airport. Now Russia has issued new rules to Israel's Foreign Ministry. The most important one is a ban on armed guards on Israeli planes (IMRA, 6/17/10). Israeli planes are considered among the safest against terrorism, for one thing, because they often carry armed guards. Terrorism or hijacking has been attempted against Russian planes. Russia should appreciate the lower risk of skyjacking on Israeli planes.
MAJOR MIDEAST MISCONCEPTION 19: 'THE JEWS' ARE LOYAL ONLY TO ISRAEL People have multiple loyalties. The same person may simultaneously be loyal to country, town, family, friends, tribe, religion, business or profession, political party, and the planet. Nothing wrong with it. Many ethnic groups in America retain an affection for the culture of their original homeland. Greeks, Armenians, Catholics have schools to maintain their language or culture or religion. Why shouldn't Jews have the same privilege of such an attachment? We Americans have Old Glory as our symbol and we are devoted to it. If an immigrant has too strong an attachment to his old country, let him return. Zionism does not insist that all Jews immigrate to Israel. Zionism considers Diaspora Jewry in partnership with it and a source of mutual aid. Israel would not have been reconstituted without the Diaspora. It is fashionable to be cosmopolitan and an internationalist. Fashion changes, like lily pads waving under every breeze. A true internationalist is rooted in his own nationalism, by which he can understand other cultures and can contribute to them. What about dual loyalty? Most American Jews approve the existence of the Jewish state. Does that make them disloyal to the American state? No, except for a few bad apples, who should be categorized with non-Jewish bad apples, not with the mass of normal Jews. Like most minorities, Jews are patriotic. They call America the golden state, a wonderful haven. They see no conflict with also feeling warmth toward the Jewish state. Why should there be a conflict in dual citizenship? In the minds of
most Jews and most Americans in general, both countries are
peace-loving democracies under attack on different fronts but from the
same jihad. They see the two countries as natural allies.
TURKEY OBJECTS TO ISRAELI PROBE OF FLOTILLA Turkey is lobbying in the Security Council to mandate an international investigation of the flotilla raid. It contends that Israel is a suspect, so it should not conduct a probe. Israel now explains clearly that (as my prior article anticipated) the civilian investigation with foreign observers check on legality of what Israel did, and that only the military will investigate the utility of the tactics used and how well they were implemented. One of the passengers smuggled scenes of the raid to a Turkish newspaper, which published them. They show injured Israelis, also a slain Islamist. They indicate that the Islamists attacked the Israelis, not the reverse. Israelis are sensitive to photos showing their men getting injured, thinking it would hurt morale. As reported here earlier, Reuters cropped the Islamists' knives out of two photos. They called it an accident. But Israelis recall Reuters some years ago adding smoke to a photo of an Israeli raid on Lebanon, making the raid seem more drastic. These dishonest presentations reinforce PM Netanyahu's resistance to demands for international investigations (IMRA, 6/17/10). The UN almost never was fair to Israel, but now one cannot expect it to, when the UN General Assembly includes the 50 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, who have expressed their hostility to Israel. They endorse just about any charge against Israel and object to just about none. If Israel is a suspect, what is Turkey, which the evidence shows set up the confrontation? Actually, the IDF conducts military probes with probity. It acts professionally. It wants to improve. It is willing to punish incompetents. Do photos showing Israeli troops injured hurt morale, or make the troops more determined? Israelis know they may sustain casualties. 
If the Israeli navy seals had intended a massacre, then the first ones
would have landed with appropriate guns blazing, not with paintball
rifles in anticipation of encountering non-violent resisters.
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:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: HOME!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 17, 2010. |
|
Yes, I have returned home, and to my computer, after a hiatus of two weeks. In fact, I have just returned from a visit to the States that was exceedingly important for personal family reasons, but included participation in a short briefing in a Senate conference room on issues of UNRWA and the PA — with more to share about these subjects in due course. While I am extremely glad that I made the trip — I am ever so glad to be home. I had hoped to do quite an extensive posting today — sort of a catch-up. But I deluded myself. I'm still in the process of reorienting myself. This, I think, will be (relatively) brief, with a great deal more to follow in the days ahead. A thank you goes to those readers who refrained from writing to me during this time period. ~~~~~~~~~~ During my visit I had occasion to read the Washington Post and the Boston Globe, and, once, the NY Times. And I was pleasantly surprised at how little press Israel seemed to be getting. Focus is on the oil spill in the Gulf and other matters, such as how willing Obama is to lead the Democratic party to a November Congressional victory. Things being what they are, no press is usually the best we can hope for. There was a requisite piece or two regarding, for example, how Netanyahu's policies create "problems" for Obama — as if making things easier for the American president should be our first priority. Worthy of note, within the past two weeks, is the fact that apparently twice Reuters cropped pictures of the Flotilla incident, so the knives of "peace activists" were removed. See:
~~~~~~~~~~ As the Flotilla incident is still newsworthy — with cries for international investigations — I share this video, which has been released by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you don't open any of the other links I am providing here, please do take the time to see this, and share it. Note in particular the response of persons on the Flotilla, who cried such obscenities as "Go back to Auschwitz":
~~~~~~~~~~ What is clear is that the Turkish ship the Mavi Marmara was staffed at least in part by Turkish mercenaries intent on doing damage. According to the JPost: "The IDF identified a group of about 50 men — of the 700 on board — who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers. "The men wore bulletproof vests and gas masks, and had communication devices. "The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each had an envelope with about $10,000 in cash. ~~~~~~~~~~ A video has been made available that comes from the ship's security cameras. It clearly shows the brandishing of weapons and the advance preparations for hitting the IDF:
~~~~~~~~~~ That there were present on the Marmara persons associated with Al Qaida has also become clear. I mention here, for example, Turkish citizen Hussein Aurosh, assistant to the IHH organization, who was supposed to arrive in the Gaza Strip to assist the transfer of members of Al Qaeda via Turkey. ~~~~~~~~~~ While from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center there is testimony regarding the members of the IHH who boarded the Marmara in Turkey and essentially controlled the ship:
~~~~~~~~~~ You might want to see a briefing from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs — "The Myth of the Siege of Gaza" — by Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi:
~~~~~~~~~~ All in all, JINSA, in its report #994 of June 4, said it well: "Israel was victimized twice this week, first by terrorists hiding yet again among the civilian population (one Turkish-sponsored jihadi boat traveling with five more-or-less civilian boats) and second by a world all too ready to blame Israel for the violence engendered by those who sought a bloody death for themselves and any Jews they could take along." ~~~~~~~~~~ Other points to be made here briefly: -- As I understand matters, the "humanitarian goods" unloaded from the Flotilla, which Israeli pledged to send via ground crossings into Gaza, were rejected by Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ Prime Minister Netanyahu has resisted calls for an international investigation of the Flotilla incident, but, in a bow to international pressure, has agreed to an Israeli investigation. The evidence is so clear already that I rather regret this. This, from MEMRI, demonstrates just how clear it is: "In a June 7, 2010, article in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan, columnist Nabil al-Fadl wrote: "The photos of the Israeli soldiers bleeding after being attacked by the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, published yesterday in the [Kuwaiti] daily Al-Anba, prove that the Israeli soldiers were justified in shooting [their attackers]. Clearly, the assault on the soldiers...occurred before they opened fire, and proves that the passengers on board the Marmara were not civilians [trying to] help their brothers in Gaza, as has been claimed." If a Kuwait columnist recognizes this? ~~~~~~~~~~ Most particularly do I regret the inclusion of two "international observers," as if we cannot handle this adequately and fairly ourselves. From the Israeli side, there is only one matter of concern, internally: why was there an intelligence failure, so that the navy was unaware of who was on the Marmara, and with what intentions. Netanyahu would like to see the investigating commission also look at what happened from the other side: What was the involvement of the Turkish government, what links were there to terrorists organizations, etc. The investigating commission is to be headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, with participation by Professor of international law and Israel Prize laureate Shabtai Rosen, and Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Horev, former president of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. The two foreign observers to be present during the commission's deliberations are Nobel Peace Prize laureate William David Trimble of Ireland, and Ken Watkin, former military judge advocate general from Canada. Originally there was supposed to be US observer, but it was considered inadvisable. Note, please, that when there are incidents in other parts of the world, rarely if ever are there strident calls for investigating teams, particularly of an international nature. ~~~~~~~~~~ On June 8th, Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in Hudson NY, asked "What About Hamas's Siege of Gaza?" Take a look at this article which exposes Hamas hostility to NGOs in Gaza: "As Israeli naval commandos raided the flotilla ship convoy that was on its way to the Gaza Strip, Hamas security officers stormed the offices of five non-governmental organizations, confiscated equipment and documents, and ordered them closed indefinitely...Hamas has brought nothing to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip other than death and disaster." If there is going to be talk about suffering in Gaza, it's time to point the finger in the right direction. This is a story that was poorly covered by the general media. Kudos to Abu Toameh for this piece.
~~~~~~~~~~ According to Haaretz, when PA president Mahmoud Abbas visited Obama last week, he told the president that he's opposed to lifting the blockade of Gaza, as this would bolster Hamas. How about that? Understand, however, that this is the same Abbas who never misses an opportunity to lambaste Israel for causing the people of Gaza great suffering. It is news about Abbas and the PA that I am most likely to address when next I post. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL CONNECT, IN ISRAEL
Posted by Susana K-M, June 17, 2010. |
|
Israel Connect, in Israel — What seemed like a far-fetched idea almost a year ago, became reality last week: on Thursday 3rd June 2010 Israel Connect Israel hosted its first event in Tel Aviv. The aim of the organization would be to create a platform for Zionists who live in Israel and would like to remain involved with current affairs and meet like-minded people. The first event exceeded our expectations, with many new faces and an interesting speaker: Lianne Pollak. Currently working within the National Security Council and advising the Prime Minister on security affairs, she gave us a clear overview of the triangle of the Israelis-Palestinians-US. Of course, with the flotilla-crisis in the back of our minds, many participants were passionate and requested answers on the preparation and aftermath of the events. Afterwards, the participants mingled and swapped contact details, looking forward to many more events of ICI. Regards from the ICI-board, Karoline Henriques, Helena Skibinski & Michael Hess. For more information/if you know anyone in israel;
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
ISRAELI HEROES VS. 'DESTRUCTO SQUADS'
Posted by Helen Freedman, June 17, 2010. |
|
The May 9-17 AFSI Chizuk mission was another remarkable exploration into the enigmatic world of Israel. In that beautiful country live remarkable Jews who put their lives on the line every day. As Hizbullah in the north, Hamas in the south and the PA's Fatah in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem threaten Israel, the Netanyahu government has the unenviable task of making life and death decisions while contending with pressure from the Obama administration, which seems unwilling or unable to comprehend the dangers. Tragically, while Israel deals with these existential threats, it is pursuing policies that are self-destructive and demoralizing to its Jewish citizens. During our visit to the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar we heard from Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira that the yeshiva is threatened with destruction. At Shavei Shomron, a community of 170 families, Rabbi Schmidtlek told us of being beaten by Israeli police while he tried to prevent the destruction of caravans, originally from Yamit, then Homesh, which served as dormitories for the yeshiva boys. Six homes that had been under construction were destroyed. Eliana Passentin met us in Eli and took us to her beautiful home in Givat HaYovel. Eliana explained that the homes there are not "illegal outposts" — that all legal work had been finalized except for the military stamp from Ehud Barak. In Jerusalem, we experienced the painful process only Jews must go through in order to ascend the Temple Mount. Rabbi Richman of the Temple Mount Institute endures abuse every time he brings a group to the Mount. Only Jews have to submit passports and stand aside while Christians stream through the gates. Muslims, of course, simply come and go as they please, using the grounds as their picnic and playgrounds. The Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem, owned by Dr. Irving and Cherna Moskowitz, awaits the permits necessary to continue its renovation. We learned from Arieh King, founder of the Israel Land fund, that building in Jerusalem is indeed frozen, and despite numerous announcements to the contrary, there has been no demolition of illegal Arab homes. He told us that in Atarot some 10,000 planned units were cancelled. Additional land freezes can be found in Givat Ze'ev, where 12,000 apartments were scheduled to be built, and in N'vei Yaakov, where 330 apartments had been approved. The E1 corridor, critically important in linking Ma'aleh Adumim to Jerusalem, was supposed to be the site of 187,000 apartments. Instead, Bedouins are settling on the land. In sharp contrast, 1,800 Arab apartments are planned on land originally scheduled to be a park. There is no freeze on that. At the Shai Dromi farm near Metar we saw the barren room in the goat and sheep pen where Shai Dromi slept to prevent Arabs from stealing his herd and killing his dogs. He is now serving five months of community service for defending his home and farm by shooting at attacking Arabs. Shai's mother told us that filing police reports was futile; the authorities refuse to take action against the Arabs. In Hebron, Beit HaShalom is sealed tight while the courts decide whether Jews have a right to live in the building they bought at a cost of one million dollars and spent thousands more to renovate. In Sderot we learned that the government has spent half a billion shekels building shelters and reinforcing buildings against the ongoing Kassam rocket attacks. Rather than eliminating the source of the rocketing, the Israeli government has chosen to put band-aids on the wounds. As for the refugees from the destroyed Gush Katif communities, a tiny percentage now live in their new homes while the great majority still wait for ground to be broken or to see construction begin where the infrastructure has been laid. It is now five years since the Gaza expulsion. Now we get to the "Destructo Squads," as explained to me by Israel Danziger of Mishmeret Yesha. Seventy million shekels have been designated to boost the budget of the military arm that controls building in Yesha. This will help pay for more inspectors and vehicles to investigate "illegal" building by Jews. The squads are made up of 25-30 special-force "Yassamnakim" with vans, trucks, semi-trailer haulers and every type of mechanized construction equipment to conduct orderly demolitions. The squads are preceded by Shin Bet and police in civilian clothes, to scout the area and detect "troublemakers" earmarked for arrest. Reserve soldiers are called in for necessary back-up and to create a perimeter to close off the area. The "Desctructo" work usually begins at 5 a.m. Why is this happening? Why does Israel feel it has to intimidate and harass its good Jewish citizens in order to appease and placate the ravenous appetites of its enemies? Isn't it apparent that there is no way to create peace with people who declare their intention to destroy Israel at every turn? Why not speak the truth and allow Israel's heroic Jews to live in peace in their homes, ready at all times to defend their country? It defies understanding. Editor's Note: The next AFSI Chizuk mission is scheduled for October 24-Nov. 2 and includes a visit to Hebron for Chaye Sarah on October 30. For further information about the trip, contact Helen Freedman at the AFSI office (212-828-2424) or via e-mail at afsi@rcn.com Read about past Chizuk Missions on the AFSI website: www.afsi.org Helen Freedman is executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel/AFSI. |
|
CBC NATIONAL CORRECTS GAZA INFANT MORTALITY RATE ERROR
Posted by Honest Reporting Canada, June 16, 2010. |
|
Did CBC falsely imply that Israel was responsible for the death of Gaza babies? Barry Rubin, respected Mideast professor and director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) asked this very question regarding a June 1 CBC National report which saw Chief Correspondent, Peter Mansbridge, erroneously refer to the Gaza Strip as having "an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world." Writing on his blog "Rubin Reports," Professor Rubin expounded on this misstatement: "Here's an example of the insanity and profound anti-Israel bias currently gripping mass media. HonestReporting Canada (HRC) communicated our concerns to senior editors at the CBC requesting that a review be conducted and that an on-air correction be issued promptly to remedy this error. In a written response that was sent to HRC by the CBC, a senior editor said that the mistake was more than just problematic, "it is an error; although I certainly do not share Mr. Rubin's view that it indicates CBC's "profound anti-Israel bias". In an effort to give viewers a clearer picture of the Gaza Strip, the introduction to the report that night from Washington included statistics about Gaza's area, population, unemployment and infant mortality rates. However, in one instance, we inadvertently included inaccurate information. In fact — and as Mr. Rubin pointed out — according to the CIA World Factbook, a highly regarded source for such information, Gaza is about half way in a ranking of over 200 countries or regions, (109 out of 224) with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 per thousand live births, a little over four times Israel's. We regret the error. The Friday night (June 11) editions of The National included an on-air note offering viewers correct information." Ms. Heather Hiscox, CBC National anchor, stated the following: "Earlier this month we reported the Gaza Strip has an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world, but according to the CIA World Factbook, Gaza ranks 109 out of 224 regions in the world, with an infant mortality rate of almost 18 deaths per thousand live births." While we appreciate and commend the fact that the CBC was quick to investigate this matter and to take the appropriate action in correcting this mistake, with that said, there was no indication given about how this error had occurred and how it had gotten past the trained eyes of the CBC's most veteran editors. Many questions still remain unanswered such as: What was the source of this original erroneous information? It certainly wasn't the CIA World Factbook, was it Amnesty International's (AI) error, as this CBC report attributed various statistics as being derived from AI? Was this just gross incompetence or intentional subterfuge? And finally, since when did the Palestinians achieve statehood? Why is it that this CBC report included a graphic which referred to the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestine" instead of the Palestinian territories? We trust that this intervention will serve as a teachable moment for the CBC's reporters and editors who are keenly aware that their Mideast reporting is being vigilantly watched and scrutinized. HonestReporting Canada is the only organization dedicated exclusively to ensuring fair and accurate Canadian media coverage of Israel Contact them by email at info@honestreporting.ca |
|
AFGHANISTAN; HAMAS MISUSE OF GAZA CEMENT;
IRAN CLAIMS CREDIT FOR NUCLEAR DISCOVERY
Posted by Shulman, Richard H., June 16, 2010. |
|
TERRORISTS INFILTRATE ISRAEL The IDF intercepted a group of armed terrorists who had infiltrated from the Sinai. The security forces shot and killed one of the terrorist squad. The rest fled back into Egypt, after leaving behind an explosive device. The news brief mentions cooperation with Egyptian forces, but does not state its nature or utility (IMRA, 6/16/10). Israel has real security problems from real evil. The world does not want to acknowledge that.
GAZA FLOTILLA FLIGHTING AND FOOD An Israel official remarked that Hamas is more interested in politics than in its people 6/16/10). 
The food and medicine is getting staler. The news brief did not indicate that Hamas agreed to accept the transfer of goods from the UN. If Israel had not withdrawn from Gaza, none of these problems would have occurred. The withdrawal left the area to terrorist control, first by Fatah and then by Hamas. The people there are oppressed by their leaders, whether elected or not, whether the election were democratic or not. One would think that those self-appointed humanitarians who profess great concern for the people of Gaza, and some of whom even call the needs there a crisis, would demand that Hamas let the goods through. But they do not. They do not demand an emergency UN meeting over it. They do not even complain. Time and time again, the so-called humanitarians prove their real interest is not in helping Arabs but in harming Jews. The new form of antisemitism is to feign humanitarianism. Once again, leftist ideology defies reason. Now that we have seen that both the flotilla supporters and the supposed flotilla beneficiaries do not care about the Arab people, and we know that a hard core of Islamist jihadists were on the Turkish ship, perhaps the fog of the stated humanitarian purpose of the flotilla no longer will cloud people's minds into believing that the IDF attacked innocent civilians. A reader did not understand the notion of the top deck passengers fashioning weapons to fight the mighty IDF. Here is the picture he should perceive, aside from the fact that the Islamists were equipped with ceramic vests and gas masks. Jihad is proceeding against Israel by asymmetric warfare, now. The men on the top deck had talked beforehand about becoming martyrs. Their priority is fighting for their cause and inflicting damage, caring less whether they survive. Nor do they need to win big. In this case, they sought to trap the IDF into a public relations mess. How they succeeded! Not only did they win diplomatically, most of them survived and were not arrested. Close combat is different from distant combat. In distant combat, and outside of an ambush, the IDF could direct massive firepower. In close combat, as in asymmetric warfare, the odds are narrowed. The IDF commandos came down ropes one at-a-time, and the first three were overwhelmed one at-a-time. In close combat, and when the Islamists first had great numerical superiority, the Islamists' clubs and knives were as effective as guns, and the IDF men at first did not have guns in hand but plaint ball rifles. The Islamists had an effective tactic and a successful strategy. Let us not heed sarcastic but misleading statements denying the notion that the Islamists would tackle the IDF.
Afghanistan: 1. LIBERAL IDEOLOGY DEFEATING U.S. The U.S. launched offenses in Afghanistan, and fought well, but failed to eradicate the Taliban from supposedly cleared areas. The U.S. Senate is concerned that the government lacks a winning strategy. Much of the concern arises from President Obama's decision to start withdrawing troops in just over a year. To the native population, the terrorists, and their foreign sponsors, this decision appears to reflect the notorious American impatience. Local allies lose heart and local enemies feel empowered. Some of the terrorists feel they can wait for the deadline and emerge and conquer. No wonder U.S. officials report increasing evidence that Afghanistan President Karzai is hastening to cut his own deal with the enemy! (Peter Spiegel, Wall St. J., 6/16/10, A1). The other day, a liberal wrote in the same newspaper that Obama is winning by carrying the war more into Pakistan. But if he "cuts and runs," what will have been the point? The most self-destructive military policy is to announce a hasty end to a war. That hastens defeat. The Senate, however, has been dominated for some years by liberal defeatists, Obama numbered among them. They wreak havoc and then point fingers outward. Any President would have difficulty maintaining a war that takes a long time to control. This President has fanned American impatience. Page one of today's New York Times has a photo of the former youthful President already graying and wrinkled. Glibness can carry one only so far. I think that American officials do not study the enemy enough and do not plan strategy enough. They turn too soon from figuring out what to do to implementing half-baked plans.
AFGHANISTAN: 2. PAKISTAN FIGHTING INDIA THERE? 
The terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba, that Pakistani intelligence services set up to harass India out of Kashmir, but which also raided Mumbai, India, has expanded operations into Afghanistan. It now targets Indians helping rebuild the war-torn country. India has spent about a billion dollars on electricity projects, roads, and buildings in Afghanistan. Lashkar also has expanded its base in the tribal region of Pakistan. Pakistan seeks to counter Indian influence in the country. Pakistani officials suggest that India built four consulates in Afghanistan in order to gather intelligence on India. It accuses India of militarily assisting the Taliban against Pakistan, an accusation which it does not back up. India had assisted the Northern Alliance that overthrew the prior Taliban regime of Pakistan. India maintains ties to Afghans involved. But Pakistan continues to allow Taliban anti-Afghanistan bases on its soil. This increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan seems to be given greater urgency by President Obama's scheduling the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In people's minds, this creates a vacuum that they already are trying to fill, some to position themselves for dominance when the allies depart, and others to show they are not enemies of the Taliban whom they expect to dominate them. Retaining link to the Pakistani military, Lashkar has extended ties to other terrorist organizations. The various groups exchange favors, including raids and reconnaissance. Lashkar, being more native to the region than are al-Qaida Arabs, whom the people do not like, may be more dangerous than al-Qaida. The government of Pakistan denies involvement in Lashkar. In some cases, the involvement is by ex-officials of intelligence. Also, Lashkar has splinter groups acting independently. The article quotes officials and cites the weapons, training, and languages used in terrorist raids to confirm its conclusions (Alissa J. Rubin, NY Times, 6/16/10, A1). This news confirms my prior reports that Pakistan is a great center of international jihad, ranking along with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Pakistan presents itself has having a paranoid view of India. It is difficult to tell whether it believes that view or whether that view is important, given Pakistan's and its madrassas' paramount interest in radical Islam. Pakistan's civilian leaders, heading secular parties, do not seem to make a difference. India has no imperial ambition, but, having been attacked by Pakistani terrorists on a scale that dwarfs the Arab-Israel conflict, India does try to shore up Afghanistan. India does it by building. Pakistan insinuates its influence by destroying.
OBAMA DOUBLE STANDARD ON U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 
The Obama administration's double standard on national security troubles the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). When an Israeli agency gave public notice of another stage in the approval of a housing project in Jerusalem, about which Israel had no agreement with the U.S., the whole Administration "condemned" it as an "insult," an "affront," and "destructive." When Turkey, a NATO ally, voted against the Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran in an attempt to get it back in compliance with the treaty to prevent development of nuclear weapons, the U.S. did not call that vote "destructive" and an "affront." The U.S. merely was "disappointed." "Iran has threatened both Israel and the U.S. many times, saying the days of both countries are numbered. Iranian leaders have spoken of using nuclear weapons to eliminate Israel. There is also the real prospect of Iran passing nuclear weapons to terrorist enemies of the U.S. No issue could therefore be more serious to American national security, yet Turkey's opposition to U.S. efforts to pass new sanctions in the UN Security Council is not condemned or treated as the affront and insult that it truly is." By comparison, Israel's housing project movement is minor. "...President Obama and his Administration have never 'condemned' Palestinian Arab actions of naming streets, schools and sports teams after suicide bombers, or the Palestinian Authority (PA) refusing to arrest terrorists, or PA leaders calling Jew-killers heroes and martyrs, as they do routinely. They have never condemned the often vicious anti-U.S. rhetoric that appears in PA publications. The Obama Administration has never said these PA actions are 'destructive' or an 'insult' or an 'affront' to America's strong interest in Middle East peace on the rare occasions that they have referred to Palestinian incitement." (6/16/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.) Just as U.S. rhetoric was too heated over Israel, calling Turkey's vote an insult to the U.S. seems excessive. However, the vote does seem to run counter to top national security for the U.S. and for Turkey's new Arab friends and other countries. On the other hand, Turkey pointed out, with good reason, that those sanctions would not work. Since the sanctions would fail, they practically are make-believe, a substitute for effective action against Iran. Therefore, the Obama administration, with its fantasy of a sanctions policy, harms U.S. national security. After the U.S. displayed its standard against Israel, why believe any other, similar complaints by the U.S. against Israel? Obama's double standard damages U.S. credibility, and therefore U.S. national security. An extenuating circumstance, however, may be that the Obama administration has alienated several allies by unfair and intemperate statements and actions, and now is restraining itself. The Administration has displayed a double standard, betrayed, or affronted Israel, Britain, Honduras, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Bigger than the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is the toxic gusher from the White House.
GAZA CEMENT SHORTAGE AND HAMAS MISUSE OF CEMENT 
The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel acknowledges that a shortage of cement in Gaza retards reconstruction of war-damaged houses. Unfortunately, Hamas diverts much imported cement for building a war infrastructure. It exploits sympathy for civilians to get more cement for wars [War destroys civilians and their property.] Much of the flotilla cement was said to be for civilians, but most would have gone to Hamas for military preparation. "According to reliable intelligence information from recent months (based, among other things, on aerial photographs), there has been a considerable increase in the use of cement and concrete by the Hamas military wing in the Gaza Strip. The military wing acts toward the rehabilitation and fortification of its military compounds and builds new offensive and defensive systems, drawing also on the lessons learned in Operation Cast Lead. A significant number of the military facilities are built in urban areas with civilian populations deep in Gaza Strip territory. That is part of the combat strategy adopted by Hamas...using civilians as human shields. Hamas uses cement mostly for these military purposes: a. Building military infrastructure: building and repairing dozens of permanent outposts, training compounds, and weapons storehouses... b. ...building an infrastructure of underground tunnels lined with concrete for protection. Hamas places considerable significance on its underground infrastructure, used for both defensive and offensive needs (such as minimizing the exposure of terrorist operatives and munitions, transporting operatives between areas, and carrying out attacks by digging tunnels from the Gaza Strip to Israeli territory). c. Building launch sites for...rockets and mortars: those launch sites are lined with concrete. The positions dug at such launch sites provide an ability to launch rockets at Israel at the push of a button, making the presence of human operators near the rockets unnecessary. This tactic is designed to keep rocket operators alive and to allow sustained fire with a uniform rate of fire and rocket output (IMRA, 6/16/10).
IRAN CLAIMS CREDIT FOR NUCLEAR DISCOVERY Iran announced discovery of laser technology for enriching uranium, in cooperation with scientists from the U.S., Australia, and China. The new report claims to attain nuclear energy by laser instead of by radioactive material. They claim that the new method does not produce nuclear waste (IMRA, 6/16/10). We reported this story differently, a few days ago. We await further explanation. Would nuclear scientists from the U.S. and Australia work with Iranian ones?
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:
|
|
DOOMSDAY BOATS SET SAIL
Posted by Susana K-M, June 16, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rachel Raskin-Zrihen, |
|
Hundreds are dead and thousands injured in ethnic violence in Kyrgystan. Babies are lying trampled in the streets. Girls are being raped. Tens of thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes. Cities are burning. But the world's bleeding hearts can't muster up the will to complain, so single-mindedly are they focused on the deaths of nine violent blockade runners at the hands of Israeli soldiers defending themselves against bats, metal bars and knives. Three Israeli police officers were ambushed by Palestinian terrorist, today, with one killed and two injured, Associated Press reports. But no one cares. Meanwhile, AP reports that: two Iranian Red Crescent ships are sailing for Gaza to try to provoke a confrontation with Israel, even as its main religious leader announces that the Quran says no weapon is off-limits to Islam. Is anyone besides me getting the implications of this? And even as hundreds of so-called humanitarian Iranians — a contradiction in terms — head toward a certain and intentional confrontation with Israel, the "hardline spiritual mentor of Iran's president" made a public call for producing the "special weapons that are a monopoly of a few nations" — any guesses what he's refering to? The Associated Press on Monday reported that a book by Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi says that "Under Islamic teachings, all common tools and materialistic instruments must be employed against the enemy and prevent enemy's military superiority," he said. In case you're wondering, the "enemy" is us. Israel, first, and then us. He also said "Muslims must not allow a few powers to monopolize certain weapons in their arsenal." So much for all that crap about Islam not allowing weapons of mass destruction. And even as the Islamo-fascists actively seek to destroy Israel and later, Western civilization, the failed experiment called the United Nations is "condemning the violence in Kyrgyzstan and calling for calm and a return to the rule of law." They're demanding an international inquiry into Israelis' right to self-defense over the Gaza Flotilla deaths, but asking people to calm down in Kyrgyzstan, where tens of thousands of minority Uzbeks have fled the deadliest violence there in 20 years. The killing has been going on for a week, and there are no riots in the world's streets. Both ethnic groups involved are Sunni Muslims, and maybe that helps explain this seemingly inexplicable double-standard. Maybe no one, including other Muslims, cares if Muslims kill, rape and maim one another or anyone else. But if a Christian or a Jew gets a shot off, that's another story entirely. And the deluded Westerners who are unable to see the nature of the beast, help apply the pressure aimed at destroying the only thing standing between the West and the evil wind that is Islamo-Fascism. Now, practically alone in its fight to halt the planet's Islamization, Israel has bowed to the intense world pressure, and approved an investigation of the flotilla incident, allowing the participation "of two accomplished foreign observers to try to deflect the criticism," AP reports. Nevertheless, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, naturally, rejected Israel's plan, as did Turkey, whose attitude did a 180 following the ascension of an Islamist government in its last election. That formerly moderate Muslim country "threatened to sever what remains of its tattered relations with the Jewish state," according to the report. Never mind. That relationship was predictably lost with that election. And that, God forbid, may be true here, also. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE HIJACKING OF BOLLYWOOD BY THE ISLAMIC MAFIA
Posted by Babu Suseelan, June 16, 2010. |
|
Bollywood (Mumbai) produces more movies than any other parts of the world. Movies are the main communication channel in India. It is now being reported that Bollywood has been taken over the Islamic Mafia headed by the notorious Jihadi terrorist leader Dawood Ibrahim. The Jiahdi terrorist leader is the most wanted man in India for his terrorist activities in Mumbai and different parts of India. He is living in Pakistan and is guarded by Pakistan Intelligence agency ISI. He has business connections in Mumbai, Dubai and Pakistan. Dawood Ibrahim is the leading financier for Bollywood movie industry. No wonder leading actors in Bollywood are selected more generally from Islamic extremists. The Islamic Mafia decides the story, select the actors, song writers and directors and production workers. It is now reported that Bollywood has decided to make a movie glorifying Hitler and his evil deeds. The story reminds the fact once again and it also reminds us how Islamized Bollywood is. A non-Muslim is simply not allowed to invest money or permitted to find a place in Bollywood. Why is Bollywood so Islamized? The movie moguls are real power players and they are unmistakably anti Hindu, anti Jewish and social cohesion. For several years, Bollywood was interested in producing movies for promoting family values, morality and national spirit. Now Bollywood is interested in the trivialization of family relations. Bollywood use sex to sell their movies. What distinguishes the preset time from the past is that Bollywood movies celebrate sexual revolution, promiscuity, and a wary avoidance of emotional commitments. The Islamic movie mafia has now decided to take a movie on Hitler glorifying his evil deeds. What is really going on in Bollywood? What are we to make of the calculated move on the part of the Islamic movie mafia? Can Islamic Movie mafia believe in morality? Hitler was evil. How could Bollywood make a story out of ultimate evil? Nazi death camps were hell. Why do Bollywod movie moguls want to make profit by glorifying Hitler and his evil deeds? Hollywood has made several movies depicting the evil-immoral-cruel-inhuman acts of Hitler and his Nazi death squads. But Islamic money mafia wants to make a movie on Hitler glorifying his evil deeds. A film on Hitler, the movie mogul claim can depict good deeds of Hitler. What good deeds? May be the Bollywood Islamic mafia wants to please their Jihadi masters from Pakistan and Arabia. To be frank, a movie glorifying Hitler will be maddeningly smug and dangerously out of touch with human conscience. It is irresponsible. Can Islamic movie producers can be without any sense and decency? Is it an insidious way of persuading the mind of innocent movie goers that Hitler was not evil? Contact Babu by email at b.suseelan@gmail.com |
|
PREYING FOR PIECE
Posted by Marc Prowisor, June 16, 2010. |
|
Part 1: Another senseless murder of Jews in the heartland of Israel once again goes unnoticed by the world. I am not surprised, why should I be? Killing Jews in Israel by the hands of Arabs is all right, it is on the same level of Muslims killing Africans in Africa or of Muslims killing other Muslims in any other Muslim nation, it is ok, no problem, Status Quo. As a Jew, I have a problem that the world has always accepted that the death of, or the killing of Jews and acts of violence against Jews is not out of the norm. Indeed, Jews have excelled at dying and being victimized throughout our "stint" in Europe in the past, now present and most probably the future. We were even good at it during the pre State period in Israel. We learned many valuable lessons on survival, you know, keep low, don't bring to much attention to yourself, hide your identity, if attacked, don't scream too loud about it, and so on. We took these lessons with us on our travels as we settled in other nations and cultures and we thrived... sort of. It seems that in Israel the Jewish people there aren't smart enough to learn or remember these lessons, and it just doesn't sink in. For some reason, we just wont sit back while Jews are murdered, we have a bad tendency to react and respond, sluggish at times, but we will respond. We yelled and continue to yell when attacked, but learned that nobody is listening, we tried bowing, but learned that it caused more damage and death, so we stopped (most of the time), we tried to hide our Jewish identity, but have been noticing that it only caused more enemies to come out of the woodwork, even amongst our own. The fact that we aren't keeping up with the norm of being weak and "nice" Jewish people seems to really upset the world, mind you, it even seems to upset many Jews outside of Israel. They are apparently afraid of the attention they are getting from non-Jews. I apologize that we are not as "smart" as our ancestors in Europe, and that we are bringing too much attention to our brethren around the world. I apologize that we will stand up to our enemies and not accept their rockets, bombings and ambushes. I apologize that we will not let Anti-Israel activists who would rejoice in our destruction, supply our enemies and assist them in their evil task. For over 62 years we have been showing the world that Jews will not make good victims anymore, that we will fight back, we are not going to stop now. Operation: No More Jewish Victims — Join Now Part 2: Websters Dictionary's meaning of "Peace" Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com |
|
UP A LAZY RIVER
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 15, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
|
|
WHAT MAKES OBAMA TOCK IN THE MIDDLE EAST"
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 15, 2010. |
|
In critiquing the Obama Administration, I don't mean to suggest it has no reasons for desiring to please Arabs and Muslims as one of its highest (sometimes seemingly its highest) priorities. Unfortunately in practice this often means flattering the more extremist forces in those groups and giving short shrift to the more moderate among them. This strategy isn't a conspiracy; it just doesn't correspond to the realities of the region or work particularly well. The main factors inspiring this effort in terms of foreign policy — in contrast to ideological premises about America itself — are as follows: 1. The hope that Arab governments will help the United States extricate itself from Iraq and ensure there is a stable regime there that is friendly to the United States. There is also some domestic advantage for Obama, who can argue that he has made America (or at least himself) popular and reversed the armed engagements and anti-Americanism that developed during his predecessor's administration. Among those who support the administration, there is an assumption that the whole strategy of apology, empathy, the Cairo speech, the Istanbul speech, the distancing from Israel, the redefinition of the "war on terror" into a narrow "war on al-Qa'ida," has brought benefits. Yet it is rather difficult to define precisely what those benefits have been. The costs of this policy are much easier to measure. 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
|
|
HAMAS RISES IN THE WEST
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 15, 2010. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick.
It was published in The Jerusalem Post
and is archived at
|
|
Since the navy's May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisors have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing Israel today. Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas against Israel. It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama's friends, former Weatherman Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is former US senator from South Dakota James Abourezk. All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself. Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood's progeny include Hamas, al Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, among others. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration's decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counter-terror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of their support for radical Islam. Given Obama's attitude towards jihadists and the radical leftists who support them his decision to support Hamas against Israel makes sense. What is alarming however is how leaders of the free world are now all siding with Hamas. That support has become ever more apparent since the Mossad's alleged killing of Hamas terror master Mahmoud al Mabhouh at his hotel in Dubai in January. In the aftermath of Mabhouh's death, both Britain and Australia joined the Dubai-initiated bandwagon in striking out against Israel. Israel considers both countries allies, or at least friendly and has close intelligence ties with both. Yet despite their close ties with Israel, Australia and Britain expelled Israeli diplomats who supposedly had either a hand in the alleged operation or who work for the Mossad. It should be noted that neither country takes steps against outspoken terror supporters who call for Israel to be destroyed and call for the murder of individual Israelis. For instance, in an interview last month with the Australian, Ali Kazak, the former PLO ambassador to Australia effectively solicited the murder of the Jerusalem Post's Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Kazak told the newspaper, "Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor." Allowing that many Palestinians have been murdered for such accusations, Kazak excused those extrajudicial murders saying, "Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere." Not only did Australia not expel Kazak or open a criminal investigation against him. As a consequence of his smear campaign against Abu Toameh, several Australians cancelled their scheduled meetings with him.
AND OF course, this week we have the actions of Germany and Poland. Germany and Poland are considered Israel's best friends in Europe today, and yet acting on a German arrest warrant, Poland has arrested a suspected Mossad officer named Uri Brodsky for his alleged involvement in the alleged Mossad operation against master Hamas terrorist Mabhouh. Israel is now caught in a diplomatic disaster zone where its two closest allies — who again are only too happy to receive regular intelligence updates from the Mossad — are siding with Hamas against it. And then of course we have the EU's call for Israel to cancel its lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the official position of the EU is that Israel should allow an Iranian proxy terrorist organization to gain control over a Mediterranean port and through it, provide Iran with yet another venue from which it can launch attacks against Europe. For their part, the Sunni Arabs are forced to go along with this. The Egyptian regime considers the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Gaza a threat to its very survival and has been assiduously sealing its border with Gaza for some time. And yet, unable to be more anti-Hamas than the US, Australia and Europe, Mubarak is opening the border. Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa's unprecedented visit to Gaza this week should be seen as a last ditch attempt by Egypt to convince Hamas to unify its ranks with Fatah. Predictably, the ascendant Hamas refused his entreaties. As for Fatah, it is hard not to feel sorry for Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas these days. In what was supposed to be a triumphant visit to the White House, Abbas was forced to smile last week as Obama announced the US will provide $450 million in aid to his sworn enemies who three years ago ran him and his Fatah henchmen out of Gaza. So too, Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. Such a sea outlet will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas's international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays.
THERE ARE three plausible explanations for the West's decision to back Hamas. All of them say something deeply disturbing about the state of the world today. The first plausible explanation is that the Americans and the rest of the West are simply naïve. They believe that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are advancing the cause of Middle East peace. If this is in fact what the likes of Obama and his European and Australian counterparts think, then apparently, no one in the West is thinking very hard these days. The fact is that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are backing Hamas against Fatah and they are backing Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas and Hizbullah against Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as well as against Israel. They are backing the most radical actors in the region — and arguably in the world — against states and regimes they have a shared strategic interest in strengthening. There is absolutely no way this behavior advances the cause of peace. The second plausible explanation is that the West's support for Hamas against Israel is motivated by hatred of Israel. As Helen Thomas's recent remarks demonstrated, there is certainly a lot of that going around. The final plausible explanation for the West's support for Hamas against Israel is that the leaders of the West have been led to believe that by acting as they are, they will buy themselves immunity from attack by Hamas and its fellow Iranian axis members. As former Italian President Francesco Cossiga first exposed in a letter to Corriere della Serra in August 2008, in the early 1970s then Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed a deal with Yassir Arafat that gave the PLO and its affiliated organizations the freedom to operate terror bases in Italy. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to limit their attacks to Jewish and Israeli targets. Italy maintained its allegiance to the deal — and the PLO against Israel — even when Italian targets were hit. Cossiga told the newspaper that the August 1980 bombings at the Bologna train station — which Italy blamed on Italian fascists — was actually the work of George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Eighty-five people were murdered in the attack, and still Italy maintained its agreement with the PLO to the point where it prosecuted and imprisoned the wrong people for the worst terrorist attack in Italian history. Cossiga alleged that the deal is still in place today and that Italian forces in UNIFIL have expanded the deal to include Hamas's fellow Iranian proxy Hizbullah. It isn't much of a stretch to consider the possibility that Italy and the rest of the Western powers have made a similar deal with Hamas. And it is no stretch at all to believe that they will benefit from it as greatly as the Italian railroad passengers in Bologna did on August 2, 1980. True, no one has come out an admitted that they support Hamas against Israel. So too, no one has expressed anything by love for Israel and the Jewish people. But the actions of the governments of the West tell a different tale. Without one or more of the explanations above, it is hard to understand their current policies. Since the flotilla incident, Netanyahu and his ministers have held marathon deliberations on how to respond to US pressure to accept an international inquisition of the IDF's lawful enforcement of Israel's legal blockade of the Gaza coast. Their deliberations went on at the same time as Netanyahu and his envoys attempted to convince Obama to stop his mad rush to give Hamas an outlet to the sea and deny Israel even the most passive right of self defense. It remains to be seen if their decision to form an investigative panel with international "observers" was a wise move or yet another ill-advised concession to an unappeasable administration. What is certain however is that it will not end the West's budding romance with Hamas. The West's decision to side with Hamas against Israel is devastating. But whatever the reasons for it, it is a fact of life. It is Netanyahu's duty to swallow this bitter pill and devise a strategy to protect Israel from their madness. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES PROFS USURP NEW ROLES TO CENSURE ISRAEL OVER GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 15, 2010. |
|
A day before the confrontation with Israel, a university lecturer revealed on Hamas TV that the Gaza flotilla's commander had announced that the participants were planning to use "resistance," the Palestinian euphemism for violence, against "the Zionists." He added that the participants sought to die as Martyrs, even more than they wanted to reach Gaza. The following are the words of Dr. Abd Al-Fatah Shayyeq Naaman, lecturer in Shari'ah law at a university in Yemen, now visiting Gaza: The [Gaza] flotilla commander said yesterday: 'We will not allow the Zionists to get near us and we will use resistance against them.' This below was written by Brendan Goldman
and it appeared June 13, 2010 in American Thinker
Brendan Goldman, a member of New York University's class of 2010, earned a B.A. in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. |
|
"The martyrs of the [Gaza flotilla] ships are heroes," writes Mark LeVine, professor of history at the University of California, Irvine. "They are warriors every bit as deserving of our tears and support as the soldiers of American wars past and present." In the aftermath of the death of nine mercenaries on the deck of the Gaza-bound Turkish vessel, the Mavi Marmara, professors of Middle East studies lined up to denounce the Jewish State. Ignoring overwhelming video and documentary evidence of the activists' radical agenda and affinity for violence, these professors asserted that the "Freedom Flotilla" of the six Gaza-bound vessels were on a purely "humanitarian" mission. "Those ships were just bringing aid to the impoverished Palestinians," said New York University professor of modern Middle Eastern History Zachary Lockman. "It's not [the Palestinians'] fault they are under Hamas rule." Has Lockman already forgotten that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in January 2006? Even professors who managed to recall the Palestinian elections were determined to demonstrate that the terrorist group has been falsely maligned. Georgetown University's John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, tried to whitewash the terrorist group's reputation by declaring, "Hamas simply does not steal ... thus any aid delivered to the UN will be respected." Yet even traditionally anti-Israel institutions like the U.N. and the left-wing British Guardian have noted that Hamas has illegally seized aid intended for Gaza's poor. Uninterested in the terrorist connections of the blockade-runners, many professors expressed concern that the U.S. would lose "popular support" in the Islamic world as a result of siding with Israel in the flotilla crisis. Recalling President Barack Obama's controversial Cairo address to the Muslim world last spring, George Washington University's Mark Lynch writes, "If [Obama] tries to ignore the issue [of the Gaza flotilla] or simply defend Israel's actions, then the first anniversary of the Cairo speech will also be its epitaph." Esposito warned that according to a Gallup poll and his "own experience," "[the] window of opportunity in the Muslim world" will close unless the U.S. stops being "in lock-step stride with Israel." Apparently shilling for terrorists doesn't close the "window of opportunity" to lecture American administrations on foreign policy. Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University suggested one way the U.S. could follow Esposito's advice: Confront Israel militarily. He told WBEZ Chicago Radio that ideally, he sees "European or American ships physically breaking the blockade or [the U.N. putting] sanctions on Israel." Some academics who do not fancy themselves pollsters like Esposito or NATO admirals like Khalidi claimed the mantle of the law, arguing that the flotilla ships were "illegally" boarded. Jennifer Loewenstein, associate director of the Middle East studies program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Islamic Republic of Iran's semi-official Press TV that "[t]he fact is that legally [the Israelis] have no defense. They violated international laws by attacking a non-violent humanitarian aid convoy to the Gaza Strip in International waters." Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern politics and international relations at the London School of Economics and Sarah Lawrence College, also asserted his newly discovered legal expertise: "The killing of those activists, sad though it is, could easily serve as a framework to ... force Israel to abide by international law." In addition to condemning the Israelis, Stephen Zunes, professor of international relations and the Middle East at the University of San Francisco, attempted to exonerate the militant passengers who attacked them. "Certainly it would have been better if the largely Turkish crew of the ship ... had not fought back. But it was well within their legal right to do so." Actual scholars of international law tend to reject these pronouncements. Ruth Wedgwood, who teaches international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University, convincingly debunks Zunes's, Gerges's, and Loewenstein's arguments. "We had a blockade around Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis," Wedgwood explained, noting that during that period, ships were boarded in international waters. "Under traditional law of the sea, you can visit and search before a boat gets to port." Reuters released an informative Q&A legal analysis of the incident that supports Wedgwood's position by noting that "[l]egal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives." As for examining the region's history in order to better understand its present, Middle East studies scholars were as eager to avoid discussing that subject as they were to heap blame on Israel. For instance, the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were recorded on Al-Jazeera chanting in Arabic, "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!" They were referring to the Battle of Khaybar of 629 CE, in which Muslim forces under Mohammed summarily executed, enslaved, and forced into economic servitude the Jews of the Khaybar Oasis. But you needn't bother looking for commentary on such matters from Middle Eastern scholars — with very few exceptions, they don't exist. Israeli-Turkish relations were another subject for which many Middle Eastern experts failed to provide context, ascribing the breakdown in the nations' alliance to Israel and the singular event of the Gaza flotilla. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has warned of Turkey's Islamization for many years, and professor Henri J. Barkey of Lehigh University recently outlined how Israeli-Turkish relations have deteriorated since Turkey's main Islamist party took power. Turkey's current Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, has consistently expressed sympathy for Hamas and Iran's nuclear program. Yet such basic background information was missing from many academics' analyses. "Historians may look back on the [Mavi] Marmara raid as the moment a new order began emerging in the Middle East, grouping Turkey with Iran, Syria, Iraq and Palestine rather than with Washington and Tel Aviv," University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole writes. Among Khalidi's saber-rattling; Zunes's, Loewenstein's and Gerges's claims to judicial authority; and Esposito's and Lynch's popularity contest, it is easy to forget that these individuals are scholars who have spent decades studying the history and politics of the Middle East. The media organizations that invited them to speak did not challenge their unsubstantiated claims. Issues actually relevant to Middle Eastern expertise were either distorted or neglected completely. These scholars' response to the Gaza flotilla incident demonstrates that America cannot expect an objective analysis of major news events from the leaders of this troubled discipline. |
|
HUMILIATING CHECKPOINT DETECTS BOMBS; ISRAEL'S TREATMENT OF
JEWISH GAZAN EVACUEES; HOW U.CAL BECAME ANTI-ZIONISM CENTER
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 15, 2010. |
|
AUSTRALIAN STUDENTS LEARN TO ANSWER ANTI-ZIONISTS StandWithUs International, and Israeli NGO,in cooperation with Australian Jewish groups, just prepared a couple of hundred students visiting from Australia, New Zealand, and S. Africa to answer anti-Zionists. The program included three days of lectures, then hands-on activities. They visited the security barrier, where some of its planners explained the situation to them. Workshops reviewed with them, and they rehearsed answering, the typical "demonization, double standards and delegitimization" arguments. On another day, the students will meet with Israeli soldiers, listen to Sudanese refugees who sought asylum in Israel, and watch a documentary by Prof. Alan Dershowitz. Every year, about 8,000 foreign students spend a study year or gap year in Israel. StandWithUs hopes to expand its orientation training widely to include many more of them (StandWithUs, 12/14) The program is necessary for those youths, and can serve a certain purpose with people of a certain curiosity and integrity. However, some anti-Zionists are impervious to facts and logic, as some of my readers have demonstrated. Indeed, they pursue the totalitarian big lie technique, so that as fast as one lie is exposed, they devise another. They are not in discussion mode but in verbal combat mode.
TURKEY TURNED AGAINST ISRAEL BEFORE FLOTILLA The Jewish National Fund (JNF) had been negotiating with Turkey for two years to make a partly philanthropic purchase of shiploads of water to store in Israel's national reservoir, shared in by the Palestinian Arabs of Jordan and the Territories. The purchase of five tankers and other logistics were worked out, but early in May, Turkey raised a new demand. Turkey demanded that all the water that the Jewish National Fund was purchasing should be distributed to no Jews and only to Arabs. That ended this prospective peace flotilla. Under the Oslo accords and the Jordan peace treaty, Israel is to furnish a certain amount of water, but Israel supplies more. Israel sends 80 million cubic meters of water to the Palestinian Authority and 50 million to Jordan. The JNF purchases would have provided to all three parties a total of at least 110 million cubic meters, until desalination plants would eliminate the need. Turkey's decision was in early May. JNF regrets this squelching of its peace flotilla (JNF heads Stanley M. Chesley and Ronald S. Lauder, Wall St. J., 6/15, A15). Turkey's decision preceded the flotilla firefight, which came at the very end of May. What to make of this? Turkey had turned against Israel, scotched the water deal with an impossible political demand, and put a few dozen Islamists, under the aegis of IHH, an organization on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, aboard the anti-blockade flotilla, without inspection and in order to provoke violence and bait Israeli self-defense. Now people confuse the flotilla combat result of Turkey's turning Islamist, with the cause. Imagine, Turkey refusing to sell a commodity unless the purchaser gives it all away to the purchaser's enemies! Obviously a deliberate deal-breaker, that improper demand by a vendor. What does Israel owe Jordan and the Palestinian Authority? Jordan started two wars against Israel, with the goal of extermination. Its people still seethe with hatred against Israel, and prevent normalization of relations called for by the peace treaty. The PLO and Hamas, reflecting the values of their society, have murdered and crippled thousands of Israelis. They seek to conquer Israel, not make peace with it. Their people are indoctrinated with the mandate to murder more Jews under a distorted religious notion that Jews are an evil and inferior race. Nevertheless, the Jewish state tries to be decent toward them. What does it get for its efforts? No recognition of such efforts. No recognition of its legitimacy. It does not seem mentally healthy for Israel to offer more than required to enemies who perceive goodwill as weakness to be answered by ill will. Some critics suggest that the answer is for Israel to fold into a larger state in which the Arabs would form the majority, and ethnicity and religion would not matter. What would produce this fairy tale ending by the Arabs? How hypocritical to suggest that Israel do this and not to demand that the Arabs cease their bigotry and repression of Jews, which is the underlying problem! How naïve to suppose that the hate-filled Muslim Arabs would act responsibly! How ridiculous to go back to a Jewish minority among Arabs, after Arab states expropriated the property of, and expelled, about 850,000 Jews! How unfair to deny only the Jewish people their homeland, while the Arabs have theirs and more! Or is this a cynical ploy to set the Israelis up to be victims of the genocide that the Arabs have attempted before? How dishonest to present the plan for ending Zionism as a solution rather than as a "final solution."
IDF SETS UP MILITARY INVESTIGATION OF FLOTILLA RAID The IDF Chief of Staff has appointed a former head of the National Security Council to conduct an internal investigation into the military aspects of the flotilla raid. The probe will evaluate: (1) Whether the unit that made the raid the most suitable one for it; (2) Where there better ways to launch the raid than by sliding down ropes; (3) How were military decisions made that led to the raid; and (4) Should Israel gather intelligence on terrorist operations in Turkey and keep better informed about what is happening there. No Israeli agency does that now. Such intelligence would be better able to determine the extent of the Turkish government's involvement in financing the Turkish ship (IMRA, 6/15/10). http://www.imra.org.il/ The IDF calls the Islamist fighting squads on the ship mercenaries, because of the large amounts of cash each carried, when captured. Perhaps the money was meant simply to be given to Hamas for its in-humanitarian work. The IDF constantly reviews its own performance, so it can learn to improve. It does make many changes. Will the probe avoid laying any deserved blame for the fiasco on Israel's top military leader, Defense Min. Barak? Barak has a string of failures on his record. Here is a lengthy review his record, to put his current performance in perspective. Omitted from it is the Labor Party's other efforts to discredit the war in Lebanon that Barak and other leftist generals mishandled.
There was no need to endanger Israeli troops. How could Ehud Barak not see the looming disaster? Stopping a large Gaza-bound ship could have been carried out below the waterline, or by an assault on the bridge, using smoke bombs and tear gas to take control. Dropping individual soldiers into a mob of hostile people lacks reason. In 1973, Barak botched a rescue operation during the "Chinese Farm" battle [1] near the Suez Canal and failed to rescue soldiers under the command of General Yitzhak Mordechai. In 1982, during Operation Peace for Galilee — in which Israel attacked PLO and terrorist groups in Lebanon — Barak commanded the IDF in the eastern region of South Lebanon. He ordered an attack at Sultan Yakoub, in which Israeli soldiers were ambushed by Syrian army commandos and PLO guerilla units. Overpowered and suffering heavy losses, the IDF unit repeatedly begged for help to rescue them. Barak failed to respond. In that battle, 23 IDF soldiers were killed and three were captured: Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman, and Yehuda Katz. Missing in action, their fate is still unknown. Five years later, when the "first intifada" broke out, Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin assigned Ehud Barak, Amram Mitzna, and Dan Shomron — whose political views trumped military necessity — to quell the rebellion. They failed miserably. This not only encouraged Palestinian terrorists, especially Fatah and Hamas, but led to the PLO's rehabilitation and the disastrous Oslo Accords in 1993, which Barak implemented. According to Reuven Pedatzur, writing in Haaretz on November 5, 2000: On the eve of the Gulf War [1990], a decision to scuttle the project [to purchase submarines] was taken at the IDF General Staff: that is, to leave the navy without any submarines at all. Only the stricken conscience of Helmut Kohl, the German chancellor, after the extent of German aid to the Iraqis became known, led to the decision to fund the submarines. Thus, it was German money that saved the submarine project. ... The General Staff's decision is cause for concern because all those who took part in the discussion knew very well, based on intelligence estimates, that within a small number of years Israel would be threatened by nuclear weapons. It is difficult to fathom how those who are supposed to be familiar with and to understand strategic thinking in the modern era decided to give up the strategic potential inherent in submarines. [The] person who led the opposition to building the submarines in that discussion, and the person whose position prevailed in the end, was none other than the person who served at the time as deputy chief of staff, Ehud Barak. In 1992, during a training exercise at the Tze'elim base, a missile hit a unit by mistake, killing five soldiers and seriously wounding six more. Watching this tragedy, Barak did nothing to help and refused to allow his helicopter to be used in the rescue operation. He was severely criticized for his behavior. As prime minister in 1999, Barak gave away the entire gas and oil fields off the Gaza coast to the PA ... for nothing, and without conditions. He never explained his decision. In May 2000, Barak ordered a retreat from South Lebanon. Although the action was debatable, the chaotic manner in which it was carried out and the abandonment of the SLA has been widely condemned. Barak's action gave Hezbollah its first victory. At Camp David and Taba in 2000, Barak offered Yassir Arafat nearly all of the area conquered in the 1967 Six Day War, including most of eastern Jerusalem, without understanding that Arafat was planning a major terrorist insurgency. Barak not only failed to anticipate the second intifada in 2000 when it broke out, but failed to put it down decisively. In October 2000, at the outbreak of the second intifada war, Arabs attacked Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus). An IDF soldier, Madkat Yusuf, was trapped inside, critically wounded, and the unit was under fire. Prime Minister Barak and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz refused to rescue the soldiers and Yusuf bled to death. After resigning in 2001, Barak went into business, using his name and contacts to amass a small fortune. According to a report [2] in Haaretz by Gidi Weitz and Uri Blau, in 2002 Barak formed a company, "Ehud Barak, Ltd," which quickly made (up to that time) almost NIS 30 million. They also reported: As prime minister and former chief of staff, Barak receives more than MIS 400,000. In addition the state funded his bureau at a cost of NIS 3.2 million in 2004 and NIS 1.8 million in 2005. They estimated Barak's total annual income at NIS 10 million. Barak was involved in a number of companies and hedge funds. His business interests today are held by members of his family. Barak was an enthusiastic supporter of the disengagement from Gaza and Northern Shomron in 2005, which displaced 9,000 Israelis and led to Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip. In October 2009, Globes carried a major expose of Barak's financial connections. That year, Barak spent a million NIS of Defense Ministry funds on a Paris weekend for himself, his wife, and staff. In January 2009, as defense minister, Barak was directly responsible for the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, which was carried out in the shadow of the failures of the Second Lebanon War and the looming elections. While the action to stop terrorists and missile bombardment was necessary, it resulted in the Goldstone Report and international condemnation. Hamas remained in power, more smuggling tunnels were built, and Gilad Shalit is still in captivity. At the Herzliya Conference in 2010, Barak offered unilateral withdrawal and begged the PA to assume power in Judea and Samaria. Otherwise, he warned, "Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid nation." This ignores serious security issues, denies reality, and substitutes nightmares instead of critical thinking. Barak's defeatism and arrogance, his political agenda, and his poor military judgment are simply not in Israel's interests. PM Netanyahu may need the Labor Party for his coalition, but why does it have to include Ehud Barak? Footnotes: [1] "Chinese Farm" battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm [2] a report: http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/ friday-supplement/ehud-barak-ltd-1.221318 Article printed from Pajamas Media:
URL to article:
HUMILIATING CHECKPOINT DETECTS BOMBS 
Early on June 14, a bomb exploded near Kibbutz Nirim along the edge of Gaza. Later that day, Israeli troops at a checkpoint south of Nablus caught an Arab with a bag of five pipe bombs. If it weren't for that checkpoint, which the Arabs call humiliating, terrorists would have been able to murder innocent Israelis (IMRA, 6/15/10). Since the checkpoints serve a legitimate purpose, against the illegitimate terrorism, what can be said against the checkpoints? The State Dept. calls them inconvenient for the lives of the Arabs. But convenience is less important than life-saving. The Palestinian Arabs call them humiliating. As I have stated before, when the Muslim Arabs cannot humiliate people they deem racially and religiously inferior, they feel themselves humiliated.
ISRAEL GETS REPORT OF ITS TREATMENT OF EVACUATION OF JEWISH GAZANS It is several years since the Jewish population was evacuated from Gaza, but many of them still have not been reintegrated into the State of Israel. PM Netanyahu changed policy toward them, and just received a report on how the government treated them. Their mistreatment is not surprising. The government appointed Yonatan Basi to superintend their resettlement in Israel. Mr. Basi was an ideological leftist. He viewed the Jews from Gaza as right-wingers at the opposite ideological pole. He ridiculed them. He treated them as political enemies to be kept from reforming their notably cohesive communities and possibly entering politics in opposition to his views (IMRA, 6/15/10). My source puts the onus on Basi. But Basi worked for the Sharon-Olmert regime, which shared his views. They must share the blame. Sharon started out by excessive force and brutality in expelling them. Then the government let their property be looted or damaged, but charged them high prices for storage and obstructed their getting compensation. The government had almost no alternative housing prepared, so that any compensation went to living expenses and the people could not reinvest in new hothouse businesses. The government held the expelled liable for mortgages on the houses that the government took away from them. The government destroyed their houses and records, and then gave them a difficult bureaucratic time proving the houses were theirs and that they were entitled to compensation.
HOW CALIFORNIA CAMPUSES BECAME CENTER OF ANTI-ZIONISM The University of California has become the center of faculty anti-Zionism in the U.S.. How does this manifest itself and how did it come about? Two student senates in the University of California, one at Berkeley and the other at San Diego, defeated resolutions to divest from Israel. But many of their Middle East Studies faculty signed a petition to divest. The source for this news describes the anti-Zionist activities of about a dozen of them, with documentation. None of the Middle East studies faculty signed a faculty letter objecting to the "hatred against Jews and Israelis on campus" generated by the [now suspended] Muslim Students Union. The committee that organized Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel) had 15 members. 11 represented California universities, including 4 from the University of California. Why is California the epicenter? Antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism exits elsewhere, too. Already known for leftist orientation, California universities attracted like-minded faculty. Once prosperous, California also attracted many immigrants from all over, "so that when anti-Israel feelings and agitation became chic among left-wing student radicals over the past decade, there were sufficient numbers of both Muslim students and fellow travelers around to carry out large-scale demonstrations and create an extremely hostile atmosphere."
Left-wing Democrats have appointed like-minded administrators and trustees, reluctant to battle with militant faculty and student groups. By now, newer administrators and trustees may be products of the system (Cinnamon Stillwell, FrontPage Magazine, 6/15/10
LEFTIST-ISLAMIST ALLIANCE ON FLOTILLA Leftists who call themselves "progressive" have aligned themselves with Islamists who would take us centuries back. The combined in forming the Free Gaza Group. Actually, Israel withdrew from Gaza and Gaza's own people run it. Not content with Gaza, Hamas has its eye on Israel, too. It makes war on Israel. As a result, Israel imposed a naval blockade, to keep war materiel from Hamas )and to put pressure on Hamas to behave.] Actually, the leftists do not involve themselves with any other poor or oppressed Muslim group, just the one that can enable them to complain about Jews. The leftists listen to the Muslim line on this and get taken in by "Islamist theatre" of the flotilla (StandWithUs, 6/15) http://www.standwithus.com/ No matter how much the Palestinian Arab leadership oppresses its own people, sacrifices their economy to war, and causes them to get killed, the "progressives" express no objection. How sincere is their liberalism? Some of them go further. They defend that Palestinian Arab imperialism and war crimes as legitimate, because, they contend, the Palestinian Authority was elected democratically. They used to say that Adolph Hitler was elected democratically, not that his having two private militias was so democratic, nor that his behavior afterward, taking away democratic rights was democratic. The nature of his coming to power did not excuse his imperialism and war crimes. Why should it excuse Islamists? Bowing down to democracy makes too much of a lousy system, just because all other systems are worse.
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:
|
|
IRAN, OBAMA & HUMAN RIGHTS
Posted by Eye on the UN, June 15, 2010. |
|
For Immediate Release:
UN Human Rights Council Coddles Iran And the Obama administration plays along. This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on WeeklyStandard.com To watch EYEontheUN video of the Universal Periodic Review of Iran click here. |
|
Just as Iranians were reminded of their stolen June 2009 election and continued oppression, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) decided to kick them while they're down. On June 10, with the active involvement and approval of the Obama administration, the Council adopted a decision on human rights in Iran that was a sentence long and contained no condemnation whatsoever. The context was a review by the Council of Iran's human rights record, as part of the Council's consideration of all 192 UN states. The review featured a vigorous defense by Iranian representatives of Iran's stellar human rights achievements, followed by Iran's rejection of a host of "recommendations" made to improve its actual behavior. The "outcome" was a sentence identical for dictatorships and democracies alike, in which the Council merely refers to a bundle of documents containing praise, criticisms and responses without drawing any conclusion attributable to the Council itself. The incomprehensible UN decision reads: "The Human Rights Council...Adopts...the report of the Working Group on the Islamic Republic of Iran, together with the views of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group." The reaction from the Obama administration was to declare victory and to manufacture something positive to say about Iran. On June 10, U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe rushed to the UN microphones in Geneva to announce repeatedly: "I have to emphasize that we are very pleased that Iran was willing to participate at all.... In the case of Iran, we applaud the willingness to participate at all.... We're pleased that at least they were willing to show up." Praising Iran despite its total disregard of the fundamentals of human decency is the antithesis of the supposed liberal human rights mantra. Instead of buoying the Human Rights Council's performance, the Obama administration is sinking with it. When the Human Rights Council was created in 2006 to replace the discredited UN Human Rights Commission, it introduced the process called the Universal Periodic Review or UPR. The UPR has been repeatedly championed as the leading innovation of the Council and the first justification for the Obama administration quickly jumping on board in May 2009. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, has called it "a good mechanism." State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh has labeled it "an important change" justifying the heart of the administration's foreign policy, or as Koh tells it: "with the HRC...we have chosen principled engagement and strategic multilateralism." The UPR on Iran is clear evidence of the abysmal failure of so-called principled engagement and strategic multilateralism, since the principles are nowhere to be seen and the strategy guaranteed to defeat human rights. Here is the story of what happened when the UN's lead human rights body, and its showpiece procedure for promoting human rights, met Iran, human rights violator extraordinaire. The UPR takes place in stages, the first stage being a 3-hour public dialogue with state representatives. The state is then given an opportunity to respond to recommendations made during the dialogue to improve its behavior, and then some months later the Council adopts a report on the country concerned. In Iran's case, the dialogue occurred on February 15, Iran responded to the recommendations in writing on February 17 and again in early June, and the report on Iran was adopted on June 10. On February 15 Iran sent a large delegation to Geneva, headed by Mohammad Javad Larijani, Secretary General of the High Council of Human Rights. The UN gave the Iranian representatives a full hour to recount their country's glorious record and Larijani relished every minute of it. He declared: "A salient feature of our constitution is its explicit and extensive reference to...the main pillars of human rights... Iran [has a] firm commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights ...Iran is one of the prominent democratic states in the region." He also brought with him a few props. The inequality of women in Iran is legendary — men are entitled to kill their wives for adultery if they aren't first stoned to death by judicial decree. But two women on the Iranian team, Fatemeh Alia and Mahboubeh Mobasheri, informed the Council: "The significant advancement of Iranian women's status in the society during the period of 30 years after the victory of the Islamic revolution under the auspices of the strategic national policy and programs is undeniable." Similarly, Larijani brought along a Christian, Yonathan Betkolia. Iran is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for religious minorities and a Muslim who converts to Christianity has committed a crime punishable by death. But Betkolia said: "Under the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, race, ethnicity, and religion do not distinguish among people, bestowing superiority to one group over another." After Iran's presentation, other states were given two minutes each to weigh in. UN officials thought fairness meant fairness to the Iranian government, not fairness to the victims of human rights abuses in Iran. So they allowed the same number of states to speak in favor of Iran's human rights record as spoke against. Hence, another hour passed with the following kinds of contributions. Venezuela congratulated Iran on "shed[ding] light on the efforts and commitment undertaken by the country to promote and protect human rights." Lebanon praised "the efforts made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote...the rights of women." Libya "commend[ed] the national legislation in the field of human rights." Syria declared "The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran...consolidates human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people as a basic principle of the general policy of the republic." And Zimbabwe fawned: "The Islamic Republic of Iran's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights is glaringly noticeable." The UPR only takes place once every four years and by the time the Iranians and the pro-Iran crowd had finished there was just one hour left for criticism. The Council divided it up into two minutes per speaker. The speed-reading of the Obama administration's 120-second contribution to improve human rights in Iran was duly performed by Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Council then gave Iran the last word. Said Larijani: "Violence against women is more than anywhere in the United States and a number of western countries. In Islamic states and Iran, definitely women are very much respected...Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your free and fair leadership of this meeting." The Council responded by breaking into a warm round of applause. That's applause — from the UN's lead human rights agency — for a country whose leadership has openly declared that genocide against Jews is state policy. The next step in the UPR process was to give Iran an opportunity to accept or reject the recommendations that had been made to it over the course of the dialogue. Within 48 hours, Iran rejected recommendations to "abolish in practice, public executions by hanging and stoning... Prosecute security officials involved in torturing, raping or killing...Repeal or amend all discriminatory provisions against women and girls in national legislation...[E]nd discrimination and harassment against persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities...." Over the next three months, Iran was given more time to respond to the recommendations and produced a written statement which the UN duly added to its "report" on Iranian human rights conditions. In response to the recommendation to "end its severe restrictions on the rights to free expression, association and assembly; and end the harassment and persecution of journalists and bloggers," Iran wrote and the UN published: "press and publications are free to express their opinions except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam." In response to the recommendation to "consider the elimination of cruel punishment, including...stoning," Iran said: "The term 'cruel punishment' is applicable to none of the punishments stipulated in the laws of the country." In response to the recommendation to "provide due process of law for those charged with crimes," "provide guarantees of a fair trial," and "take steps to end the current culture of impunity," Iran replied that it regarded these "recommendations to be irrelevant to the internal situation in the country." Iran understood that it had nothing to fear from the UN Human Rights Council. Far from being a serious mechanism to do anything about Iran's human rights violations, a cocky Larijani reappeared on June 10 at the Council for the final UPR phase. He accurately summed up the process this way: "the universal periodic review has provided a unique opportunity...to raise awareness of Iran's practices and experiences on the promotion of human rights." He wasn't kidding. He took his seat before the Council and without any hesitation explained why Iran had not ratified the Convention Against Torture: "Torture is one thing and punishment is another thing...This is a conceptual dispute. Some form of these punishments should not be considered torture according to our law." By which he meant flogging, amputation, and stoning. Allowed once more to be the last to speak, he finished off on June 10 by telling the Council: "The Islamic Republic of Iran...is a democracy. We are perhaps the only democracy, the greatest democracy, in the Middle East and we are very proud of this achievement." What did the UN Human Rights Council do in the face of such deceit from the front man for a serial human rights abuser and the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism? It unanimously passed — with the participation and approval of the United States, now a Council member — the one sentence "adopting the report" — with all its Iranian misrepresentations and rejections of recommendations contained therein. The Council made no effort to adopt a resolution condemning Iran's human rights record. And the United States delegation made no effort even to introduce a resolution on Iranian rights abuses. The UN Human Rights Council has in fact never adopted any resolution critical of Iran, nor has it even created an investigator on human rights violations by Iran. (The Council has been too busy with Israel — adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN states combined.) But in the immortal words of Ambassador Donahoe when the Iranian UPR was all over: "the UPR process has been an incredible success for the Human Rights Council." At least Donahoe clarified the meaning of the crux of the Obama administration's foreign policy, that illustrious principled engagement and strategic multilateralism. She announced at the final press stakeout: "We are no longer willing to stand by and allow empty rhetoric to convince others around the world. We have to shine a light on the facts on the ground and come back with our own rhetoric." Rhetoric for rhetoric — the modern liberal's idea of protecting human rights. And so with a rhetorical flourish Donahoe added: "empty promises are not enough. It is time for Iran to actually do something with respect to the human rights situation." To which Iran can now respond "right back at ya." EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies. |
|
ISRAEL-TURKEY RELATIONS: TURKISH DELIGHT GONE SOUR
Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, June 14, 2010. |
|
The last year or so has witnessed a steady decline in Turkey-Israel relations despite scholarly claims to the contrary.[1] The Recep Tayyip Erdogan regime, by its impetuous actions, is all set to destroy the painstaking achievements of its predecessors of cultivating closer ties with Israel, that has not only been the envy of all the Mediterranean States, but also a model for the rest of the world to follow. The first such instance of friction was manifested at the World Economic Forum Summit at Davos in 2009 when Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey provoked a verbal duel with Shimon Peres, the Israeli President, over the latter's conduct of the Gaza Offensive against Hamas, and was accorded a hero's welcome back home.[2] Thousands of people gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport to greet Erdogan when he returned from the gathering of business and political leaders, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags and chanting, "Turkey is proud of you."[3] Turkish airports were replete with slogans of "Dogs and Israelis not allowed." The second such spat came over the nuclear issue and Israel was made the villain of the piece by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference.[4] This was recently followed up by nuclear deals between Turkey, Iran and Brazil in Teheran. Iran agreed to ship much of its low-enriched uranium abroad and then rolled out a new obstacle to nuclear compromise by insisting it would press ahead with higher enrichment — bringing it closer to being able to make atomic warheads.[5] The deal announced calls for Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would receive, within one year, higher-enriched fuel rods to be used in a U.S.-built medical research reactor.[6] The Mavi Marmara incident in 2010 has really put things on the boil. The Turkish President together with the Prime Minister has gone to the extra length to put all contacts — military, diplomatic, economic — with Israel on hold. The killing of Turks on the so-called freedom flotilla has brought the already strained relationship between the Jewish state and Turkey's Islamist leaning government close to breaking point.[7] Turkey recalled its ambassador and Prime Minsiter Erdogan, charging Israel with "state terrorism" has called for those responsible for the deaths to be punished.[8] The United Nations Security Council condemned the Israeli attack on the flotilla and sought a "full explanation" from the Jewish state and an impartial investigations into the incident, after an emergency session that lasted more than twelve hours.[9] Now the question that needs to be asked is that why is Turkey behaving in this manner, when it's long standing policy has been to have "zero problems" with its neighbours? The answer to this should be sought both in the historical and contemporary backdrop. In fact, much water has already flowed into the Bosphorous ever since the new Islamist AKP came to the helm of affairs in Turkey. Not only have there been attempts to dilute the secular character of the Turkish State (that provoked spontaneous pro-secularist demonstrations) through backdoor introduction of Islamic practices and rituals (banned by Ataturk decades earlier) like encouragement of headscarves and the hijab, but also the new regime is keen on cultivating closer ties with the Islamic world, that seemed to have got lost in the whirlwind of reforms ushered in by the Constitution of 1921. Moreover, there was also the question of identity. No matter, how hard the Turk tried to be a European with a brimmed hat and his/her usage of the Latin alphabet, Europe could not be fully at ease with the new, secular, yet Muslim Turkey. Repeated attempts by Turkish political leaders to gain access into the European Union fell on deaf ears, as European states were afraid of being swamped by an alien culture, both in terms of religion and race. Edmund Stoiber, the German opposition leader, made it plain that there would be no place for "Muslim" Turkey in "Christian" Europe. Greek and Armenian Diaspora lobbies with their stark memories of "Ottoman misrule" and state-inspired pogroms were equally vociferous of Turkey's non-entry into the European Union. Turkey's treatment of the Kurdish problem and its judiciary, police and military apparatus came under closer scrutiny together with the insistence to meet European standards of human rights that came too close for comfort for an average Turk. Frustration over repeated failures to gain "European" status, for a time, encouraged some Turkish leaders to look towards Central Asia as the "Original homeland" of the Turkish race, in the early 1990s. Newly independent (Turkic-speaking) Central Asian Countries like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were wooed into the Turkish fold through generous grants of foreign aid and scholarships to visiting students, and there was hope that Turkey would at last find some succour in the dwelling of its Turkic-speaking kinsmen.[10] But the Turkish economy and politics were ages ahead of these Soviet-era states that were finding themselves in a virtually brave new world, and the issue had to be dumped for all practical purposes. The result of these confusing political and psychological trends was Islamic revisionist tendencies. Although Turkey was secularized at the official level, religion remained a strong force at the popular level. After 1950 some political leaders tried to benefit from popular attachment to religion by espousing support for programs and policies that appealed to the religiously inclined. Such efforts were opposed by most of the political elite, who believed that secularism was an essential principle of Kemalist Ideology. This disinclination to appreciate religious values and beliefs gradually led to a polarization of society. The polarization became especially evident in the 1980s as a new generation of educated but religiously motivated local leaders emerged to challenge the dominance of the secularized political elite. These new leaders have been assertively proud of Turkey's Islamic heritage and generally have been successful at adapting familiar religious idioms to describe dissatisfaction with various government policies. By their own example of piety, prayer, and political activism, they have helped to spark a revival of Islamic observance in Turkey. By 1994 slogans promising that a return to Islam would cure economic ills and solve the problems of bureaucratic inefficiencies had enough general appeal to enable avowed religious candidates to win mayoral elections in Istanbul and Ankara, the country's two largest cities.[11] By espousing the Islamic/Arab cause through its support of Gaza Palestinians, Turkey seems to have at last made its way home, and rid itself of the Western taint that has given the former neither hope nor succour. To do so, Turkey would have to play the role of an advocate rather than a bystander in the goings-on in the Middle East. The existing power equations would have to be challenged if Turkey is to emerge as the foremost champion of Islamic/Arab grievances. Under the circumstances, the traditional roles of Arab states like Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia (with Jordan in the sidelines) and the non-traditional roles of irredentist states like Iran, would have to be taken head on. As far as the present writer of this article is concerned, Turkey is trying to "have the cake and eat it too." The best possible platform is the Organization of Islamic Conference, of which Turkey is an influential and powerful member[12], where the Saudi and Iranian hegemony could be countered through some dramatic action that would speak volumes of Turkey's commitment to Islamic values. Hence the Erdogan regime's belated sympathy for its "suffering Palestinian brothers." Radical Turkish Islamists have long tried to stir up anti-Semitism.[13] Their long standing jibe against the secular Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founder, was that he was "really a Jew."[14] In recent years assorted leftists and Kemalists have joined an anti-Jewish chorus that frequently accompanies hostility to America, which is often accused of plotting with Israel to set up an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq that will eventually take large chunks out of south-eastern Turkey.[15] The Mavi Marmara incident might even be a ploy to blackmail the reluctant West (and the US in particular) to extend EU membership to Turkey on the pain of the latter going Islamic and throwing in its lot with Muslim countries. This is particularly significant since Turkey has a large Muslim population (the largest of all the Muslim countries in West and Central Asia)[16] and the largest standing Army in the NATO armed with sophisticated weapons.[17] Should Turkey swallow its pride and enter into an alliance with Iran in a joint-sponsorship of the "Palestinian cause", then Israel together with all the regional and western countries would be caught in a bind. There would be every possibility of Turkish military equipment (of American make and upgraded by Israel) falling into the hands of Iran and like-minded regimes. Arab states like Syria, and the Arab populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Saudi Arabia, would rub their hands in gleeful anticipation of "another round" with Israel. The Mediterranean countries (except France, Italy and Spain) would be too timid not to cow down to a joint Turkish-Iranian intimidation, so as to isolate and encircle Israel. In the event of a possible outbreak of hostilities with Israel, Turkey might even contemplate pulling out of NATO and forming a separate regional bloc with Iran and Saudi Arabia, probably even roping in Syria and Libya. Turkey might also close its air and ground spaces to Israeli forces thereby denying the latter any strategic depth. The United States, afraid of losing a valuable Muslim ally in Turkey, might do an Eisenhower[18] by pressuring Israel into lifting the Gaza blockade and finding some solution to the Palestinian problem. Turkey would then, under the favourable circumstances of its own making, be in a position to dictate terms and by a single stroke, be able to score several brownie points, for instance: a.Finding a solution to the Palestinian problem; If war is a continuation of politics by other means in the Clausewitzian version, then Turkey with it enormous demographic and military resources, together with its geo-strategic position in West Asia, has indeed played a bold diplomatic-military gamble, by stoking the fires of the Mavi Marmara crisis to its cynical advantage. Footnotes [1] For a comprehensive account of Israel-Turkey relations, see Miracles or Interests: What Keeps Turkish-Israeli Relations Going? By Prof. Ofra Bengio, Tel Aviv University Review, summer 2009, p.18 [2] Turkish PM returns to hero's welcome after Davos walkout, The Indian Express, Kolkata, 31.01, 2009 [3] Ibid [4] OIC welcomes Iran nuclear swap deal,
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/
[6] Ibid [7] Israel resists international probe into Gaza flotilla raid, The Indian Express, Kolkata, 4.6.2010 [8] Ibid [9] UNSC seeks explanation from Israel, The Indian Express, Kolkata, 2.6.2010 [10] The independence of the Turkic states of the Soviet Union in 1991, with whom Turkey shares a common cultural and linguistic heritage, allowed Turkey to extend its economic and political relations deep into Central Asia. The most salient of these relations saw the completion of a multi billion dollar oil and natural gas pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan to the port of Ceyhan in Turkey. The Baku — Tbilisi — Ceyhan pipeline, as it is called, has formed part of Turkey's foreign policy strategy to become an energy conduit to the West. [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey (Visited on 11.6.2010) [12] Turkey is a founder member of the OIC (1969) [13] Bad New Vibrations (Excerpts from an article in The Economist), The Indian Express, Kolkata, 31.01.2009 [14] Ibid; [15] Ibid; [16] According to the CIA World fact Book, Muslims constitute about 99.8% of Turkey's population (Source: "Turkey". CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/tu.html#People. Retrieved January 21 2008) [17] According to NATO Sources, Ankara's forces are greater
than those of France and Britain combined, with 514,000 men under arms
and 380,000 in reserve, plus a robust air force with American
fighters
[18] President Eisenhower compelled Israel in the wake of the 1956 Suez War to hand over the Sinai with its entire Israeli-made infrastructure to the Egyptians. Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in |
|
STOMPING AN ARAB INVADER IS A GOOD THING
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 14, 2010. |
|
We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) We say: One need not be a Jew in order to stand by Israel and nourish Israel's alliance with the US. We say: Restore the Jewish Homeland from the ocean to the sea and retrieve all the lands your foolish leadership traded away for the insolent air-kisses or the arab invaders. Perhaps you've read our "politically incorrect" stuff. We were appalled by the al Durah hoax and disgusted by CNN and Christianne Amanpour and this impelled us to speak truth to Islamofascist lies. We urge Israeli propagandists to acquire new and better skills in order to successfully combat the arab invader's propaganda war against Israel. We have repeatedly advised the Israelis to stop utilizing the cunning words carefully chosen by the arab invaders. For instance, we urge Israel to immediately STOP calling the lands of the Jewish Homeland "the West Bank". When you let the arab invader's put their words in your mouths and when Israelis parrot them, you are conceding the battle and diminishing Israel's sovereignty. Notice how we don't call arabs "palestinians"? We don't because using this word is and has been a persuasive arab invader's tactical ploy. We presume, entirely correctly, that any arab within the Jewish Homeland is either a Muslim Israeli or an arab invader. We are entirely correct to presume that an arab is an arab invader until proven otherwise. We believe Jews who align with the arab invaders and offer them aid and comfort or incite them to attack Jews or their fellow Israelis are traitors either to the US or to israel and that their words are akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech (at least here in the US) carries consequences. For instance, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater that triggers a stampede will result in criminal prosecution for yelling words that foreseeably lead to death and disaster. We know that Saudi Arabia is cunning, cold, and patient. Most Americans have a sense of this, too. But this sensibility needs constant reinforcement given the pro-Islamic slant of our young Muslim POTUS. Many believe he is a pretend-Christian, a chameleon "as cunning as a starved reptile with a venomous tooth." We think the POTUS and Democrats have acquired a tight grip on the American poodle-press and around the necks of the desperate-for-money Jewish families who own the NYT. (When it comes to Republicans, they are equally bad, if not worse, just in a different way.) Re: Iran — We believe that the Saudis will engage in any pretense of ''friendship" with Israel in order to use Jews to fight for the benefit of the Saudis in the emerging hot war the Iranian cacas are trying to ignite. This by no means carries any suggestion that Israel ought to decline Saudi cooperation — just accept whatever the Saudis have to offer or give without Israel feeling a need to offer any gestures in return — Israel taking any action against the caca Iranian crazies is "plenty enough." We stand with the Patriots of Israel. Stomping an arab invader is a good thing! Thanks.
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
OPERATION "ESTABLISHING FACTS ON THE GROUND"
Posted by Helen Freedman, June 14, 2010. |
|
Dear AFSI friends, The AFSI Chizuk mission was in Netzer this past May. We saw for ourselves how the strip of land between Elazar and Alon Shvut is at risk. Our group climbed the hill to a place where Women In Green had set up a tent, and we planted trees, hoping that by being there, and planting on the land, we would help in establishing the facts on the ground. We urge you to support the efforts of WIG to hold onto this precious land. See the information below. Thank you. Helen Freedman This below was written by Nadia Matar of Women in Green (WIG). |
|
Today, the people of Israel understand the tremendous damage caused by the anarchists who masquerade as peace-lovers, and the danger inherent in their "humanitarian" activity, as they presumably are concerned for the welfare of the "unfortunate" Arabs. Actually, this is an anti-Semitic struggle backed by tremendous budgets, the goal of which is to push the Jews into the sea — and first, out of Judea and Samaria. We, the activists in the field, have had to contend with them for some time. At Shdema they used sophisticated, passive violence, but, thank G-d, we succeeded in repelling them, and the IDF returned to the place, and established an outpost there. They are agitating without respite at Hazon David, next to Kiryat Arba-Hebron. Along Road 60 in Judea and Samaria, signs have been erected by the Oxfam organization, that, too, gives the Arabs millions of dollars to work the lands. In Netzer, in Gush Etzion between Elazar and Alon Shvut, the anarchists from the JAI (Joint Advocacy Initiative) agitate and aid the Arabs to plant and seize lands. On every tree that they plant they put a sticker with the name and symbol of their organization. The sign by the Dutch government that stands at the entrance to Netzer attests, more than a thousand words, to their intentions: "Monetary and agricultural aid to Arabs in reclamation of lands — 123 dunams." The sign lists four organizations and the Dutch government, all partners in their sincere "concern" for the Arabs. At present, a struggle for every dunam of soil is being waged at Netzer, as at many additional locations in Judea and Samaria. We can close our eyes, and lose the land reserves for the development of our communities, until we will wake up one day and see that all the lands are worked by Arabs, right up to our windowsills. The Yibaneh Fund founded by Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), and the Netzer Group have decided to take action and initiate "Operation Establishing Facts on the Ground." We have been active on the ground for a while and we planted several dunams in Netzer. Now, the pace has to be accelerated. If we don't hurry up, the Arabs and the anarchists will beat us to it. Naturally, we call upon every community to act in the same manner. Youth, too, will be enlisted in this operation for a work camp in July with agricultural guides, to plant trees on the hill and plant values in the heart.Details of the agricultural work camp are detailed in the flyer that can be seen by clicking on the link below. We expect all friends of Israel to mobilize. We are all partners! Not everyone can go out in the field, but everyone can contribute and thereby be a full participant in the redemption of the lands of Eretz Israel As we describe in the flyer that you can see on our site: 20 people each contributing NIS 500 ($150) will redeem one dunam, in which 36 olive trees or 220 vines will be planted. Helen Freedman is Executive Director of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), 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. |
|
ME STUDIES, ISRAEL, FLOTILLA, AND TURKEY; AMOS OZ CHALLENGED;
NETANYAHU PRESERVES ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDINGS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 14, 2010. |
|
U.S., AFGHANISTAN, MINERALS, NEW YORK TIMES 
I just met a former U.S. A.I.D. executive, who had been assigned to help develop economic opportunities for women in Afghanistan. This was a difficult mission in a male-dominated society, but the men were amenable to it. The executive drove through much of northern Afghanistan, with an armed convoy to protect him from possible kidnappers. A couple of times every hour, they were stopped at a different tribe's or militia's checkpoint, usually formed from abandoned Soviet armor. He found the people most hospitable. Apparently one of Afghanistan's greatest problems is regional disunity and intimidation by the Taliban. The Taliban just hanged a 7-year old boy as an informant. That will keep his village in fear of the Taliban. Otherwise, many Afghans consider the Taliban a creature of Pakistan. Pakistan wants Afghanistan as a buffer from attack by India. I mentioned to the gentleman that if Pakistan stopped its informal war on India, it would not have to worry about India. He did not disagree. While touring Afghanistan, there was no mention of the huge mineral deposits just discovered in that country now, as reported in today's New York Times. The way people argue non-chronologically and confuse cause and effect, I suppose people now will contend that it is for the minerals that the U.S. started fighting there (years before the minerals were discovered). A reader commented that the NY Times does not always list its sources, so it is a propaganda organ. Right conclusion, wrong reason. Much news nowadays come from confidential leaks. That does not necessarily make the reporters propagandists. One has to use judgment what to believe. That there was the Karzai-Pakistan discussion is a reasonable conclusion about that region. The real question is what is the motive and what is the goal. The former U.S.A.I.D. executive finds Karzai trying to juggle all the actors, so that he stays in power. Many of my articles criticize the NY Times for advocacy journalism, being anti-Zionist and against nutritional supplements.
MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES, ISRAEL, FLOTILLA, AND TURKEY 
American professors of Middle Eastern Studies have been censuring Israel over the flotilla battle. They call the flotilla purely humanitarian [though the flotilla could have delivered goods without risking the violence from attempting to breach a military blockade]. They blame Israel for the violence. The professors ignore "overwhelming video and documentary evidence of the activists' radical agenda and affinity for violence." Said New York University professor of modern Middle Eastern History Zachary Lockman. "It's not [the Palestinians'] fault they are under Hamas rule." But such professors also claim that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in January 2006? Whose fault is that? Georgetown University's Prof. John Esposito defended Hamas from accusations that it stole humanitarian aid, though the U.N. and the left-wing British Guardian have noted that Hamas has illegally seized aid." Some professors warn that the U.S. would alienate Muslims if it doesn't oppose Israel on the flotilla. But the flotilla has terrorist connections, as does Gaza. [Likewise the U.S. alienates Muslims by fighting al-Qaida. Should we let al-Qaida fight us with impunity?] Columbia U. Prof. Rashid Khalidi urges the U.S. Navy to break Israel's sea blockade that he calls illegal. Another professor said Israel's illegality would have been more apparent if the crew did not fight back, though they had a right to. [The crew was restricted from the deck.] Scholars of international law say otherwise. Ruth Wedgwood, who teaches international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University, convincingly debunks Zunes's, Gerges's, and Loewenstein's arguments. "We had a blockade around Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis." Wedgwood explained. The U.S. boarded ships in international waters, as per traditional law of the sea. Reuters finds, "[l]egal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives." The professors omitted Islamist activities and background, such as the fact that the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were recorded on Al-Jazeera chanting in Arabic, "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!" That refers to holy war. The Middle Eastern Studies professors try to blame Israel for Turkey's turn to radical Islam, though first an Islamist regime came in and then spoiled Turkey-Israel relations. "Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has warned of Turkey's Islamization for many years, and professor Henri J. Barkey of Lehigh University recently outlined how Israeli-Turkish relations have deteriorated since Turkey's main Islamist party took power. Turkey's current Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, has consistently expressed sympathy for Hamas and Iran's nuclear program." Middle Eastern Studies' professors are guided by ignorance or bias. Their counsel is useless or counter-productive (Campus Watch, Brendan Goldman, American Thinker, 6/13/10) Middle Eastern Studies are subsidized by the U.S. government.
FRANCE BANS HAMAS TV The Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) documented numerous instances of Hamas' al-Aqsa TV broadcasting incitement to bigotry and violence. MEMRI brought these proofs to the EU, whose rules al-Aqsa repeatedly violated. The EU, in turn asked France to ban Hamas broadcasts via the Eutelsat facility in Paris. Now France has asked Eutelsat to shut out al-Aqsa (MEMRI, 6/13/10). Check the source for the pages of documentation. Some readers may wonder whether the ban violates freedom of the press. France has less such freedom than the U.S.. Other considerations: (1) Hamas is jihadist, at war with the West, so why should the West give its enemy a platform; and (2) Muslim masses are receptive to indoctrination in hatred of others and in calls to violence. The American notion that there must be a clear and present danger, before speech may be repressed, is valuable, but incitement to holy war has a lower threshold than other kinds of incitement. For example, Muslim riots in Jeruaslem often occur as soon as the mosque sermon ends and the faithful emerge.
ISRAEL REVISING LIST OF ITEMS FOR GAZA AND UNIFIL BLINDFOLDS ITSELF 
Israel is revising its list of items permitted into Gaza. The lit includes more cement and iron, but to be under international supervision against being diverted to construction of war bunkers by Hamas (IMRA, 6/13/10). http://www.imra.org.il/ Speaking of international supervision, UNIFIL reports that in its area of supervision, the area of Lebanon south of the Litani River, it has seen no smuggling of arms, no illegal arms, no illegal troops, and no military infrastructure. It doubts the imminence of war, finding the situation stable. It denounces Israeli reconnaissance overflights of Lebanon, which contravene the truce agreement. UNIFIL's commander refused to answer questions about his operations, including questions about UNIFIL not entering certain areas. IMRA elaborates. It states that UNIFIL does not enter certain areas, at least not without permission after enough time has elapsed so it will see no evidence of illegal arms. UNIFIL's not seeing evidence, under such restrictions, do not mean there is no evidence. The Israeli overflights find such evidence, therefore justifying the overfllghts (IMRA, 6/13/10). From possessing 10,000 missiles before the war and truce, Hizbullah now is estimated to have more than 40,000. They are hidden in fields. UNIFIL has a crippled mission poorly carried out. War would depend on orders from Iran. If Israel or the U.S. raids Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran, as it has threatened, probably would give the green signal to Hizbullah. The UNIFIL commander did not take that into account, when he said the situation is stable.
FELLOW ISRAELI LEFTIST CHALLENGES AMOS OZ ON HAMAS In the same newspaper, Haaretz, that Amos Oz criticized Israeli policy on Hamas, a fellow Israeli leftist, Dina Porat, challenged him on it. Mr. Oz had called Hamas not just a terrorist organization but an "idea." Ms. Porat shot back, what idea. Quoting from Hamas' charter, Porat proves that a major goal of it is to eradicate Israel. Terrorism happens to be its main means. As against Oz' claim that Hamas grew out of desperation, Porat cites the Great Depression as an example of depression not leading to violence by the U.S.. Oz cites desperation as an excuse for blaming Israel for the rise of terrorism. Not only is that not fair, but there was no desperation. From well before Israeli statehood, there were many proposals for peace arrangements. Israel agreed to them, but the Arabs did not. They could have had peace and a state, if that is what they wanted. As for ideas, there are rival ideas. There have been ideas for imperialism both political and religious, and ideas for peaceful development, as in Western democracy with minority rights, education, etc.. The problem is that the Arabs have chose imperialism (IMRA, 6/13/10).
ISRAEL NAMES INVESTIGATOR PANEL PM Netanyahu has appointed a panel to investigate the flotilla. The panel comprises three Israelis and two, non-voting observers, one from Canada, the other from Ireland. The panel will investigate: (1) Reasons and legality of naval blockade; (2) Legality of Israeli enforcement of blockade; (3) Identity and actions of flotilla organizers and participants; and (4) Whether Israeli procedure for investigating and compensating complaints and claims over alleged violations of international law conform to international law (IMRA, 6/13/10). A New York Times report contains a complaint that the commission lacks the power to investigate as much as is needed (6/14/10). The panel's mission statement does not refer explicitly to another aspect of the incident needing fuller exposition. That aspect is the top deck battle, itself: who started, who escalated, what happened. If PM Netanyahu means to leave that to the IDF, he should have made that clear in the panel statement of mission. If he is not leaving it entirely to the IDF, he should have made that clear, too. Otherwise, it appears as if he is evading one of the key issues: self-defense or murder. As I stated earlier, in a panic to appease world public opinion, Israel prematurely released the Islamists before interrogating and recording their confessions, and without indicating it had fingerprinted and photographed them. Now, when it needs to prove for world public opinion that they were radicals, it may not be able to as completely.
NETANYAHU PRESERVES ILLEGAL ARAB BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM 
More than 700 illegal Arab buildings are in the Shiloach (Silwan) section of Jerusalem, alone, states Aryeh King's Israel Land Fund. Why are they still standing, despite numerous demolition orders? MK Uri Ariel asked the City for an explanation. The answer is that the city enforces the law in coordination with the police, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has not approved enforcement (IMRA, 6/13/10). This is yet another case of PM Netanyahu caving in to foreign pressure against the interest of national security. Meanwhile, Israel calls itself a country of law and order. Many people fault Israel for demolishing illegal Arab buildings. They do not fault the Arabs for building them illegally, as on public land and land zoned for public usage. If as a result an Arab neighborhood does not have sufficient municipal services, Israel would be blamed, again. How many Americans who fault Israel for demolishing illegal Arab buildings would like illegal buildings built near them? Instead of blaming Israel when it had enforced normal zoning and building regulations, it would be fairer to blame foreign countries that pressured Israel to let pass the illegality in its own country. Those same countries insist that Israel demolish houses erected for Jews whose certificates permitted them to proceed but whose politically-minded Defense Minister refuses to give final approval to, so the foreign countries call those houses illegal. Double standard.
OBAMA COMMENTS ON ISRAELI INVESTIGATION OF FLOTILLA Obama's press secretary has officially commented on the appointment and mission of an Israeli investigation of the flotilla. What it boils down to is that this set-up "can" meet international standards but the U.S. reserves judgment until after it sees what happens and what are the results. The U.S. did accept the terms of the investigation, which is to evaluate legality, not any military failure. A potential problem is that the Obama administration, which is trying to oust PM Netanyahu for someone even more compliant, reserves to itself an opportunity to denounce Israel if the results are not to its liking (IMRA, 6/14/10). What are "international standards?" The UN Goldstone mission did not meet standards of objectivity including starting out with a one-sided statement of mission, keeping the mission mostly one-sided, accepting statements from interested parties without verification, little original research, conclusions based on facts, and inaccurate accurate explication of international law.
IRAN TO CHALLENGE NAVAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA Iran named one ship, but stated that it is sending a convoy past the naval blockade of Gaza (IMRA, 6/14/10). Emanuel Winston warns that Iran may have a more drastic provocation in mind that did Turkey which, Israel found, had a separate and unchecked boarding by the few dozen Islamists. He reminds of the time that an Iranian airliner buzzed a U.S. war vessel [after 9/11 demonstrated Islamists using planes as bombs], inviting the U.S. to shoot it down in pre-emptive self-defense. The Navy did. The passengers were dressed in burial shrouds, as if having planned a suicide. Iran made propaganda about U.S. aggressiveness against civilians. This time, Iran may be planning its ships to carry explosives either to destroy an Israeli ship or just the Iranian ship. Alternatively, Iranians on board their ship may fire missiles at the Israeli Navy, which may then, in self-defense, sink it. Then the world, not having "international standards" but bias against Israel, would blame Israel for drowning civilians. Israel has to disable the ships so they cannot approach (Winston Mideast Report & Analysis, 6/14/10). Iran may be emboldened by Obama's stance against Israel, as hinted at in the prior article. How ironic that Iran, which has furnished rebels with the roadside bombs that account for most U.s. casualties in Afghanistan, and which fosters terrorist militias, now pretends to be challenging the blockade out of humanitarian considerations! Can anyone reasonably doubt that Iran wants the blockade lifted so it can gain a port in Gaza as well as ship heavy weapons to its client, Hamas? American patriots should aware of Iran's support for insurgents against GIs.
BOOK ON FLOTILLA BEING RUSHED OUT OR Books specializes in current events and timely publication. Its next project is Murder on the Mavi Marmara. English Prof. Moustafa Bayoumi will edit statements by eyewitnesses and will analyze the blockade and regional conflict (NY Times, 6/12/10, C2). The book may be out before Israel investigates. (For Israel's announcement of the investigation, click here ) No mention was made about using the videos and other evidence that Israel uncovered. Sounds like a hatchet job in the making. Such books tend to be premature; this one seems biased. Let us see.
U.C. IRVINE SUSPENDS MUSLIM STUDENTS UNION The University of California Irvine finally has suspended its Muslim Students Union (MSU). For years the University took no action against MSU, despite MSU having broken university rules, probably broken federal law, and slandered Israel. One of the slanders is that "the Israelis" are the "new Nazis." The suspension won the praise of Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which had led a years-long campaign for it. ZOA initiated a federal investigation, got politicians and NGOs to intercede, and kept making the case (from a 6/14/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York City and to which I belong.) What is Nazism? I remember it in its later years: (1) A type of totalitarian fascism with a kind of religious-like ethos, that denies civil liberties; (2) Sought to conquer the world and impose its views, regardless of costs to its own people; (3) Mass-murdered in conquered areas; (4) Considered its people racially the highest of mankind, Jews the lowest, and Negroes and Poles low; and (5) Advanced by deceit, whose repetition convinces, and emphasized propaganda, however ridiculous. Much of this is similar to Soviet Communism. What is Radical Islam, that MSU favors? 1) A type of totalitarian fascism, with a type of religious ethos, that denies civil liberties; (2) Seeks to conquer the world, to impose its views, regardless of the cost to its own people; (3) Mass-murders in some conquered areas; (4) Considers Jews the lowest, racially; and (5) Advances by deceit, whose repetition convinces, and emphasizes propaganda, however ridiculous. The Arabs in general were and are admirers of the Nazis, and Arafat was an agent and protégé of the Soviet Communists. Zionism in Israel is: (1) Not totalitarian, though the Israeli Left is harsh on the Right; (2) Wants only its own homeland, though it has compromised even on that, and withdrew from most of the areas conquered, in self-defense; (3) Has improved longevity in the nearby conquered areas; (4) Has no racial notions and multiple races among its members; (5) Does not practice deceit against its own Right, and has very little propaganda and little understanding of the value and methods of propaganda. Calling Jews the "new Nazis" is based on the big-lie technique of accusing Israel of genocide. But the wars Israel has in defending from attempted genocide against it, and the relatively small casualties it inflicts, enable the population of Arabs in and near Israel to increase. Preceding and during the wars of 1848 and 1967, Arab leaders boasted of the mass-killings they would perpetrate, to rival those of Genghis Kahn. Now the Palestinian Arab Friday sermons exhort to murder Jews for being Jews, not just for being Israeli. A supposedly moderate leader of Iran welcomed the return of Jews to Israel, so Iran could wipe them all out.
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: DATE PALM GROVE
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 14, 2010. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Missed a Photo?
HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Driving through vast, empty stretches of Israel's deserts, I am always amazed to suddenly spy on the horizon a thriving grove of date palms amid the endless rock and sand. A brief stroll in the cooling shade of a palm forest is a welcome stop on any desert journey, and, of course, an opportunity to photograph. With the sun high in the sky, I left the Arava Highway in southern Israel near Kibbutz Ketura and parked alongside the grove. I wandered among the towering trees for a few minutes, studying the light and looking for a good place to capture the feeling of standing among giants. I chose my ultra wide, 12-24 mm zoom lens to include as many of the frond fans as possible, in order to make the subject clearly recognizable and emphasize the feeling of standing in a forest. I pointed my camera up to the sky and adjusted my position so the sun moved behind one of the thick tree trunks, thus enabling me to shoot directly toward a very bright light source. Date palms have been a source of food and shelter for millennia in this region of the world. The Hebrew word for date palm is Tamar, also a popular girl's name which has come to symbolize grace and elegance, and, one might add, a bit of chutzpah to grow so well in such a harsh environment. TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D300, 12-24 zoom at 12mm, f16 @1/160 sec.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
TU QUOQUE, THE ECONOMIST
Posted by Boris Celser, June 14, 2010. |
This is Emmanuel Navon's commentary on "Averting Another Gaza" by
Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini and Miguel Moratinos.
Contact Emmanuel Navon by email at emmanuel@navon.com
"Can the whole world be wrong?" asked Koffi Annan in April 2002. His was a rhetorical question meant to make a sophistic point: If the UN says black and Israel says white, do the math and guess who's right. Coming from a man under whose watch (whether as Head of the Peacekeeping Operations Department, as Under-Secretary General, or as Secretary General) the UN was passive at best and accomplice at worst during the Rwanda Genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, the Darfur ethnic cleansing and the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, asking such a question required no small amount of sang froid.This below is The Economist article written by Kouchner, Frattini and Moratinos. Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini and Miguel Angel Moratinos are the foreign ministers, respectively, of France, Italy and Spain. |
|
"Averting Another Gaza"
The whole world was shocked by the tragic consequences of the Israeli military operation conducted in international waters against the "Peace Flotilla" convoy of ships. The human cost is unacceptable. Nothing can justify the use of such violence, and our countries immediately condemned it. Following these dramatic events, the time must come for analysis and reflection on the root reasons of the tragedy. The cause of the boarding of the Mavi Marmara can be summarized in a single word, one that is very familiar to us: Gaza. It was Israel's unbending determination to force compliance with the blockade put in place in 2007 after the coup d'état by Hamas against the Palestinian Authority that is the origin of this event, just as Operation Cast Lead and its trail of intolerable pain were triggered by the constant firing of rockets into southern Israel. Last year, as it did on the night of May 30-31, Israel decided to use force to achieve its political and security objectives. That logic must now be abandoned, because if it is not, more tragedies will occur that can only strengthen Hamas and Israel's other enemies in the region, destabilize moderates in both camps and deepen Israel's political isolation. How? On June 1 the U.N. Security Council expressed its view, indicating three ways forward that we must follow. First, the investigation: This is indispensable and it must be impartial, transparent and conform with international standards. It must, however, be sure to avoid the mistakes made after the submission of the Goldstone report, whose follow-up was exploited by the Human Rights Council, half of whose resolutions, unfortunately, have been devoted to condemning Israel. Turkish and American citizens were the victims of this operation, and the investigation must therefore include an international component, as has already been proposed by the U.N. secretary general. He has our support. Second, the lifting of the blockade: As early as the first hours after the tragedy, we stressed that the situation in Gaza was no longer sustainable. In using this expression, also employed by the Security Council the following day, we mean that we must meet the humanitarian needs of Gaza's population and remove the raison d'être of the mafia-like tunnel economy, but at the same time provide guarantees that this will not go hand in hand with a resurgence in arms trafficking and an influx of terrorist groups into Gaza. This is in fact what Security Council Resolution 1860, adopted following the war in Gaza, stipulates, and the Security Council called a few days ago for it to be implemented in its entirety, not selectively. This includes the immediate release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Concerning the humanitarian aspect, Tony Blair has suggested a shift from a logic of denial of supplies to Gaza to one based on general authorization, with the exception of banned products. Why not adopt this idea to demonstrate very quickly that the situation can improve? The European Union already has a civilian mission on the spot ready to be deployed simultaneously at the Karni and Rafah frontier posts linking Gaza to Israel and Egypt. To guarantee full security of supplies, we propose that inspections supported and funded by the E.U. should be put in place there in conditions acceptable to all in order to ensure that consignments bound for Gaza contain neither weapons nor explosives. A similar regime could be considered for maritime consignments bound for Gaza, for example, by deploying E.U. monitoring teams in Cyprus. These arrangements would be implemented only against a backdrop of very substantial relaxation of the restrictions on imports and exports to and from Gaza. A lasting solution also implies that the Palestinian Authority should be fully reinstated in Gaza and that a logic of peace should once again prevail in the Gaza territory. Efforts by Egypt in support of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas must still be supported concurrently with the démarche by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Finally, there is the essential issue: the revival of the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This tragedy must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in Europe, where deep emotion has been aroused. The scale of the international protests proves that Israel enjoys no immunity. How we wish that other tragedies would arouse the same condemnation! The Palestinian president, who will be in Europe in a few days, has announced that despite everything, the talks will continue. Let us show the same political courage as that demonstrated by the Palestinian leadership. We want those talks to be able to address the final status rapidly. The E.U., which on Dec. 8 adopted a strong, ambitious text concerning the broad lines of a future settlement, must itself move forward with the parties, in conjunction with U.S. mediation, with a view to the building and recognition of a Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
IRAN'S THREATS & ARAB STATES' AL-TAQIYYA STANCES
Posted by Elias Bejjani, June 13, 2010. |
|
In spite of the actual odious Iranian military, religious, economic, territorial, cultural and existential threats, and the ongoing abhorrent internal interferences in their domestic affairs on all levels and domains, the rulers and officials of the majority of the Arab states that Iran is aggressively and openly targeting in its evil contrivance of expansionism, denominational and hegemony schemes, are in general not yet publicly and officially addressing these serious, fatal Iranian problems or dealing with them appropriately. Sadly, like the ostrich, these rulers and officials have been hiding their heads in the sand, consciously denying the seriousness of the imminent Iranian danger, and scared to unveil courageously the vicious Iranian plot that aims to destabilize, disintegrate and topple their regimes in a bid to erect on its ruins the Persian Empire. Because of fear of confrontation they have been handling the problem in a double standard and taqiyya* (dissimulation) mentality. Their overt stances are exactly the opposite of the covert ones. Overtly they cajole and appease the Iranian mullahs and officials while covertly they appeal to the Western countries and beg them to protect their regimes and to attack Iran militarily and topple its mullahs' regime as was the situation with Iraq's Saddam regime. Meanwhile, Iran's intelligence and its notorious Revolutionary Guards have successfully infiltrated many fragile and poor communities in numerous Arab states, recruited from them sleeping terrorist cells, and armed militias. They bought through bribery and fanaticism high standing Arab officials, politicians, political parties, clergy, and fully controlled tens of educational, health, and social services. Iran annually spends billions of dollars on its both armed proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, and on many other terrorist and fundamental armed organizations in Yemen, Iraq and other Arab states. Iran and Syria openly encourage, instigate, fund, guide, train, and organize and use all the terrorist groups in the Middle East that advocate for havoc, jihad, intolerance, sectarianism and hatred. Iran alleges that all the Arabian Gulf countries are Persian and not Arabic, and occupies since 1971 three Islands in the Arabian Gulf that belong to the Arab Emirates (Abu Musa, Tunb, and Lesser Tunb). Recently, sleeping Iranian intelligence and terrorist cells were uncovered and arrested in Kuwait, as well as in Bahrain, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen. Iran through its two armed proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, controls both Lebanon and Gaza Strip. Hezbollah, the Iranian army in Lebanon, has grown to become not only a threat to Lebanon, but also to the peace, stability and order in the whole Middle East. Meanwhile, Iran is blatantly interfering in Iraqi internal affairs and badly destabilizing its peace and democracy. Despite all these obvious Iranian threats, plots, and dangers, the majority of Arab rulers and officials are still keeping a blind eye on the whole fiasco and hold on to al-taqiyya attitudes and stances. In this context of the Arabic dissimulation not even one Arab country openly and officially supported UN Resolution 1929 that was issued on June 09/10 by the UN Security Council against Iran over its nuclear program. On the country, some of them either attacked the resolution or claimed that such an approach was not appropriate. Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Ahmed Aboul Gheit instead of hailing UN Resolution 1929 and extending Egypt's utmost gratitude to the countries that voted to pass it, rhetorically claimed that sanctions should not be the only option to deal with the Iranian nuclear case and that sanctions did not serve the peaceful means for solving the crisis with Iran. According to him, previous sanctions against Iran have always led to more tensions and more confrontations. Aboul Gheit stressed the importance of continuing diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution for Iran's nuclear crisis. This blurred and lukewarm Egyptian stance is harmful for both Egypt and the Middle East countries who look on Egypt, the biggest Arab country, as a leading power that is expected to face bravely Iran's schemes, take clear stances against its nuclear ambitions and help deter its interferences and violence that lately targeted and hit Egypt itself through a Hezbollah terrorist cell. What is ironic here is that most observers are under the impression that covertly Egypt supports the sanctions and encourages the Western countries to attack Iran militarily, while overtly do and say the opposite. Saudi Arabia, the richest and most influential Arab country, is also resorting to dissimulation in regard to Iran. According to a report The Times newspaper published on June 12/10, Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to allow Israeli jets to use its airspace in a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. "The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way," a U.S. defense source in the area told the paper. "They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren't scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the (U.S.) State Department." Israel, which regards Iran as its principal threat, has refused to rule out using military action to prevent Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed solely at power generation. The Times said Riyadh, which views Iran as a regional threat, had agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance in the event of any bombing raid on Iran. A source in Saudi Arabia said the arrangement was common knowledge within defense circles in the kingdom. "We all know this. "We will let them (the Israelis) through and see nothing," the source told The Times. (AFP). Sadly, the Saudis immediately stated that the report is fake and fabricated instead of saying loudly, yes we will help in deterring Iran and in curbing its worldwide threats. Again this dissimulated lukewarm Saudi stance is harmful for the Saudis themselves and for all the Arab countries. There are no justifications whatsoever for the two biggest, most powerful and influential Arab countries, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not taking loud, courageous and clear cut stances against Iran's expansionism, hegemony, sickening plots and ambitions. The painful reality that these leaders should not ignore under any given circumstances lies in the solid fact that all the Arab countries and not only Israel will be Iran's main targets. The more the Arab leaders procrastinate, hesitate, depend on other powers to protect them, turn their heads to the other side or put them in the sand and keep on handling the actual Iranian threats with double standard, fear and taqiyya stances, the more Iran is going to become blatant, violent and aggressive. If the Arab states really want to safeguard their people, sovereignty, riches, stability, peace, independence and prosperity they ought to take definite stances against Iran and join all the other regional and world powers who are adamant to contain Iran's recklessness, pull out its teeth of harm and to curb all its unjustified military ambitions. Arab countries need to wake up, stop resorting to taqiyya stances, and smarten up so that they could differentiate their real friends from their enemies. Iran definitely is not among their friends. NB: *"Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation." Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist,
journalist and political commentator. Email him at
phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
|
|
AND THE WINNER IS — ISLAMIC JIHADIS
Posted by Babu Suseelan, June 14, 2010. |
|
For the last few years the U.S has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. By fiscal year 2010, The Center for Defense Information reports, the cost of Afghanistan fighting will total $739 billion and Iraq fighting$2.337 trillion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq hiked U.S indebtedness by $900 billion and the debt from military spending will exceed $2 trillion. Pakistan, the epicenter of Jihadi terrorism will receive $7.5 billion from America over the next five years. This aid is in addition to President George Bush had given to Pakistan's Islamized military. American aid was unconditional and the barely supervised fund was in exchange for empty pledges. Decades of U.S. aid only strengthened Pakistan's Islamized military. Pakistan never honored the commitment. Recently American Congress has earmarked another $3.5 billion for Pakistan. Providing unconditional aid to Islamic nations did not really improve American images in Islamic countries. Islamic leaders claim America is an infidel country and it is a great Satan. Anti Americanism by Islamists is nothing new. It began the year America was established as an independent secular nation. Now the time has come to crown a victor. While the U.S may have achieved its objectives in Iraq-removing terrorist Saddam Hussein from power — and removing Taliban government from Afghanistan. But the real Winner is the Islamic Jihadis. America spent more than $5 billion for its air campaign. Peace keeping efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an additional $10 billion a year. And in the years to come America will dole out billions for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan diverts American economic aid to amass weapons of mass destruction and to establish Jihad training schools. Jihadis from Pakistan and Afghanistan have extended their reach beyond its borders. They are now entrenched themselves in Afghanistan, Waziristan, and in different parts of Pakistan. Pakistan has become a lawless-failed state. Arms smuggling, opium smuggling and Jihadi training have become the core competency. Corrupt Pakistan army, the ineffective Zardari government and police are aiding and abetting opium smugglers, and counterfeiters. Arms smuggling and opium smuggling are certainly not their only source of income. Pakistan printed counterfeit foreign currencies are widely distributed in the United Arab Emirates, India, Nepal and many South Asian regions. Ill gotten money is being used to plot terrorism strategies against the West, America and India. Jihadi and al-Qaeda operatives are dispersed in Europe and America. Despite massive economic aid, Pakistan has slipped into un-governability. The Jihadis and al-Qaeda clan continue to thrive because of political deterioration in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The weak governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan have not made any real commitment to fight against Jihadis and al-Qaeda terrorists. The Islamized Pakistan military has no will to arrest, prosecute or contain Jihadi terrorists ambushing American soldiers. American aid flowing into Pakistan has been diverted into Kashmir to fight against infidel India. Most of the annual budget has been allocated for accumulating weapons of mass destruction. The Islamized military in Pakistan is involved in smuggling Jihadi terrorists into Indian Kashmir. The Islamic mafia has penetrated every segment of the Pakistan government. As President Obama and State Secretary Hilary Clinton look to the future and focus on withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, America needs to move beyond dollar diplomacy. American dollar and the military power have treated the symptoms, but not the source of Afghanistan and Pakistan's malice. The root cause of hostility against American interests is Islam. Islam forbids democracy, tolerance, friendship with infidels, freedom, pluralism and secularism. America and NATO nations must treat Islam as a political ideology. Economic aids should be made conditional on revising or reforming Islam, practicing Human Right and religious tolerance. Islamists believe that the only way to achieve their mission is terrorism. As far as Muslims are concerned America still remains as an unfinished Islamic task and Jihad war is both an individual and collective responsibility of all Muslims. Jihadis want to convert all infidels to Islam and be saved or pay the Jizya poll tax or else, they would wage war against us. America has pumped billions of dollars into all Islamic countries. Creating goodwill with Islamic fascists is an elusive dream. John Quincy Adams said "The essence of Mohamed's doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature." To convert, terrorize or kill all kafirs and to win all infidels for Allah is precisely what the Mohamedans first usage the term "Islam" means. In Islam democracy is replaced with Sharia and the dictatorship of Mullahs or Ayothollahs. It is strange that the bogus liberals and phony secularists and the leftist media came to ally itself with Islamic Jihad. The destructive antipathy of the leftist media toward American values and ethos is a form of nihilism. In order to create the future and to preserve our democracy and culture, it is necessary to mobilize the free world and treat Islam as a political ideology or fascist dogma for domination. Islam is a worst form of fascism, a virulent and contagious disease threatening the free world. Islam is not a creed of peace and veneration. Obscene crimes have certainly been committed in the name of Islam. In spite of massive aid from America, Islamic leaders are too arrogant to apologize for the appalling and heinous crimes against humanity. They offer pathetic justification for Islamic brutality. American aid to Islamic countries must be conditional on revising Islamic educational curriculum and treatment of non Muslims. Western governments should not negotiate with irreconcilable Muslims from a position of weakness. The political, social, and religious dynamics created by Islamists around the world seemed to become more and more complicated-and volatile — with time, and less and less solvable. With the unholy alliance they made with our leftist liberals and the media, Islamists are launching an alarming assault on our democracy, values, and freedom and weakening our position in the eyes of Islamic enemies. In all Islamic countries, Christians, Jews, Hindus and all non Muslims are harassed, discriminated, forcefully converted or driven out. In Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and all Islamic nations have no human rights, independent judiciary, or religious tolerance towards non Muslims. Financial aid must be conditional. Special operations units must be send to Islamic nations to gather intelligence and build ties with local non Muslims. Its goal must be to build networks that could penetrate, disrupt, or destroy Jihadi groups as well as prepare for social change. America also must have tough immigration laws to weed out Islamic anarchists who want to introduce Islamic Sharia law. If we fail to act the closed, rigid and fundamentalist political ideology of Islam, it will destroy our democracy, our preeminence in economy and undermine our liberty and safety. Since 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, Mohamedans who follow the Koran and Hadith have carried out 15,107 deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and killed more than 75,000 people. It is time for American citizens to protect our national interests, freedom, our values and culture from a position of strength. We must draw clear and sharp distinctions between ourselves and Islamic Jihadis who have taken every possible opportunity to kill Americans and undermine our prosperity and security. It would be tragic, if America loses to Jihadi terrorists and Islamic mafia. Contact Babu by email at b.suseelan@gmail.com |
|
IDF PREPARES FOR POTENTIAL ATTACK FROM US-TRAINED PA MILITARY
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 13, 2010. |
|
Several things need to be added to this article. First of all, the training, technology, communications skills transmitted by Lt. General Keith Dayton to the paramilitary Terrorist Army of the Palestinian Authority will have already been passed on to Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Syria and Iran — for sure. Do not be surprised if Lt. General Dayton will be assassinated as an infidel by the very Palestinian Muslims he trained. Some will recall Israeli soldiers who were on joint patrol with Palestinians were shot by their Arab Muslim partners — whom they knew — personally. As for Dayton, he is doing exactly what America did in Afghanistan when we trained them in the art of Terror and, after they defeated the vaunted Soviet Union's mighty Army, they turned on their trainers and that's how America developed Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. That's how New York got hit on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Kenya, Beslan, Fort Hood, ...... REMEMBER NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS — BUT, ALL TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN MUSLIMS! This next was written by Avi Yellin and it appeared in Arutz-7 (www.Inn.com). |
|
(Israelnationalnews.com) During a military exercise with the IDF's elite Kfir Brigade last week at the Tze'elim base in Israel's south, GOC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi warned soldiers of potential challenges they may face in the near future. The Kfir brigade, created December 2005 to deal with unrest in Israel's Judea and Samaria regions, trained extensively in urban warfare and simulated a scenario in which IDF soldiers were pitted against the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority's new American-trained military. Mizrahi told soldiers that the PA security forces, trained in Jordan by United States Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, is a formidable potential enemy and that the IDF needs to know how to fight them if the need should arise. "This is a trained, equipped, American-educated force," Mizrahi said. "This means that at the beginning of a battle, we will pay a higher price. A force like that can shut down an urban area with four snipers... It is a proper infantry force facing us and we need to take that into account. They have attack capabilities and we do not expect them to give up easily." Keith Dayton himself has expressed belief that his PA army would likely attack the Jewish state in the event that Israel does not give in to the demands of the Middle East Quartet, comprising America, Russia, the United Nations and European Union. At a May 2009 lecture in Washington, Dayton indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria to the PA within two years, the Fatah forces he and his fellow American officers are currently training could easily turn their guns on the Israelis. "With big expectations, come big risks," Dayton said. "There is perhaps a two-year shelf life on being told that you're creating a state, when you're not." Following these remarks, United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as deputy to President Barack Obama's Middle East Envoy George Mitchell. The United States has already poured over $300 million into the new PA army and the acknowledged prospect of that army attacking the State of Israel has not deterred Washington from continuing to arm, train and finance it. 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 |
|
CONTRA BEINART
Posted by Susana K-M, June 13, 2010. |
|
This was written by David Suissa. |
|
I love Peter Beinart. The last time we had breakfast, in Washington, D.C., about a year and a half ago, our conversation got so lively that I think someone asked us to quiet down. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I've been moved by his compelling logic and sense of fairness in the many opinion pieces he has written over the years. Not so with his latest, much-discussed piece, titled "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," in The New York Review of Books. The essay is sprawling and cleverly written; you feel you are reading something important that is revealing a big truth. My problem, though, is that once I got over the drama, I found myself asking questions like, "What exactly does he want the Jewish establishment to do?" For example, one of Beinart's key points is that a major reason for the alienation of liberal Jews from Zionism is the fact that the Jewish establishment has failed to criticize Israel's behavior on liberal issues, like its treatment of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Let's unpack that argument. Let's imagine a liberal Jew in his 20s who hasn't gone on Birthright, doesn't go to shul and knows little about Israel. During Israeli Apartheid Week on his college campus, he sees pictures of Israeli soldiers portrayed as "Nazi baby-killers." Through the media, he sees Israel as the world's most brutal occupier and favorite piñata: U.N. condemnations, global calls to boycott, accusations of crimes against humanity, Goldstone reports, the works. If he does a little homework, he might come across a recent report from the Reut Institute describing a global movement afoot to delegitimize the Jewish state. Now, what does Beinart think we should do to bring this liberal Jew closer to Zionism? Have someone from the Jewish "establishment" come on campus and educate him about how Israel is mistreating its Arab citizens? Is he serious? Tough love is one thing, but showing tough love for Israel to those who have no love for Israel in the first place isn't tough love. It's just pouring oil on the fire. Beinart loses me not when he criticizes Israeli democracy, but when he tries to pull a fast one by telling me that this criticism will help make alienated liberal Jews more sympathetic to the Jewish state. His argument ignores some inconvenient facts. One of these facts is pointed out by Shmuel Rosner on The Jerusalem Post's Web site. Beinart quotes Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California, Davis, as saying that "non-Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, feel much less attached to Israel than their elders, with many professing a 'near-total absence of positive feelings.' " However, as Rosner notes, the study itself contradicts a key component of Beinart's thesis: "Political identity, for the general population, has little bearing upon feelings of warmth toward or alienation from Israel. Whatever conclusion one may draw from the actions of political elites, or the writing of intellectual figures, left-of-center political identity (seeing oneself as liberal and a Democrat) in the general population exerts seemingly little influence on the level of attachment to Israel." The major factor in being alienated from Israel, it turns out, is intermarriage. The more distant you are from your Jewish heritage, the more distant you are from Israel. Nevertheless, let's give Beinart the benefit of the doubt and continue with his argument on the liberal value of criticizing Israel. Beinart is incredibly good at criticizing Israel. He's like Muhammad Ali: Move like a butterfly, sting like a bee. He'll cherry-pick the best facts and sources, bob and weave away from inconvenient context, and, by the time he's done, Israel might as well be a banana republic. Beinart ignores the crucial context that Israel is a country under permanent siege and in a state of virtual war, surrounded by terrorist entities sworn to its destruction, and that it still manages, however imperfectly, to maintain a civil society — a society that boasts, among other things, the freest Arab press in the Middle East. He complains about the treatment of Israeli Arabs and Arab members of Knesset (MK) who coddle with Israel's enemies, but like a Likud MK said recently: "Imagine a member of the Taliban being a member of Congress." It makes me wonder: How tolerant would Beinart be if 6,000 Hamas rockets had fallen on his quiet suburb? I'm not talking here about whitewashing Israel's mistakes; I'm talking about context. Appreciating this context might have led Beinart to a different approach toward his own goal. After all, if you want to appeal to a liberal Jew who has heard mostly poison about Israel, wouldn't you want to start off with some positive "liberal context" to break the ice? Wouldn't you want to tell the story, for instance, of the Palestinian homosexual who had to flee to Israel to have his rights protected? In Beinart's world, however, the magic tonic for the revival of liberal Zionists is not context but criticism. Get bigwigs like Abe Foxman and Malcolm Hoenlein to publicly criticize Israel's democracy and liberal Jews will be more likely to flock to the Zionist tent. Where's the evidence for this? He never says. He does say that the Jewish establishment's failure to criticize Israel's democracy is a major reason why liberal Jews have "checked their Zionism at the door." But how does he know that the opposite isn't true — that piling on establishment criticism on top of the world's hyper-criticism would have chased even more liberal Jews away? What's ironic is that at the beginning of his piece, Beinart cites evidence that contradicts his own theory. He discusses focus groups among American Jewish college students in 2003 that showed how alienated they were from Israel. He then mentions an ad they were shown that was "one of the most popular." Did that ad criticize Israel? No, it gave information: "Proof that Israel wants peace," with "a list of offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land.".... In other words, instead of piling on the criticism, the AD gave alienated Jews some important context about the peace process that presumably might lessen their shame about Israel. The fact that the ad was so popular might actually be a sign that these Jewish students are craving more context that shows Israel's side of the story — and that Jews like Beinart are just not hearing that part of their message. Because he so downplays context, it's not a shock that Beinart is relentless in calling for more criticism of Israel on the peace process. As Jonathan Tobin wrote recently on the Commentary blog, "it's only by pretending that 17 years of Israeli concessions never happened that [Beinart] can hold on to the falsehood that the lack of peace is due to Israeli intransigence aided and abetted by American supporters." Which brings me to this question: Does Beinart really believe there's not enough criticism of Israel in Jewish America? What's he been reading? The voices of influence today aren't just old-school establishment machers like Foxman and Hoenlein, who I doubt are Facebook friends with alienated liberal Jews anyway. The new world of influence also includes the multitude of voices in the social networks, in the blogosphere and in the established Jewish media, like The Forward, The Jewish Week and this newspaper, as well as in progressive Web sites like Tablet and Juicy — all places where you'll find plenty of Jewish criticism of Israel. Go to any event from J Street, the Progressive Jewish Alliance or the New Israel Fund, or hang out at any of the social activist spiritual communities that have sprouted over the last decade, and you'll see lots of friendly venues for liberal Jews who want to criticize Israel and oppose its policies. Yes, it's true that many defenders of Israel — especially since the Second Intifada and the Hamas rocket attacks that followed the Gaza disengagement — don't do much Israel-bashing. They're too busy trying to push back against the onslaught of hypocritical and disproportionate global criticism that is poured almost daily onto the Jewish state. Maybe that's their way of fighting for the liberal values of fairness and balance. Anyhow, if they won't do that dirty work, who will? Beinart? Like many Jews, these Israel defenders are reluctant to second-guess the democratic choices of their Israeli brethren, who have to live with the life-and-death consequences of their decisions. If Beinart himself is so keen on improving Israel's democracy, instead of beating up on pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, why doesn't he talk to those Israeli voters and try to convince them to vote for Meretz? Or better still, why doesn't he work through any of the numerous human-rights NGOs or any other groups whose missions coincide directly with his? Not every Zionist needs to play the same instrument. Beinart's own instrument is to criticize Israeli democracy, criticize establishment types for not criticizing Israeli democracy, and then hope that in the end, that symphony of criticism will attract more liberal Jews to come under the Zionist tent. Good luck. Whatever power there is in criticizing Israel, it surely won't seduce a Jew tainted by anti-Zionist propaganda to take a second look at Zionism, let alone enter the tent. To have any chance with those alienated Jews, Beinart needs to go back to that popular ad he mentioned from the college focus groups. That ad was neither criticism nor propaganda: it was context — context that provided information to balance out the anti-Israel venom the students are routinely exposed to, while recognizing that Israel is still a messy and wonderful work in progress. As part of that work in progress, Beinart can also point, with pride, to the many liberal Jewish groups in Israel who are using the Israeli legal system to defend the rights of Arabs and other minorities. If all of that "context" helps alienated Jews care more about Israel, he can then introduce them to the Israel activist community so they can pick their own instrument, whether it be joining J Street, AIPAC or a human-rights NGO. Of course, if he believes in the research he quoted, Beinart must also try to rekindle in those liberal Jews some kind of connection to their Jewish heritage. In any event, all of these issues are multilayered and complex, and Beinart shouldn't pretend otherwise. Issues like Jewish alienation from Israel, the evolving role and nature of the Jewish establishment, the character of Israel's democracy and the revival of liberal Zionism in America are infinitely more textured and complicated than what Beinart reduces them to. But complexity doesn't make for hypnotic prose. Alarmism and finger-pointing do. By largely abandoning nuance and context in favor of dramatic impact, Beinart has made a lot of noise and put a big part of the Jewish community on the defensive. But in the process, he has ignored less divisive approaches to our common problems and discouraged a deeper understanding of complex issues. In my mind, I consider that a failure. And I say this with the same tough love that I know he has for Israel. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE TRUTH ABOUT MUSLIM CLAIMS TO JERUSALEM AND THE LAND OF ISRAEL
Posted by Brother Shane, June 13, 2010. |
|
This was written by Joseph Farah, Editor and Chief Executive Office of the World Daily Net (WDN). He is a Christian Arab-American who supports the Jewish state. |
|
Palestine Is A Myth!
I've been quiet since Israel erupted in fighting spurred by disputes over the Temple Mount. Until now, I haven't even bothered to say, "See, I told you so." But I can't resist any longer. Yeah, folks, I predicted it. That's OK. Hold your applause. After all, I wish I had been wrong. More than 120 people have been killed since the current fighting in and around Jerusalem began. And for what? If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Moslems want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right? Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making, and land-grabbing. Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland? "Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem." That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. But it didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. It captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.
THE TRUTH is that Arab Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name Palestine was used was in 70 AD, when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed their Temple, and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the name "Philistines" — a people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power. Palestine has never existed — before or since — as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British eventually agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9% of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1% of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct. I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al-Aksa mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites." Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.
SO HOW did Jerusalem become the third-holiest site of Islam? Moslems today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs..." In the seventh century, some Moslems identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets — myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can definitely trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham. The latest round of violence in Israel erupted when Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, the foundation of the Temple built by Solomon. It is the holiest site in the world for Jews. Sharon and his entourage were met with stones and threats. I know what it's like. I've been there. Can you imagine what it is like for Jews to be threatened, stoned, and physically kept out of the holiest site in Judaism? So what's the solution to the Middle East mayhem? Well, frankly, I don't think there is a man-made solution. But, if there is one, it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Behaving as if a 5,000-year-old birthright backed by overwhelming historical and archeological evidence is equal to illegitimate claims, wishes and wants gives diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name. An Open Letter To Arafat
Dear Mr. Arafat: I couldn't help but notice that your recent rhetoric, as in your speech to the Arab Summit last week, suggests you are now not only a self-proclaimed spokesman for the "Palestianian people," but for Christian interests in the Middle East as well. Here are some of the recent references that piqued my curiosity: "The blood that was shed in Al-Aqsa definitely unleashed the wrath in the hearts of our Palestinian masses everywhere in the homeland. The unarmed citizens rose to express their feelings in a legitimate spontaneous intifada to uphold Arab, Islamic, and Christian values in accordance with the Umarite Covenant. The Israelis canceled this covenant, by claiming sovereignty over Al-Haram al-Sharif and forging its history and reality and saying it is the place where the Temple was built, by licentiously attacking the worshippers in its mosques and those defending its honor and sanctity, or by attempting to Judaize holy Jerusalem and its Christian and Islamic holy places and imposing a siege on Bethlehem." I recently spoke out as an Arab-American in opposition to your tactics and goals, Mr. Arafat. Today, I speak out against them as a Christian. Let me be blunt: Despite extensive travels throughout the Middle East, I have not met a single Christian Arab who did not have misgivings about you. I certainly have never met one who considered you a representative of his interests in the Holy Land. In the United States I have never met a Christian who thought you were anything but an anti-Jewish terrorist. That's the way I think of you. You may indeed actually represent many of those rioting in the streets of Ramallah and Gaza and Jerusalem, but you will never speak for Christians anywhere — not real Christians, not followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was, you might recall, a Jewish rabbi. By definition, Christians must reject your agenda of hate and genocide. In addition, Christians old enough to remember what access to the holy sites was like under Islamic rule are hardly eager to support your cause in Jerusalem. We know where that leads. Jews may be your No. 1 enemy today. We know Christians will be next. Mr. Arafat, you may have fooled enough people in elite circles to have won yourself millions in U.S. taxpayer aid and even a Nobel Peace Prize. But all you have really managed to do with those victories is to diminish and corrupt the meaning of those awards. Sincerely,
"Sacred Right" Of Return — An Arab View"
No matter how Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak might try, they will never be able to give away enough Israeli soil, make enough negotiating concessions or sacrifice enough of the Jewish state's sovereignty to placate Arab leaders. That's my prediction, and I'm sticking with it. Clinton's latest "peace proposal," which should be totally unacceptable to Israelis, was instead shot down by Arabs. Why? Because, they say, Palestinians have a "sacred" right to return to Israel. Let's focus on this issue. It deserves far more exploration than it ever gets in the popular press. Arabs say some 500,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes by Israelis during the formation of the Jewish state in 1948. The truth is that many Arabs left in direct response to pleas from neighboring Arab governments, which boasted that they would quickly purge the land of Jews. By contrast, Joan Peters points out in her excellent history, "From Time Immemorial," the Jewish Haifa Workers Council was urging fleeing Arab residents of that city to stay. According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, cited again in "From Time Immemorial," the majority of Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled at all, and some 68 percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. Peters cites documented evidence that, after the war, it was the Arab leadership that actively blocked the return of these refugees to their former homes. "It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews," said Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Arab Higher Command. "It would serve as a first step toward Arab recognition of the state of Israel and partition." Arab activist Musa Alami was even more blunt: "The people are in great need of a 'myth' to fill their consciousness and imagination." It was he who first raised the myth of "Palestinian nationhood." There was just one problem, as Peters points out. From 1948 through 1967, Israel controlled very little of historic Palestine. Most of it, including the entire West Bank, was under the control of Jordan. Thus, it was not until Israel captured more of that land in the Six-Day War, that a real Palestinian nationalist movement began. Thus, the Arab refugees have remained political pawns for the last 52 years. The Arab nations have refused to settle them, preferring to use them as a wedge against the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Also forgotten amid the barrage of political propaganda consuming the so-called peace talks is another issue raised so effectively by Peters — the Arab Jew. "For every refugee — adult or child — in Syria, Lebanon, or elsewhere in the Arab world who compels our sympathy, there is a Jewish refugee who fled from the Arab country of his birth," she writes. "For every Arab who moved to neighboring lands, a Jew was forced to flee from a community where he and his ancestors may have lived for 2,000 years. The Jews escaped to their original homeland, where their roots are even older; the Arabs also arrived where they were in the majority, where they shared the same language and culture with fellow Arabs, and often only a few dozen miles from their places of origin." What took place, in effect, writes Peters, was a population exchange — the kind that has been repeated many times throughout the world in a variety of conflicts. Nobody raises the issue of Jewish refugees anymore, because they have been successfully resettled in Israel. In 1948, there were more than 850,000 Jews living in the Arab world. There are believed to be fewer than 25,000 today. The Arab Jews moved quickly as soon as they got the chance. Most left with only the clothes on their backs. Few had any opportunity to take with them any possessions of value. They were not compensated, in most cases, for their homes. Many of them lived under indescribable persecution for generations, but had no place to go before Israel was reborn in 1948. That's why I find it so amusing that Arab leaders today talk about a "sacred" right of return for Arabs to "Palestine." The truth is there are more Arabs living within the borders of Israel today than there were in the same area prior to 1948. No authority is demanding they stay, and they are surrounded by Arab lands and Arab nations. Why do they stay? I can say, as an Arab-American, that they stay because there is more freedom in Israel. The kinds of uprisings we are witnessing in Israel on a daily basis would never be tolerated in any Arab country. After 52 years, isn't it time for the wealthy Arab nations to do the right thing by their refugee neighbors and resettle them among other people who speak their language, share their values and celebrate their culture?
Misguided Arab Protests — An Arab View!
Ramallah and Jerusalem aren't the only sites of Arab protests these days. They're also taking place in the streets near The Chicago Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. Arab-Americans are, if you can believe it, charging that the major US media are biased in favor of Israel and against them [the Arabs]. Let's analyze that claim. A couple of weeks ago, The New York Times ran a photo of a young man bleeding on the streets of Israel and labeled him a "Palestinian" beaten by Israeli police or soldiers. It was complete reflex by the Times. Bleeding? Must be a Palestinian victim. It turns out the young man was a Jewish American student attending school in Israel, and he was beaten by an Arab mob. Would a paper biased in favor of Israel and against Arabs make such a mistake? How about The Chicago Sun-Times? It turns out the Arabs' beef with the Hollinger paper is that the parent company also owns The Jerusalem Post. The Arab protests at the Sun-Times also focused on an October 3 editorial blaming Yasser Arafat for recent violence. That's not bias, folks. Those are facts of life. I think it's great that at least one paper in America recognizes that the pro-Arab propaganda disseminated by CNN and most of the establishment press in the US is just that — one-sided disinformation. And what about The Los Angeles Times? Oh, the syndicate owned by the company had the audacity to distribute a column that criticized "radical, fundamentalist, murderous Islam." The column quickly pointed out that it was not an indictment of a religion, only an attack on extremism within that religion. But that was too much for the newly organized, monolithic Arab-American community. It strikes me that all this protest is misguided, if, indeed, the objective is fair, balanced and accurate coverage by the press. Why is it that these protesters are not criticizing the lack of free press in their native lands? In virtually every case, the official and semi-official news organs of the Arab world have one objective — fostering hatred against the Jewish state. Reporters, editors and producers for Arab media show one side and one side only — not just in their editorials, but in their so-called news stories. In fact, their "news stories" are, by Western standards, editorials. They are designed to enflame passions, not inform citizens. No wonder Arab-Americans see pro-Israel bias in the US press. If their standards for objectivity and neutrality are based on the closed-minded, government propaganda spewing forth in the Arab world, coverage in the West must, indeed, look slanted toward the Israeli side. That's what I can't understand about most Arab-Americans. They are the new victims of prejudice and bias, we're being told over and over again in the US media, thanks to an aggressive public relations offensive by organized groups. I'm an Arab-American. Why haven't I seen any evidence of this bias and prejudice in 46 years of life? Not once have I been mistreated, misrepresented or vilified because of my Arabic heritage — until very recently. And, interestingly, the hatred — and there is no other word for it — has been directed against me not by Jews, not by the US media, not by Israelis, but by other Arabs. Apparently what bothers these activists more than anything is one of their own — ethnically speaking — breaking ranks. It's the unforgivable sin. Death threats and insults that would curl your hair are sure to follow. And that's why I say none of these protests should be taken seriously by anyone. These folks — and, by this, I mean the protesters, the activists — are not interested in fairness. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in a better image for Arabs and Arab-Americans. What they are interested in is the ultimate irony — bullying their way into victimhood status, as so many other groups have in recent years. It's sad. It's group-think. And, unfortunately, all too often, it works in America. Too bad, though, that some of this energy isn't redirected at the closed, police-state world of the Arab states. Do these folks really remember from whence they came?
More Myths Of The Middle East
My recent commentaries on the Middle East have touched off a virtual international firestorm on the Internet. Since writing "Myths of the Middle East" less than two weeks ago, I have been inundated with e-mail from all over the world — at least 5,000 letters from Israel alone! The article has been translated into a dozen languages. It has been the subject of network television debates. It has been read on Israeli national radio. And, while most of the reaction has been passionately favorable, there have been threats on my life and the lives of my family members. There have been vicious, obscene, vulgar and profane denunciations. The reaction illustrates just how far apart the Arabs and Israelis are in the so-called "peace process". There has clearly been no progress since 1947. In fact, there is ample evidence that some Arab leaders are right now attempting to revise history in new ways that strongly suggest there is nothing Israel can ever do to appease the violence in their hearts. In an interview with Italian newspaper La Republica, March 24 of this year, Sheik Ikrama Sabri, the Palestine Authority's top Muslim figure in Jerusalem, decreed that the Western Wall, the last remnant of the Jewish Temple, has no religious significance to the Jews. "Let it be clear: the Wailing Wall is not a holy place of the Jews, it is an integral part of the mosque (grounds). We call it al-Buraq, the name of the horse with which Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem," he said. In fact, the Temple Mount area and the Western Wall are, according to Jewish scholars, the only truly holy sites of Judaism. Yasser Arafat himself has made similar statements recently, claiming the city of Jerusalem has no real significance to Jews. On Al-Jezira television, June 28, 1998, he said, "Let me tell you something. The issue of Jerusalem is not just a Palestinian issue. It is a Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian issue." Asked by the interviewer if one could also say it is a Jewish issue, he replied, "No. Allow me to be precise — they consider Hebron to be holier than Jerusalem." Arafat is among those Arab leaders making the incredible suggestion that there was never a Jewish Temple at the site. [He said]: "Until now, all the excavations that have been carried out have failed to prove the location of the Temple," he claims. "It is 30 years since they captured the city and they have not succeeded in giving even one proof as the location of the Temple." Do you really think there can be compromise with people this delusional? This was no casual remark by Arafat. In an earlier speech broadcast on Voice of Palestine Oct. 10, 1996, he said, "Let us begin from the holy Buraq wall. It is called the holy Buraq wall, not the Wailing Wall. We do not say this. After the holy Buraq revolution in 1929 ... the Shaw International Committee said this is a holy wall for Muslims. This wall ends at the Via Dolorosa. These are our Christian and Muslim holy places." Now, perhaps you understand why even today the Muslim police known as the Waqf attempt to deny Jews and other non-Muslims access to these sites. Now, perhaps you understand why, during times when Jerusalem has been occupied by Muslims, Christian churches and Jewish synagogues were destroyed or desecrated. This alone should demonstrate conclusively to any non-biased observer that the troubles in the Middle East today will not be solved by the creation of a "Palestinian state." It's time to point out to those who do not yet know that the leader of this movement — Arafat — is not a "Palestinian" at all. Indeed, he was born in Egypt. But his family does have some history in the area — though he's not likely to acknowledge it on ABC's "Nightline" or CNN. You see, it was Arafat's uncle who served as the grand mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s and 1930s. It was his uncle who concluded, for the first time, that Mohammed had ascended into heaven from the site known as the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. And it was his uncle who, in an unholy alliance with Adolf Hitler, condemned the Jews and their designs on their eternal capital city. The truth is that Jerusalem has a unique importance to Jews. It has always been a place described and revered in Jewish law. For centuries since the Diaspora, Jews around the world have prayed toward Jerusalem, mourned the destruction of their Temple and hopefully repeated the phrase, "Next year in Jerusalem." Again, I say, until all the parties to war and peace in the Middle East acknowledge basic history and archaeology, there is little point in pretending that peripheral land concessions can bring peace. Contact Brother Shane at wisevirgin_777@yahoo.com |
|
KARZAI TO UN: LEGITIMIZE TALIBAN; IRAN THREATENS SANCTIONS ON
CHINA/RUSSIA; ABBAS TO OBAMA: DON'T END GAZA BLOCKADE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 13, 2010. |
|
TURKISH JOURNALISTS CRITICIZE ERDOGAN 
Turkey's PM Erdogan, was having it all his own way, but now a couple of Turkish journalists are criticizing his judgment. They question how a non-governmental agency can drag a major country such as Turkey to the brink of war. One answered sarcastically, in view of close IHH ties with government figures, because IHH is a GNGO — governmental NGO. Another question is why Turkey would mar previously mutually beneficial relations with Israel. Another doubt expressed about Erdogan's leadership was his rabble-rousing with Islamists and their extremist positions, making a bad impression on Western countries. This demagogic grandstanding cost Turkey the sympathy it had gained when Israeli commandos seemed to have committed aggression against Turkish passengers. Nor did rousing the "Arab street" sit well with the government of Egypt. One journalist expressed doubt that the government was not able to stop its ship from challenging the blockade, when Israeli warnings were serious enough for a group of Turkish parliamentarians to cancel their voyage shortly before disembarkation. The journalists expressed hostility toward Israel and patriotism toward Turkey That makes their criticism of Erdogan appear genuine (IMRA, 6/12/10).
NY TIMES ANALYSIS OF TURKEY'S DIRECTION The New York Times reports and analyzes the direction in which PM Erdogan is taking Turkey. The report states the U.S. concern that Turkey is abandoning the West, but develops an alternative interpretation. The theory presented here, like that of some of my readers, is that Turkey is bridging East and West. It cannot be, or be seen as, a tool of the U.S.. Nor does the U.S. handle matters sufficiently well. Some U.S. actions have cost the Turkish economy greatly. The past cut-off of trade with Iraq was a painful example [unfair to Turkey]. Understanding the East as Turkey does, it can avoid Western misunderstandings about the East. It can be more sophisticated about the East than can the U.S.. Turkey has been reducing tensions with its neighbors and visa requirements. It has quite a vibrant economy, which reduced tension enables more growth by trade. In that context fit relations with Iran. According that that theory, Iran just wants respect. If it gets it, it would stop short of developing nuclear weapons. It is not set on instituting an Armageddon or even lesser war. Therefore, Turkey opposed UN sanctions on Iran. It feels that is the way to head off nuclear armament, which would upset the regional balance of power. The U.S. believes that Iran will not negotiate away its opportunity to upset the regional balance in its favor. It points out that the nuclear fuel deal that Iran negotiated with Turkey and Brazil leaves out of the agreement enough material, and the right to erect more factories, to fabricate A-bombs anyway. An American expert who favors Turkey's difficult attempt to bridge the gap contends that U.S. doubts are over-done. He ticks off: Turkey belongs to NATO, it is a balance to Iran, it has a powerful economy and democracy, it has relations with Israel, and has something to teach the Muslim world (Sabrina Tavernise, 6/13/10, A18). The main problem with that analysis is its failure to consider contradictory facts. Membership in NATO, democracy, and relations with Israel are rooted in the past, which the regime is eroding. The analyst should have mentioned that PM Erdogan's party is Islamist. He is subverting the Turkish Constitution and democracy. He tries to pack the courts and colleges and intimidate the media and opponents. His appeal to Islamist demagoguery over the flotilla's prepared violence can be a warning of his ulterior motives. Why did he make a deal with Iran that appears to be a scam? Another problem with the New York Times analysis is the notion that Iran had to violate the anti-proliferation treaty in order to gain respect. Before it did that, it was doing business without sanctions. Instead, it pursues its own radical ideology. Hence it does promote war, as in Iraq. It does support radical Muslim terrorist factions, such as Hamas and Hizbullah. A third problem is, even if leaders want to stop the Islamist train, how can they after having trained their people to be puritanical? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan find themselves targeted by the forces they indoctrinated. When Adolph Hitler was taking power, people rationalized that all he wanted was respect for his country. But he, like Iran, had an ideology of world conquest. The New York Times has a record of rationalizing or minimizing in behalf of dictatorships (USSR, Germany, Cuba, Nicaragua).
TALIBAN TALKING WITH TURKS, KURDS, ARMENIANS, CHRISTIANS, AMERICANS Afghanistan President Karzai's peace initiative asks the UN to remove Taliban leaders from the terrorism blacklist. Meanwhile, the U.S. intends to trace corruption even if it leads to the top (Rod Nordland, NY Times, 6/16/10, A16, A1). The danger here is in relenting before peace is made, such that the Taliban hold out for victory. The Taliban say they refuse to make peace until foreign troops leave. Then what, they take over? TO READERS ON TALKING WITH TURKS, KURDS, ARMENIANS, AMERICANS Most readers do not comment. Half those who do are constructive, whether they agree or disagree. The other commentators contribute nothing — they ignore the articles' content, make unsupported accusations, and get personal. Why? I had attributed reader rudeness to a combination of prejudice, ignorance, irrationality, inattentiveness, poor manners, and Internet anonymity. Then I read You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, an older book by Dr. Deborah Tannen. Dr. Tannen's research found that females and males often don't understand each other, don't understand why, and dispute needlessly. The two genders instinctively behave, converse and interpret differently. Culture reinforces this. People of different cultures have similar distinctiveness. Some cultural norms conceal, deceive, personalize, favor group loyalty over justice, and see intellectual debate as a fight. So add the cultural factor to the other reasons for failure of some commentators to engage in real and decent debate. I ask those of you from different cultures to be aware of these differences and conduct yourselves according to Examiner standards of American journalism. Those standards permit opinions and debates but not abuse and pornography. If you disagree with the facts, explain their flaws and inapplicability. Do not insult ethnic groups or the journalist. Do not put words into his mouth, such as baseless accusations that I favor murder and even genocide. If you accuse someone of being is anti-Muslim, be specific or be taken for a demagogue. Do not use the comments box to vent your feeling on issues not in the articles. Some people whose comments are deleted for violating those journalistic canons complain about infringement of freedom of press. Nonsense! Interesting that people even from cultures that do not afford freedom of press think that they can dictate to the press what to publish, however bigoted. Let a personal story illustrate views of tolerance. At my U.S. Army base in 1962 (before the 6-Day war in which Israel acquired the Territories), I became acquainted with the foreign language unit. There were four young men: An American whose German parents taught him their language; a Turk; A Greek; and an Arab. I told them that my grandmother used to visit her chum in the harem, my grandfather helped found the first academic high school in the Ottoman Empire, he and she still called the city Constantinople, feeling its Greek past somehow, and my grandmother like to read Goethe in German. At first I thought the Arab was reticent. Then I realized he was sullen, and toward me. One night, in my barrack, I told him that I would like to be his friend, and offered him my hand to shake. He refused, because I was a Jew. He was prejudiced, not I. So when different readers accuse me of being anti-Turk, anti-Kurd, anti-Muslim, anti-Armenian, anti-American, and anti-Christian, perhaps their cultural experience leads them to suppose that if one does not always toe their line, one is against them. That is not my way and not proper journalism. I report the news and interpret it, based on experience and study. When someone retorts, why don't I report such-and-such, the answer is that that issue is not in the news at that time. Approached the Examiner way, more issues can be resolved with mutual respect and not violence.
FRENCH MOVIE CHAIN PROTESTS ISRAELI BLOCKADE The small French cinema chain, Utopia, canceled its screenings of an Israeli comedy, "Five Hours from Paris." Utopia replaced the Israeli film with an anti-Israeli one about Rachel Corrie, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) member accidentally killed an Israeli bulldozer's leveling of an area used by terrorists for ambush. Usually, Utopia, admitted, it engages in debate. This time it censored, to protest the Israeli blockade of Gaza but not the Egyptian blockade of Gaza. It opposed Israel's use of force and not the Islamists' use of force.. The head of a Representative Council of Jewish Organizations in France considers the cultural censorship part of an effort by French intellectuals to de-legitimize Israel. He attributed this to a prejudice that ignores the facts. Indeed, he said, France's Foreign Minister condemned Israel almost immediately and before the facts were known. The French press mostly criticized the ban. La Croix remarked that Israeli films are of high quality and are very critical of Israel despite enjoying government subsidy. Le Monde agreed, finding boycott an unacceptable response to blockade (Steven Erlanger, NY Times, 6/13/10, A10) The ban of the film is like the boycott of Israeli universities run by leftists who agree with the boycott, which would punish themselves. If they object to boycott of Gaza as punishing innocent people, why do they, themselves, engage in boycott that punishes innocent people? Why censorship and not debate? Because powerful forces find it easier to get their way by sheer strength than by argument. Reviewers say that the film, "Rachel," hews the ISM line. ISM interferes with IDF enforcement of law and protection from terrorism. ISM members have been violent. The organization and its followers claim that the bulldozer ran Rachel over deliberately. The Israeli government subsidy of the film industry is left over
from government over-involvement in the economy. Should the
government subsidize an industry that takes the side of an
existential enemy in wartime?
IRAN TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON CHINA/RUSSIA Iran threatens to impose its own sanctions on Russia, China, and other countries that voted further UN sanctions on Iran. Iran indicated it would reduce trade with those countries. Iran expressed displeasure with Lebanon, for abstaining, instead of voting against the sanctions (IMRA, 6/12/10).
P.A. POSPONES ELECTIONS AGAIN Both parts of the Palestinian Authority postponed elections. They gave their reasons and they have their reasons. The two are not the same. The given reasons are Fatah candidates' failure to be ready and Hamas' wanting unity first. Fatah's actual reason may be fear of losing (IMRA, 6/12/10). They keep postponing elections. That's Palestinian Authority democracy in action.
JAPAN WANTS TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS FOR IRAN Japan is eager to build nuclear plants for Iran. It urged Iran not to be hasety in accepting other countries' bids. Iran is looking forward to Japan's bid. The Bushehr plant is expected to go live in September (IMRA, 6/12/10).
ISRAEL TO USE EMERGENCIES TROOPS TO HELP CITIZENS The government of Israel is organizing a plan for better use of non-essential troops left on bases during emergencies. They would take the civilian places of reservists called to
essential duty. They would help the elderly and hospital patients and
substitute-teach (IMRA, 6/12/10).
ARABS SAY TURKEY MAY SUPERVISE SHIPMENTS TO GAZA 
The Israeli daily, Haaretz, cites a Lebanese newspaper report that Turkey may supervise shipments to Gaza. No agreement was made, at this point. Turkey would supervise both humanitarian shipments and search for arms. Then the blockade could be lifted and Turkey would mediate between the two sides. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA assures us that the report is not being sarcastic. The government of Turkey proved it will not or cannot keep arms off a ship, and refuses to admit it, and openly favors Hamas. For it to suggest placing Israeli national security in its hands does seem like a cruel joke. Last heard from, the Turkish government demanded compensation for the slaying of its citizens [in self-defense] on pain of breaking relations with Israel (IMRA, 6/13/10). Who will compensate the several Israelis set upon by the Islamists Turkey let aboard, set upon before other Israelis had to open fire to rescue the first ones to land and to protect themselves from an organized fighting force?
ABBAS TOLD OBAMA NOT TO END BLOCKADE OF GAZA YET 
Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas reportedly told President Obama that he opposes ending the naval blockade of Gaza now. To do so would to give Hamas a victory and strengthen it. Abbas did suggest that more goods come through by land (IMRA, 6/13/10).
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:
|
|
DAINTIES
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 12, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to ...http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
NEW YORK TIMES NEEDS MY HELP TO FIND FLOTILLA PLANNERS'
TERRORIST TIES
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 12, 2010. |
| New York Times Needs My Help to Find Flotilla Planners' Terrorist Ties. OK! Here's A Start for Their Research |
|
The New York Times is a vast and wealthy organization with highly paid reporters and news bureaus around the world. Unfortunately, however, it seems to need a little help in gathering the news. In an editorial, the newspaper has held forth with the following sentence: "The Israelis claim that Insani Yardim Vakfi is a dangerous organization with terrorist links. They have yet to offer any evidence to support that charge." This is like Goldstone who keeps saying that no one has challenged his report despite literally hundreds of specific refutations. It is like the little boy who doesn't want to hear something, puts his hands over his ears, and keeps yelling, "I don't hear you!" It does, however, mark some retreat from the Times earlier statement of intense suspicion about documented Israeli claims, in which one of its writers dismisses the video footage of the soldiers being attacked with these words: "Those images of commandos being attacked with clubs and chairs are lacking context. Were they shot before or after the boarding party started using force?" Of course, the video clearly shows the deck of the ship with no Israeli soldiers on it. There is no fighting at all. The first soldier comes down the rope, holding on with both hands. He is attacked. Then a second, he is attacked. And so on for the next two. So how could the boarding party be using force when it had not yet boarded? How's that for context? In other words, the Times has updated the three famous monkeys: See no terrorism, Hear no terrorism, Report no terrorism. But since I had an hour to spare, I decided to offer my services to the New York Times to provide some evidence about IHH links to terrorism. I offer this to the Times for publication, further research, and the names of people who might be interviewed. If the newspaper wants more of my research services, I suggest it hires me as a consultant. Otherwise, it might assign some reporters to open their eyes and read material that is available easily from reliable sources. Or they might actually do some research themselves! OK here is some of the evidence the Times says hasn't been offered:
You are also welcome to examine this detailed report from Israel on terrorist links of the IHH. Let me repeat the New York Times claim: "The Israelis claim that Insani Yardim Vakfi is a dangerous organization with terrorist links. They have yet to offer any evidence to support that charge." Ok. Here's what I rounded up in less than an hour. I'm offering it to you for free. Now do some work of your own and issue a retraction since Israel had offered evidence. We are waiting. 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
|
|
BEYOND BIGOTRY. THE FINAL SOLUTION
Posted by Boris Celser, June 12, 2010. |
|
This was written by Cliff May and it appeared
June 10, 2010
on the Townhall website
|
|
Israel is at war and were Israel to be defeated much of the world would not shed wet tears. What would happen after such a defeat? No one can seriously doubt that Hamas has genocidal intentions. Abdallah Jarbu, Hamas' Deputy Minister of Religion, recently asserted that Jews "want to present themselves to the world as if they have rights, but, in fact, they are foreign bacteria — a microbe unparalleled in the world." Jarbu then offered this prayer: "May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience." Jarbu is restating what Hamas' Iranian sponsors have been saying for years. Kayhan, the newspaper that speaks for Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, recently called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that must be excised from "the Islamic Middle East." The goal, Kayhan added, must be Israel's "total annihilation from the political geography of the region." Let's stipulate that not all those who support the Gaza "Freedom Flotilla" would welcome a second Holocaust. But let's acknowledge, too, that those who do not endorse genocide feel it unnecessary to distance themselves from those who do. The American journalist, Helen Thomas, was videotaped last week saying that Israelis should return to "Germany and Poland." What was shocking here is not Thomas' anti-Semitism (long well-known) but that she was echoing, with just a tad more subtlety, the message radioed last week from the flotilla's Turkish flagship to the Israelis: "Shut up, go back to Auschwitz." There also was this pro-terrorism message: "We're helping Arabs go against the U.S., don't forget 9/11". Despite such evidence, most media have been reporting that those aboard the flotilla were on a "humanitarian mission," attempting to deliver needed aid. Few have mentioned that Palestinians already are the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world. Israel itself delivers as much as 15,000 tons of aid to Gazans every week. More comes from the U.S. and Europe via the United Nations, which has a massive relief operation in Gaza — to which the Turks have contributed but a pittance, as my colleague Claudia Rosett has pointed out. A Washington Post reporter, Janine Zacharia, in Gaza last week noted that "grocery stores are stocked wall-to-wall with everything from fresh Israeli yogurts and hummus to Cocoa Puffs. Pharmacies look as well-supplied as a typical Rite Aid in the United States." The reporter added, however, that Gaza has become "a mini-welfare state." That indicates that what is needed is not relief but development — not shiploads of free food but paying jobs. And that, in turn, requires investment in factories, businesses and agriculture. Gaza lacks such investment because it is ruled by Hamas which, again, is at war with Israel. Hamas leaders reject any and all steps that might lead to peace. Abdallah Jarbu has laid out the Hamas position clearly: "I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with [Israelis], whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes that they are human beings. They are not human beings. They are not people." One of the flotilla's organizers, Greta Berlin, a 68-year-old American with a background in theater and communications, was candid enough to acknowledge that the flotilla's primary purpose was not to deliver aid but to stop Israel from inspecting cargo heading for Gaza. Israel does that in order to reduce the number of missiles, explosives and other weapons Hamas receives. In other words, Berlin wants to increase Hamas' ability to wage war against Israel — knowing that more Israelis and more Palestinians will be killed as a result. "War is peace," George Orwell wrote in "1984." In 2010, war activists are peace activists. Actually, it's worse: Even arms smugglers are peace activists — so long as they are smuggling arms to be used to murder Israelis. Ah, but the root cause of this conflict is Israeli "occupation," isn't it? Except that the conflict began long before Egypt, Jordan and Israel's other Arab neighbors launched a war intended to wipe Israel off the map in 1967. That led to Israel taking Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. Never in history had these "Palestinian territories" been ruled by Palestinian Arabs. Five years ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza — every soldier and farmer, leaving behind only productive greenhouses, which Gazans soon destroyed. Had they not done so, Gazans could now be exporting food rather than importing missiles. Note, too, that on the West Bank, where Israel's security forces work quietly with those of the Palestinian Authority, the economy is booming. At 7 percent, the annual economic growth rate is among the highest in the world. Do such facts matter? The fever of anti-Israelism seems to be rising too fast to be reduced by the cold compress of truth. Jew-hatred is increasingly acceptable, even fashionable, not just in the Middle East but in Europe and in some of America's finer salons — and journals and blogs — as well. And now, apparently, interest in a "final solution" — to borrow Hitler's apt phrase — is emerging as well. Helen Thomas' sudden retirement is unlikely to significantly slow that trend. The quaint idea that, having learned the lessons of the Holocaust, civilized people would "never again" tolerate genocide has become a cruel joke — one repeated in Cambodia, Kurdistan, Rwanda, the Balkans, Darfur and beyond. Radical anti-Semites of the 20th century had a goal: the extermination of Europe's Jews. Radical anti-Semites of the 21st century also have a goal: the extermination of the Middle East's Jewish state. Opposing the former is so much less demanding than opposing the latter. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
DHIMMITUDE
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, June 12, 2010. |
|
Need something to get your blood boiling???? Has anyone heard of this new word? Dhimmitude? Amish and other religious groups may be exempt from forced purchase of healthcare policies under Obama care. You know what other groups this could include ???Muslims may be exempt from having to have government healthcare. Unbelievable I had my doubts so I checked with Snopes. There is an exemption for "certain religious groups" in the Health Care Bill. Obama supporters check it out yourself. Had never heard the word until now — Type it into Google and start reading Pretty interesting. Note that Muslims and certain other religions are exempt from the Obamacare penalties and it is supported by law. We are surrendering from within! The prez is leading us right down the path to total Muslim control and you don't care! Maybe you voted for him but now the truth comes out. Maybe you should rethink what you have done. Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam. The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims may be specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims may be specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I John Smith, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, cars and etc. and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance at our expence. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor or belief in God! If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, brother?" Now all you Obama voters get in line for your free stuff!...However, I suggest you don't hold your breath!... I recommend sending this email to all your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it and what the past election has done to all of us! PS Have you heard about the summit Obama is holding this month in DC for the future Muslim business leaders in the US? He wants to increase their ability to begin business opportunities in the US for the Muslim community! Better start looking for a country that doesn't cater to the Muslims ~ Austrailia doesn't because this country will be overrun by Muslims like Europe is currently experiencing. And you thought our problem was the Mexicans!...... 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 |
|
BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING PREJUDICES;
IRAN TRIUMPHS OVER ISRAEL AND US
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 12, 2010. |
|
BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING SIX PREJUDICES: 1. ISRAEL BEING DE-LEGITIMIZED 
Tony Judt, well-known anti-Zionist, purports to debunk clichés against Israel (New York Times, 6/10/10, A31). I will show that his debunking subtly bashes Israel all the more. Here are his points, generally assertions without examples or explanations, followed by my rebuttals. In his introduction, he states that these clichés freeze the Mideast debate, whatever that is, but he affirms the latest cliche, that Israel is one of American's greatest strategic liabilities, endangering our alliance with Turkey. Cliche 1: Israel is being, and should be, de-legitimized Now that Israel is established, it cannot be de-legitimized. Since it is a state like any others, it should not be. Israel's "bad behavior" and violation of international law do not de-legitimize it, Mr. Judt claims. He accuses Israel of attempting to discredit any criticism as an attempt to de-legitimize it. Rebuttal: In prior articles, I have shown that Turkey has been turning Islamist independently of what Israel does and that Israel is a strategic asset to the U.S. rather than a liability. Actually, the effort to rescind Israeli statehood is quite advanced. How can Mr. Judt not recognize the bandwagon and its attempts to crimp Israeli sovereignty? What a left-handed defense of Israel, that it should not be de-legitimized despite his unsupported bashing of Israel as committing unspecified bad behavior and violations of international law! Wonder if he notices the Arabs' actual bad behavior and violations of international law. Yes, some Jews see criticism of Israel as antisemitic more than it is. When overstated, this defense of Israel is wrong and wrongful. (I prefer discussing what is wrong about it, to dismissing it with the label, "antisemitic.") Judt acts oblivious, however, to the rising crescendo of antisemitism by which many Muslims and at least the Far Left denounce Israel. Does Israeli defends its policies by characterizing all criticism of them as antisemitic or an attempt to de-legitimize Israel? No. Most Israeli defense of policy discusses the reason for the policy. So it is Judt who smears to discredit. His theme misunderstands what is antisemitism and anti-Zionism. A person can legitimately feel, however much I disagree and can cite historical experience, that the Jewish people do not need a separate state. It is another thing if a person contends that the Jewish people, alone, must give up their state and not have their own homeland. That discriminatory view is antisemitic. This is similar to people who say they detest nationalism, but only mention Jewish nationalism and never Arab or other nationalism. Judt's attempt to split the U.S. from Israel does disservice to both. Both are victims of a global jihad. They are natural allies. BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING SIX PREJUDICES: 2. CRITICISM IS ANTISEMITIC Yes, some criticism of Israel is antisemitic. The Soviets in particular masked their antisemitism as anti-Zionism. "But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominately motivated by antisemitism." Zionism has changed to "territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel's right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist..." But Israel insists on a "right to act in 'abnormal' ways because it is a Jewish state..." Rebuttal: A person's Jewish origin does not mean he is free of antisemitism. Much Jewish criticism of Israel comes from the Left, in an informal alliance with radical Islam, which exerts an antisemitic influence. Zionism has not changed to territorial claims. It still in-gathers the exiles. Mr. Judt (see above) should have defined "religious exclusivity" and "abnormal ways." By not at least giving examples, he smears with mud too slippery to come to grips with. It is a dishonest form of argument. Israel allows Christians and Muslims to worship at their holy sites, to elect Members of Knesset, etc.. Like many countries, it has a right of return for people of its ethnic group. Unlike some Arab governments, Israel does not bar other ethnic groups from becoming citizens. That may not be wise, but that is Israel. "Political extremism" is a pejorative by which the Left denigrates the Right, there. The Left often strives to surrender strategic territory and appease the Arabs, who still want to destroy Israel. The Right believes in self-defense. The Left's policy leading to national suicide is extremist; the Right's policy of national self-defense is rational. Let's end with one more indication of antisemitism that Judt ignored. Antisemites can pretend to be pro-Israel. By denouncing every Israeli method of self-defense, offering no suggested means of defense, and having no plan for ending Arab violence, they would get Israel conquered. How is that, along with denying Israel's right to be a Jewish state, not antisemitic? Don't want to consider antisemitism? Then ask if that discrimination and recipe for genocide is fair and decent.
BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING SIX PREJUDICES: 3. ISRAEL IS DEMOCRATIC 
Israel rests its case, he says, on being the only democracy in the Mideast. He agrees that it is a democracy, but claims it discriminates against non-Jews. Contrary to popular belief, Judt assets that democracy does not guarantee good behavior. Israel is proof, to him, that democracies do initiate war. After all, many of its leaders are former soldiers. Gaza is democratic, having won a free election. Rebuttal: I would agree that democracy is valuable but not worshipful. Although the defense of Israel that it is democratic resonates in the U.S., I do not think it pertinent and Israel mentions it as only one of many arguments. Mr. Judt is not alone in discussing democracy as if misunderstanding it. It has many components and is a matter of degree. Elections alone do not make democracy. Nor are some elections as free as alleged. In Gaza, Hamas oppresses the whole society, not allowing free speech, much independence for NGOs, etc.. Want to provide for your family in Gaza? Take out a big life insurance policy and tell Hamas they are dictators who should let Fatah, Christians, Jews, and liquor stores operate. The Palestinian Authority election was contended by two terrorist organizations. Want to call that democratic? Then why no new elections, when the terms of office were expiring? Israel is not so democratic. Police brutality, framing of accused, unequal enforcement, media bias, etc., have been exercised not against the Arabs but against religious and nationalist Jews by the still dominant Left. Israel also lacks separation of powers, impartial judiciary, and elected representatives individually accountable. Israel had excessive government ownership and regulation, but Netanyahu has been reducing that power. (In the U.S., Democrats are ramping up government ownership and regulation. They use their new power to shake down industry for campaign contributions and for acquiescence to more power grabs. Judt, help us preserve our own democracy!) The generals in Israeli politics mostly have been leftists. Contrary to Judt's assumption, they are not militaristic. Judt should look deeper than their uniforms and into their ideology. Democracies used to be imperialist. Some still have agendas that favor aggressors, such as the Palestinian Authority. Judt hints that Israel starts wars. That notion is misleading. It arises from ignoring thousands of terrorist acts, until Israel finally counter-attacks, as with Egypt in 1957, in Lebanon, and in Gaza. The notion is simple minded.
BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING SIX PREJUDICES: 4. iSRAEL TO BLAME 
Don't blame Israel for its neighbors' denial of its right to exist. But their denial generates a sense of siege among Israelis. This makes it "pathological," as damaging as its "habitual resort to force." The habit grew out of the country's "easy early victories." The failed Camp David negotiations of 2000 give Israelis the mistaken impression there is no one to negotiate with. Ruling powers always make that mistake. There is a party to negotiate with. Hamas. Israel will have to negotiate with it. May as well, sooner rather than later. Rebuttal: "Easy early victories?" Mr. Judt can't mean the 1948 and 1973 wars, which Israel started out losing. Nobody thought Israel could win the 1948 war and, except for the Army, nobody thought Israel could win the 1967 war. Only by taking to battle first, but after Egypt had committed acts of war, did Israel win in 1967. Far from having an "habitual resort to war," Israel absorbed thousands of terrorist attacks before engaging in the Sinai Campaign and the recent wars. The thousands of terrorist attacks reflect an Islamist "habitual resort to force," which causes many other Mideast wars not involving Israel. Judt apparently is not informed about Arab culture, which is a violent one. Has he not heard about Friday night mosque sermons in the Palestinian Authority, after which Arab men have run out to attack Jews? To suggest that Israel can negotiate peace with Hamas or the other part of the Palestinian Authority also misunderstands Israel's enemies. The enemies have a religious ideology that mandates non-recognition of non-believers and war on them. Israel did negotiate peace agreements, but the other side broke and breaks them. It is up to the other side to make peace by retracting its claws of bigotry and aggression. What can Israel negotiate, when the Muslim Arab goal is to conquer and destroy Israel?
BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING SIX PREJUDICES: 5. PALESTINIAN ARABS' FAULT 
Up to 1967, the Arabs missed the opportunities for peace. Hamas will have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Israel has a right to demand that Hamas forswear terrorism. After the early 1980s, Israel missed the opportunities for peace. It also has blundered in its recent wars, blockade, and attack on seagoing civilians. The oppressed Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has to protest. It cannot "pre-concede every Israeli demand — end violence, accept Israel, acknowledge their losses — or it would have no negotiating cards. Rebuttal: Israel did not miss opportunities for peace. There are none. Israel made many offers, which the other side, acting ideologically, rejects or violates. Now Israelis have come to realize, after all of its non-reciprocated peace offers and good will gestures, that the other side cannot make peace without a religious reformation that ends its bigotry and violence. Israel consistently offered peace. Arafat walked out and stoked Intifada. Abbas still refuses to negotiate with Israel. Mr. Judt does not understand that peace does not come from deals but from changes in ideology and attitudes that the deals merely consummate. What Judt calls "negotiating cards" are not. They are the basis for peace. Strange that he does not know that the P.A. has signed peace agreements to end violence and accept Israel. Yes, Israel blundered in its recent wars. The blunders are due to leftist defeatism and incompetence. Israel was justified in fighting back, but did not use enough force soon enough and go far enough. It did get condemned more than enough. What would Judt suggest Israel do, when the PLO and Hamas maintain a war spirit among their people and bring in all the war materiel they can? Not blockade, and watch tanks shipped in? Is that making peace? Israel did not attack "seagoing civilians." It attempted paintball enforcement of the blockade. The last ship had all the civilians below deck, so the Islamists on the top deck could and did attack the Israelis unimpeded by crowds. See my many recent articles explaining that, as the news emerged.
BASHING ISRAEL IN GUISE OF DEBUNKING SIX PREJUDICES: 6. ISRAEL LOBBY IS TO BLAME 
The Israel lobby is effective, but so are other lobbies, such as the gun, oil, and banking lobbies, which, Mr. Judt believes, do the U.S. more harm. "The Jews" are not running the country. But the Israel lobby is "disproportionately influential," getting an overwhelming majority of Congressional votes. Rebuttal: Yes or no, Mr. Judt? He seems to be trying to have it both ways. His argument seems suspiciously like a ploy for retaining the antisemitic notion that Jews do manipulate the U.S.. If Mr. Judt consulted the polls, he would find overwhelming public support for Israel. Congress reflects it. Most of the votes are not consequential. True, the Israel lobby gets a high Congressional vote, but the U.S. government nevertheless arms Arab enemies of Israel and restricts Israeli self-defense. Then isn't the Israel lobby less effective than the Arab lobby? Now why doesn't Judt mention that? Why is there little talk about the Arab lobby? Despite prejudice and media bias and Saudi hiring of U.S. public relation firms, Israel is more popular in the U.S. than are the Arab enemies. Judt, like the antisemites, attributes that to an Israel lobby. He fails to recognize the commonality of American and Israeli cultures and enemies, the jihadists. The American people know Israel is not the aggressor. If Israel gave up U.S. aid, the issues would be clearer.
FRANCE DECLARES IDF SLAYING OF PALESTINIAN ARAB BOY A HOAX A French court has vindicated Israel in the al-Dura case. Background: Al-Dura was the boy about whose faked death the Palestinian Authority fabricated a tale of murder by the IDF. The French government TV channel broadcast staged scenes from segments of film that slandered the IDF. The slander sped around the world and greatly injured Israel's reputation, though the PLO often has staged fake Israeli atrocities. By contrast, Israeli investigation crawled. Israel hardly defended its reputation. Private investigators found aspects of the accusations dubious and then false. Philippe Karsenty explained the slanders, but was accused by the French TV industry of slandering them. The issue dragged through the courts. News Part: When it became known that a judicial decision was coming, the French TV station, Canal +, replayed the "documentary." Mr. Karsenty considers that a bid to sway public opinion and therefore the court. Nevertheless the court ruled the Canal + documentary defamatory and the journalist filmmaker not objective despite having sufficient information to get the story straight. The documentary has this to say about Mr. Karsenty: "Faking information"; This case upheld freedom of the press. However, the French media, which because it generally upheld the al-Dura hoax, has been proved prejudiced, continues disseminating antisemitic material (IMRA, 6/11/10). I followed the case. Mr. Karsenty did a professional job of forensic analysis. Notice how far some in the French media go to commit fraud and smear dissent. Should a French company combine the power of the media with the power and pride of government? Initial suspicion that the film was staged arose, because: (1) Its possessors refused to let others see more than a small segment of it; (2) Al-Dura was seen moving after he supposedly was shot dead and not ever again, no autopsy, nothing; (3) No blood was visible; and (4) The position of the IDF did not permit it to fire at the boy. The boy was in a direct line of fire from the PLO gunmen. Objective people would realize that the Israeli troops were busy saving themselves from armed gunmen, and in any case it is not their practice to aim at civilians. It is jihadist practice to aim at civilians and capitalize upon casualties of their own civilians. I recall a scene of an alleged IDF atrocity staged poorly, some years ago. Around the edge of the crowd of actors, Arab bystanders were smiling at the entertaining hoax. The media gets taken in suspiciously easily. So do investigators for the UN and Human Rights Watch.
A SOURCE OF U.S. TERRORISTS Troubled American teenagers are a new source of international terrorists. Two youths born in this country, one to immigrants from the Dominican Republic and the other to Palestinian Arabs, had the makings of a decent, even suburban life. They are Carlos E. Almonte and Mohamed M. Alessa. Unfortunately, they got into trouble for tempers and violence during their school years. One got converted to radical Islam, the other, already a Muslim, became radicalized. As they became men, they did not learn how to lead constructive lives. They planned to go abroad and fight for jihad, when they were arrested. They relished the thought of brutalizing fellow Americans. Apparently they were caught by an undercover agent. The family of one claims the agent pushed them over the line of the law (Karim Fahim, Richard Perez-Pena, Karen Zraick, NY Times, 6/12/10, A1). Entrapment requires careful guarding against. The way these youth were going, they did not require much prompting. Other questions are how troubled are the youth who radicalize? Who converts them, and is this really religious or treasonous? Will Americans speak out against this phenomenon of conversion to Islam that turns youths into armed enemies? What kind of people do this to troubled youth? Immigrants long have had difficulties with children who may reject them in the interest of adapting to their new environment. A broader problem in the U.S. is how to raise children in two-income or one-parent families, amid a peculiar but influential youth culture and have normal and devoted family life. As with all forms of fascism, the power to murder with official sanction attracts people of fascistic tendencies. Is society wise to wait until children become murderers?
JIHAD STILL IN ALGERIA A suicide bomber exploded his truck at a police barracks, killing at least nine people. One of the victims was a Chinese worker. In that Kabylia region of Algeria, small Islamist groups have aligned with Al Qaida, in order to bomb people (NY Times, 6/12/10, A7). Jihad is all over, mostly unrelated to Israel. The murder is wanton. Many victims are Muslims. Muslims should unite with the other faiths to repudiate and constrict this new scourge of civilization. If anyone is making a war on Islam, the jihadists are.
DOUBTING NATO, AFGHANISTAN SEEKS DEAL WITH PAKISTAN 
Doubting the ability of NATO to prevail, Afghanistan President Karzai is seeking a separate deal with the Taliban and Pakistan. He doubts even more than NATO's endurance, as when he indirectly questions whether it may have planted a recent terrorist bomb. He has been disturbed by U.S. threats to pull out and by U.S. attempts to undermine the election he had prepared and the U.S. called rigged. Now the Obama administration is trying to repair the damage in made to the relationship with Karzai, but it may be too late. Karzai thinks he can work with Pakistan, whom he used to accuse of assisting the Taliban. Pakistan recently and successfully got ousted two of Karzai's strongest aides. The suspicion is that Pakistan still are playing its own imperial game, which prefers that Afghanistan suffer from weak leadership (Dexter Filkins, NY Times, 6/12/10, A1). Notice the way Karzai puts it, doubting whether NATO can win. What about his winning? He has a difficult situation, but is notorious for actively maintaining corruption and ineffective government. He does not show wartime leadership.
TURKEY'S STRUGGLE WITH TERRORISM, AND ISRAEL The Kurds want independence, but have turned to terrorism to get it. They have killed tens of thousands of Turks. Turkey recently has been raiding Iraq to get at them. Europe had a controversial notion of supporting Kurdish civil liberties, but went further and protected the Kurdish Workers' Party, which uses terrorism, increasingly of the Islamist variety. The U.S. sided with Turkey. So has Israel. For years, Israel has given Turkey military and counter-terrorism assistance. Turkish President Erdogan's favoring terrorists over Israel indicates a double standard on his part (Wall St. J., 6/12/10, Ed.). Other Muslim leaders are learning gradually that terrorism is a Frankenstein that bites the hand that fed it.
U.S. DOUBLE-CROSSING HAMAS DOUBLE AGENT The U.S. is double-crossing a Hamas man who became an effective counter-terrorist agent. As the son of a Hamas leader, Mosab Hasan Yousef saw enough brutality in Hamas to revolt his conscience and recently propel him out of the faith. From the inside, he went to work for Israeli intelligence, helping to tamp down Hamas' murderous rampage. Now he lives in the U.S., where he applied for political asylum. U.S. law requires deportation of people who assisted terrorism, as he had done before turning against it. Not taking into account Mr. Yousef's valuable assistance against terrorism, the U.S. government is preparing to deport him to the Palestinian Authority. There, Hamas undoubtedly would attempt to assassinate him. As against that possibility, a treaty the U.S. ratified also forbids deportation likely to cause someone's death. Nevertheless, the government is proceeding. How blind and stubborn can our bureaucracy be? (Wall St. J., 6/12/10, Ed..) What does the U.S. want of Arabs? Here is a decent young one, who as soon as he found out how bad Hamas is, became disillusioned with it and saved many lives from it, Arab and Israeli. He deserves better U.S. treatment. Liberal friends tell me our President is bright. They tell me he wants to protect our country. They deny he sympathizes with our jihadists enemies. Here is the perfect test.
ISRAEL LOST FOCUS ON IRAN Iranian nuclear development poses a clear and imminent existential menace to Israel. Therefore, it should be top priority for Israel. The government of Israel should devote itself to the issue and delegate lesser issues. Instead, the government not only has not focused primarily on Iran, it has let secondary issues, such as the flotilla, how much more aid to let into Gaza, and indirect negotiations via the U.S. divert top officials' attention. Israel got bogged down in details. Having distracted Israel, as Iran and its ally Turkey did, Iran was able to proceed with its nuclear goal. Although it has become obvious that Obama is not serious about stopping Iran, Israel took him seriously and failed to proceed as much with plans of its own.
Israel also has been wasting time dealing with Obama's ever increasing demands upon Israel. Jerusalem Post editor Caroline Glick suggests that PM Netanyahu delegate his own envoy to meet with the U.S. and its envoy, and to keep talking without committing, the way the P.A. does. Then the government of Israel should prepare better for an Iranian
counter-attack, for a diplomatic and legal offensive against Iran, and
for presenting its case after having raided Iran (IMRA, 6/12/10).
IRAN TRIUMPHS OVER ISRAEL AND U.S. While Obama was dithering over Iran, the Iranian regime stole the election. Its goons put down a popular protest movement. The regime could not count fully on its increasingly split supporters, so it imported Hizbullah thugs to help. Ahmadinejad was afraid to appear in public. Hizbullah lost the election in Lebanon. The inadequate sanctions that the U.S. got the Security Council to pass are a triumph for Iran [and another indication of the UN being counter-productive on international security]. Ahmadinejad just got a hero's welcome in Istanbul. He had a bilateral meeting in Russia. He has deepened regime ties with Russia and China [weak sanctions notwithstanding]. Iran has developed strategic ties with Turkey, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Brazil. Hizbullah used force to gain control over Lebanon. Two U.S. officials urged the U.S. to deal with Hizbullah as if it were legitimate. One is Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan. The other is former ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Obama waived trade sanctions against Iran's ally, Syria [not that Syria reciprocated in any way nor would it]. While Syria is rebuilding the destroyed nuclear plant and additional nuclear facilities, Obama is trying to restore relations with it and get an ambassador to Syria confirmed. The International Atomic Energy Association is not inspecting Syria but is focusing on Israel, which is not a scofflaw (IMRA, 6/12/10 from Caroline Glick). Iran and Russia do seem to be in a shouting match. Is it genuine or deception? The U.S. claims that it has isolated Iran. Seem more true that, although the Obama administration is enabling Iran, its stated opposition to it and the alliance of rogues that Iran is building, are isolating the U.S. more.
IS OBAMA LEADER OR IMPEDER OF FREE WORLD AGAINST IRAN? U.S. President Obama took a year to decide to seek further sanctions. Then he spent another half-year passing a watered down set that Iran scorns. These sanctions will not stop Iran's nuclear program nor help Iranians to liberate themselves. They do not prohibit Russia from selling Iran the S-300 anti-missile system that would make a raid on Iran very difficult. [Russia says it is freezing the sale. Russia has given similar assurance before, and then changed its decision.] European leaders stated their intent to change the Iranian regime. Obama pulled the rug out from under them. He took the regime's side. He took a few days to react, mildly chided the regime, but called it legitimate. This encouraged the regime to murder more people. [How it must have discouraged dissenters and made future enemies of them!] Obama's first priority is to wrest Israeli concessions for the Arabs. His second priority is to avoid being blamed for Iran's imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons. He uses vague talk about stopping Iran to press Israel for more concessions. First, Obama pressured Netanyahu to agree, more or less [he said less, but once an Israeli says something, people ignore his qualifiers] to a future state for the Palestinian Arabs. After that concession [which Netanyahu thought might give him relief from pressure], Obama pressed him for a building freeze in the Territories. After that concession, Obama pressed him for a building freeze in annexed portions of Jerusalem. [Such is the price of appeasement, unending pressure and unending concessions. Obama appeases Iran and gets Israel to appease him.] Then Obama pressed Netanyahu to accept indirect negotiations by a pro-Arab envoy. Now he is working Netanyahu over to give up his nuclear weapons capability. The very latest Obama pressure on Israel is to accept an international investigation of the flotilla raid, weaken the embargo, and allow massive U.S. taxpayer subsidy of Gaza. [Readers who oppose aid to Israel as increasing the deficit lose their voice when it comes to aid to Arab terrorists. How conservative are they about U.S. treasure?] The latest Obama offer of $400 million would go to an illegal terrorist organization controlled by Iran (IMRA, 6/12/10 from Caroline Glick). The U.S. would pretend that the money does not go directly to terrorists and that somehow the funds are not shoring up the Hamas regime but those wonderful people who chose it. The title of the article asks whether Obama is the leader or impeder of the Free World. Before deciding for yourselves, you should recall the many ways that Obama insults U.S. allies and appeases U.S. enemies, undermines bringing terrorists to justice, overburdens the U.S. economy with give-aways, and uses government power to intimidate dissent.
MAJOR MIDEAST MISCONCEPTION 19: ISRAEL ENGAGES IN LAND GRABS Like many misconceived accusations against Israel, the notion that it engages in land grabs is forwarded irresponsibly and vaguely. How does one evaluate a general statement? Where is it said to apply? Let us start with pre-statehood Zionism. Zionist organizations and Jewish individuals bought land in the Turkish Empire and what became the Palestine Mandate. These Jews did not grab anybody's land. Arabs, on the contrary, drove the Jews out of Hebron and seized their land. Arab terrorists tried to drive the Jews out of the whole Mandated territory. This brings us to the UN suggestion that it was time for the remainder of the Mandate (after Jordan was detached from it) to be divided into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. Israel accepted the suggestion, and invited local Arabs to stay. But local Arabs and invading Arab armies tried to drive the Jews into the sea. Again, it was Arabs who tried to grab land. Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria, while Egypt ruled over Gaza. There are claims that Israel drove the Arabs out of Jewish areas. In fact, Israel took steps to keep the Arabs there. That was foolish but it also was idealistic and not the behavior of aggressors. The Arabs fled from their own terrorists' violence, fled from fear of the war, and fled at the orders of the invading Arab generals who promised them that after the war, they would be able to loot the Jews' properties. Israel did drive a relatively small number of Arabs out from border areas and other strategic points for the sake of national security. Remember, the stated Arab goal was genocide. Having conquered Judea and Samaria, Jordan's Arab Legion drove 10,000 Jews out of eastern Jerusalem and smaller numbers out of other areas, such as Gush Etzion. When Jews now repurchase some of those properties, and seek to move in, they are called dis possessors of the Arabs, in effect, land-grabbers. But it was the Arabs who were the land-grabbers. In the course of that same war, the Arabs fled. Since the Arabs would settle for nothing less than to exterminate the Jews, and the Arab armies boasted they would, it was only prudent of Israel not to let and Arab fifth column return and reclaim their property. If Israel had done so, the Arabs would again attempt total conquest. Self-defense, not a deliberate land grab, was Israel's motive. However, Israel did let many Arabs return, in the spirit of humanitarianism. In Arab countries, where up to a million Jews lived as descendants of ancient communities that preceded Islam, the governments drove out most of them. These regimes, of course, confiscated their property. That was a land-grab and money-grab. The Arabs' 1967 attempt to exterminate and drive the Jews out of Israel, ended with the Jewish state controlling the Sinai, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and most of the Golan Heights. Israel had hoped to trade those lands for peace. The Arabs refused. Then Egypt signed a non-aggression pact with Israel and got back the Sinai, which was much larger than Israel. The other Arabs would not budge. Hence, Israel annexed the Golan, from which Syria repeatedly had bombarded and had attempted to invade Israel, and annexed areas bordering Jerusalem. Some Israelis began moving into Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Recently, the government of Israel removed all Jews from Gaza, hardly the behavior of land-grabbers. Shortly after Israel's founding, Syria seized a strategic part of the State of Israel, bordering on Israel's main water reservoir. That is a land grab. In 1967, in defense against the Arab axis that set out to conquer Israel, Israel recovered that piece of land from Syria. Nevertheless, Syria still demands that territory, which never was a part of Syria. Israel is the administering authority in Judea and Samaria. When it uses some land for roads, its enemies call it a land-grabber. Would it be better not to put roads there? The communities built by Israelis in Judea and Samaria are on private land purchased from Arab owners or on state land. Some anti-Zionist Israeli organizations claimed that the Jews had not bought the private land and that most of the land on which their towns rest are owned by Arabs. The communities sued, and the detractors were fined for libel. Those communities take up only 3-5% of Judea-Samaria, an astonishingly small proportion in view of the claims made against them. Errors in land registration probably resulted in a few acres being acquired improperly by those communities. The courts would straighten that out. Israeli courts do not hesitate to rule against Jews. Who will resolve the question of tens of thousands of acres on which Arabs squat in Israel and in Judea-Samaria? Those squatter constitute a major land grab! Anti-Zionists defend it, revealing a hypocrisy that belies the sincerity of their complaints about alleged Israeli land-grabbing. As administrator of Judea-Samaria, most of whose land is not held privately but was inherited by the state, Israel has allotted some of that to Jews. To be a land-grab. To be one, the Territories would have to be part of Arab country. There was no Arab country there. There was the Palestine Mandate. Now, Arabs demand the Territories, an area that never was an indigenous Arab state. The Jewish people, for whom the Mandate was established, is the only legitimate historical people in those areas. Israel, as a victim of repeated Arab aggression from those territories, and whose security therefore would be threatened by Arab control over those territories, is further entitled to annex those territories. We come to the conclusion that Israel is not a land-grabber, but it is the Arabs who deserve that appellation. Those who accuse Israel of territorial aggression, in effect, endorse Arab attempts at theft of land, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
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:
|
|
IRANIAN AXIS IS GROWING
Posted by Ted Belman, June 12, 2010. |
|
Shimon Peres, President of Israel, has, for the last thirty years, called for a New Middle East. In fact he wrote a book by that title in 1993, the year of the Oslo Accords. He believed that economic cooperation in the ME was the starting point for cementing ties and reconciling peoples. The Oslo Accords, of which he was the main architect and instigator, was intended to lead in that direction. It failed miserably. In those days the main players on the Muslim side, were Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, all Sunni. And, of course, we cannot leave out Arafat, also a Sunni. All this began to change with the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003. Talk about unintended consequences. The defeat of Iraq, created a power vacuum which Shiite Iran was salivating to fill. Although Iraq under Hussein was in the Sunni camp, its population was 60% Shiite. Luckily, the Iraqi Shiites prefer independence from Iran perhaps due in part to the fact they are Arab and not Farsi; at least for now but that could change. Iran had aspirations of grandeur and imperialist ambitions. She began to plot a course which would lead to her dominance of the Muslim world and in the Middle East. No small task, since 80% of Muslims are Sunni and Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam, are located in Saudi Arabia. This course had two prongs; the development of its own nuclear bomb and the confrontation with Israel, the Little Satan and the US the Big Satan on behalf of all Muslims everywhere. Iran also had a natural advantage, her location. Egypt, with its population of 55 million is poor and on the periphery. It also made peace with Israel thereby taking her out of the race for now. Iran borders on Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian Sea. The US needs Iran to be cooperative in each of these theaters. Iran's first success was to win over Syria the most rejectionist Sunni state. This was easier than you might expect as Syria is ruled the Alawites, a Shiite sect. Their alliance is constantly growing and seems to have no bounds. This is so notwithstanding that the US has attempted to wean Syria away from Iran. Syria is important because it borders on Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, with whom she has a casus belli for the return of the Golan. Syria also has imperialist ambitions. She has visions of recovering all lands which were part of the Ottoman province of Syria. Britain and France entered into the Sykes-Picot Agreement during WWI in which they agreed that Britain would control Mesopotamia (Iraq) and southern Syria, (Jordan and Israel) and France would control the rest of Ottoman Syria (Syria, Lebanon and Hatay province of Turkey). The League of Nations formalized this agreement in 1923 when it created the British Mandate and the French Mandate. In pursuance of these ambitions, in 1970, Syria invaded Jordan only to be repulsed by Israel. During the recent decades, Syria extended its influence over Lebanon. This was made easier with the growth of Hezbollah which was predominantly Shiite. It was natural for Syria and Iran to come together on this. Together they have armed Hezbollah to the teeth in order to have a proxy for the war against Israel. In truth there is no casus belli between Hezbollah and Israel. Iran took Hamas under its wing after Hamas took over Gaza from the Sunni backed Palestinian Authority in 2007. It was natural for this to happen since they both are dedicated to destroying Israel. This is a development which has put Egypt in the cross hairs. Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood has been a thorn in Egypt's backside ever since. It believes that Muslim society is no longer Islamic and must be transformed by an Islamic vanguard through violent revolution. Thus, the Brotherhood and Iran are natural allies. There is great concern that when Mubarak dies, Egypt will be vulnerable to a Brotherhood takeover. Hamas, with the backing of Iran, could greatly assist in this takeover. Turkey was the last to join the Iranian axis. With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern state of Turkey. He ruled as President until his death in 1938. During this time he sought to transform Turkey into a modern and secular nation-state. The Turkish army maintained this orientation until the election of islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Prime Minister in 2003. This victory was made possible by the changing demographics of the country. The higher birth rates of the rural class in Turkey (and in Hezbollah in Lebanon) made possible the shift in power. The US championed the admission of Turkey to NATO and to the EU. Turkey maintained a friendship with Israel to gain favor with the US and with the EU. She succeeded in being admitted to NATO but not to the EU. The EU was not in the mood to admit a Muslim state and set all kinds of preconditions. Erdogan decided to chart his own course rather than the one dictated by the EU. Turkey gave up on admission and turned increasing islamist and anti-Israel and, I might add, anti-American. In Turkey's MidEast Gambit, Sam Segev notes, "Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has cautiously but consistently moved to reclaim Turkey's "grandeur" of the Ottoman Empire era. And yet President Obama still believes "Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process." To make matters worse, the opinion makers in the US and the EU have come out in favor of lifting the blockade which in effect is in support of Hamas, a terrorist organization. And Obama is on their side. The strengthening of Hamas effectively strengthens Iran, strangles the peace process and scares the bejeesus out of Egypt and Jordan. As Obama stands astride the shifting sands what possible vision can he have? You would think that as the U.S. is losing control of the Middle East and plans to bring most of the boys home before the end of next year, she would need a strong Israel all the more. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
ABRAMS: WHITE HOUSE DOESN'T SUPPORT ISRAEL;
'WITNESS' TO FLOTILLA 'MURDER' DIDN'T SEE EVENTS
Posted by Sanne DeWitt, June 11, 2010. |
|
(1) FORMER NSC OFFICIAL ABRAMS: WHITE HOUSE DOESN'T SUPPORT ISRAEL
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized the Obama Administration for its failure to stand up for Israel, as would have past U.S. administrations, over the anti-Israel offensive within the United Nations in the past week over the Gaza flotilla clash. In the U.N. Security Council, the Obama Administration agreed to a statement which "condemned" the "acts" that led to loss of life on the Gaza flotilla. The statement was watered down by the U.S. so as not condemn Israel by name, but it nonetheless reads as a thinly-veiled condemnation of Israel and has been widely received as such in the Middle East. Yet, the Obama Administration could have refused and vetoed this or any statement ignoring the illegal attempt by the ship Mavi Mamara to break Israel's blockade of Gaza and the assault on the Israeli boarding party initiated by the Hamas supporters aboard the ship, but did not do so. Also, in an interview with Larry King on CNN, President Obama spoke of the need for an inquiry into the violence that met "international standards" — which means that an Israeli investigation that would never be accepted by the Arab and Muslim states, despite Israel's strong judiciary and rule of law, would be insufficient. As former National Security Council official Elliot Abrams wrote of this recently-passed UN Security Council resolution on the Gaza flotilla, ". no one is fooled: the world media keep repeating that the Security Council condemned Israel, and in this case it is hard to argue. Yet it would have been simple to stop the mob had the White House wanted to. The facts were not in yet and indeed are still not in. The videos suggest that dozens of people (all Turks, it appears, but that too is not fully clear) on the boats were armed and dangerous. Reports are circulating here that some of those "peace activists" had gas masks and night vision devices, carried no identification papers, wore bullet-proof vests, and carried large amounts of cash. The background, the Hamas coup in Gaza and more than three thousand rockets into Israel from Gaza, is clear. The fact the Egypt has for three years (until the pressure mounted this week) refused to open its border to Gaza is understood at the UN. So the material was at hand to block the lynch mob and say we would accept only a statement that mourned the loss of life. We did not have to accept the word "condemn" or join in the call for another Goldstone Report. So why did we agree to the presidential statement? The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel" ('Joining the Jackals,' Weekly Standard, June 2, 2010). Legal authority and UN expert Professor Anne Bayefsky of the Hudson Institute wrote, "[President Obama. permitted a unanimous UN Security Council presidential statement calling for 'a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.' Predictably, within 24 hours that call was duly translated by the UN Human Rights Council into a call for an international investigation of what it had already condemned as 'the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces.' Though the US finally voted against the HRC resolution (after first suggesting it was open to a decision reproducing the Security Council statement), by that point the damage done by the president leaping on the Security Council bandwagon had been done. Moreover, since the Obama administration decided to join the HRC and to pay for it, American taxpayers will cover 22 percent of the $530,000 estimated costs of the HRC-sponsored investigation" ('New levels of low,' Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2010). ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We are strongly critical of the Obama Administration' s failure to stand by Israel in UN forums, dominated by dictators and despotisms, that seek to condemn Israel for enforcing a lawful blockade, while ignoring the Islamist terrorists and their supporters who tried to breach the blockade and who initiated violence against a lawful Israeli boarding party. The issue here is clear-cut — will the Obama Administration do the right thing and reject this assault on Israel at the UN, or will it try to appease the dictators and despots who seek to criminalize Israel's rightful self-defense and break Israel's lawful blockade of Gaza by making internationally damaging for Israel to maintain. It chose the latter in the Security Council, with the result that a more vicious anti-Israel resolution was proposed and passed in the Human Rights Council. The Obama Administration did not lead in the Security Council and it had no influence in the Human Rights Council. "The Obama Administration' s course from the outset should have been clear,
but President Obama, as his remarks to Larry King show, bears full
responsibility for not taking this course of action."
2. 'WITNESS' TO FLOTILLA 'MURDER' ADMITS SHE DID NOT SEE THE EVENTS by Gil Ronen
U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Ann Wright, on a speaking tour of the United States on behalf of radical pacifist women's group Code Pink, bills herself as an eyewitness to the IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara and the "murder" of "nine innocent civilians." However, in an interview with Aaron Lerner of IMRA, she admits she did not actually see the clash between the IDF soldiers and the armed passengers on board the Mavi Marmara. In a promotional e-mail on behalf of "Code Pink: Women for Peace," Wright says: "I just returned from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and started my speaking tour last night in NYC to share what I witnessed aboard the flotilla, and what people can do to end the siege." In the interview with Lerner she admitted that she was not aboard the Mavi Marmara but on a different ship, the Challenger, which was about 150 yards distant from the Marmara. The confrontation took place between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m., in the dark of night (IDF footage of the raid was carried out with night vision equipment). In the interview, Lerner asks Wright if she has seen the video that shows the passengers preparing weapons for attacking the soldiers. Lerner: "You haven't seen the YouTube that shows the rods that had been cut and prepared and the piles of hatchets that were ready?" Wright: "No, I haven't. I'm still in the process of catching up with all the stuff that's out there." She also claims that "the video" (apparently the same video that she said she did not see — ed.) stops at a certain point and does not show that "the captain of the ship and the director of the IHH came out of the wheelhouse and told the guys that were on top 'stop beating these soldiers up.'" Lerner: Col. Wright I just want to make sure again — so you actually were on a different boat and did not witness the attack firsthand. Wright: That's correct. Lerner: So your witnessing is based on the information that you are getting from the other folks who were there. Wright: My witness will be specifically what happened on our ship, the Challenger. And then I can comment on what happened in the very first three or four minutes as the Israeli commandos were trying to board the ship. We saw that from the stern of the ship. But after that that's when my witnessing from my own eyes of what happened on that ship would end. Sanne DeWitt distributes the IACEB newletter. Contact her at skdewitt@comcast.net |
|
A TALE OF TWO WORLDS: GAZA AND THE GLOBAL VILLAGE
Posted by Sheridan Meimark, June 11, 2010. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7
|
|
Gaza Arabs' life expectancy is well above average, and infant mortality rates are far higher in famine-plagued countries, but world aid continues to pour in to the Hamas-controlled region, according to official data. Yet Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is asking U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for more aid, in addition to the billons of dollars of foreign funds the PA has received the past few years. He has cited Israel's partial blockade of Gaza as the main cause for alleged shortages in Gaza and in villages administered by the United Nations in Judea and Samaria. Recent photos and statements by Arab sources
The Israeli government recently sent foreign journalists a link showing a fancy first-class restaurant in Gaza, noting "we have been told the beef stroganoff and cream of spinach soup are highly recommended." Statistics provided by the United Nations and the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) show that while famine kills millions of small children in India (pictured), Guatemala and Africa, among other nations, the child mortality rate for Arab "refugees" is 35 per 1,000, compared with 180 per 1,000 in Angola and 116 in Niger. The term "Palestinian refugees" refers to children who are descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in the 1948 War of Independence and the Six-Day War in 1967. Lebanon and Jordan, among other countries, prefer to keep the Arabs in "refugee camps" to prevent their integrating with the rest of the population, where they might pose a political challenge. World hunger organizations report that 10-15 million below the age of 5 die each year, and 50,000 people die daily. One-third of all deaths in the world are due to poverty. The life expectancy for Gaza Arabs is 72 years, nearly five years more than the world average, according to CIA World Factbook statistics. In Swaziland, the life expectancy is less than 40 years, and it is 42 years in Zambia. Mainstream media have focused on Gaza as an area where the de facto Hamas government suffered from a lack of funds because of an American financial boycott. Attention also is given to the Israeli embargo, enforced to try to prevent Hamas from adding to its large arsenal of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, long-range rockets and rifles. The Palestinian Authority, which contributes half of its budget to Gaza Arabs, has become more dependent on the massive foreign aid it has received since the beginning of the 2000 Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War. In contrast, 22 member countries of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, the world's major donors, provided $103.9 billion to fight poverty in 2006, while the Palestinian Authority receives one of the world's highest foreign subsidies per capita. It has received nearly $10 billion in foreign aid since 1994 when the PA was formally established. The European Union is the largest donor, followed by the United States, which contributes nearly twice as much as Saudi Arabia. The aid has enabled the PA, which seeks to become an independent country though located within Israel's borders, to inflate its public payroll to more than 160,000 workers while its education system continues to incite violence against Israel. Donors currently contribute more than $1 billion a year. The domestic output of the PA economy dropped by 30 percent on a per capita basis since 1999, one year before the Oslo War broke out. The local economy collapsed as neighboring Jewish communities were unable to employ thousands of Arab workers because of terrorist attacks. However, the World Bank has cited security restrictions on trade in and out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as one of the reasons for Gaza's economic problems. A previous report in the Middle East Quarterly concluded, "Perhaps aid itself does not cause violence, but there is strong evidence that it contributes to a culture of corruption, government malfeasance and terrorism that has had lethal consequences for both Israelis and Palestinians over the past decade." The researcher, Steven Stotsky, a senior research analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), wrote that foreign funding of the Palestinian Authority made it "less dependent on revenue derived from commerce, detaching the PA's solvency from the health of the economy. Thus, while the intifada sent the Palestinian economy into free fall, the PA's coffers swelled. The conditions were thus established that ensured the separation of Palestinian governance from responsibility for the economic health of the Palestinian people. "Not only did the security forces fail to prevent terrorist attacks, in many cases they colluded with terrorist groups and sometimes perpetrated attacks themselves." |
|
TIME FOR ANOTHER REASSESSMENT
Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, June 11, 2010. |
|
The term "Reassessment" entered the diplomatic discourse between Israel and the United States in 1975. U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sought to pressure the then prime minister Yitzak Rabin into an "interim agreement" with Egypt, by which Israeli forces would withdraw from the Yom Kippur War ceasefire lines to the Mitla and Gidi passes in Sinai. Kissinger froze U.S. arms shipments and hinted that more drastic measures would follow. Rabin was unfazed and took his case to the Senate. President Gerald Ford and Kissinger relented. Even at the height of that crisis, the United States did not dare to endanger the heart of its strategic understanding with Israel: Israel's ambiguous nuclear policy. President Lyndon Johnson and Prime Minister Golda Meir set the policy in 1969 that has been followed by all the presidents and prime ministers since. This policy has often been articulated in written agreements between them but occasionally simply by mutual understanding. "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East," said prime ministers Levi Eshkol and Shimon Peres, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin, and all who followed. U.S. presidents have come and gone; sometimes they had questions, sometimes they asked for clarifications, but ultimately they all accepted the formula and agreed to abide by it. Until Obama. After his election, Obama promised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to maintain the ambiguity Israel's ambiguous nuclear policy. Two weeks ago he betrayed Israel. On May 28, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, which meets once every five years, called unanimously — with America's support — for Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty and open its nuclear installations to external supervision. Israel is not a signatory to the treaty; Iran is a signatory, yet Iran is rushing towards production of nuclear weapons. Syria and Libya are signatories, but their signatures have not prevented them from building uranium enrichment plants for military purposes. North Korea built a bomb and tests nuclear weapons, mocking the entire world supposedly opposed to it. Pakistani scientists led by the "father of the Pakistan's nuclear bomb" Abed Qadeer Khan sold nuclear secrets and technology necessary for the building of nuclear weapons to Iran, Syria, Libya, and possibly North Korea. In the face of this burgeoning industry, the United States gave in to an Egyptian initiative and agreed to single out Israel as the country the world should be worried about. Israel alone was mentioned in the NPT Review Committee's report. Apparently only its installations need to be examined. The time has come for a reassessment of U.S. — Israeli relations. Israel may want the billions of dollars it receives in military aid from the United States, and in the event of a long war, Israel may need the U.S. munitions reserves currently stored in Israel and re-supply lines for the Israeli army; the U.S. market is also of great importance for Israel's economy; and U.S. intevention often limits Israel's international isolation. But the fact is, Israel can no longer rely on the support of the United States. Israel must reassess the value of all American promises, whether they be in writing, made ceremoniously at public festivities, or whispered privately in a room of the White House. He who without batting an eyelash has betrayed Israel on the nuclear issue, a matter whose existential importance to the Jewish state is obvious given the Iranian dash for bomb, will not hesitate to deny other commitments. Obama is currently pressuring Israel to accept dictates that would lead to a Palestinian state in the heart of its country. In return, he offers to guarantee our security, preserve our technological advantage, and ensure the Palestinian state will be demilitarized. Why would anyone in Israel be willing to take existential risks while relying on the commitment of an American president who has betrayed and denied the commitments of his predecessors and forgotten even his own? One might think that as Israel's military and political situation worsens, our ability to maneuver opposite the United States decreases. But with our back to the wall and knowing full well that we have no one to rely on, Israel can turn this lack of maneuverability into resoluteness and the dearth of options into strength. When doubts are resolved, fortitude may emerge. The knowledge that American promises are without value is of itself quite valuable. Even a pauper will not agree to give the little he has in exchange for a guarantee openly declared to be worthless. Obama is no more frightening than Ford. Clinton dislikes us no more than Kissinger did. The sea we are threatened with being thrown into is the same sea. The Arabs are the same Arabs. But the wall our backs are up against is much closer and more dangerous. The depth of Obama's betrayal must be made known to the American public today. As the November elections approach in the United States, Netanyahu has the opportunity to replicate Rabin's achievement of 1975. Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors(CJHS) is a 501(c)3 non-proft organization. |
|
THE FLOTILLA FIASCO; JEWISH RIGHT TO THEIR HOMELAND; THE
FLOTILLA WITNESS WHO WASN'T A WITNESS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 11, 2010. |
|
ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF FLOTILLA FIASCO The flotilla raid was planned too badly to have been mere stupidity. When the first commando was attacked, the helicopters above, suggests my source, a former Israeli war veteran, should have provided covering fire. Instead they dropped a couple more paintball gunners into the ambush, where they were heavily outnumbered. In close combat, their pistols afforded little advantage over the Islamists' hand weapons. Was this the fault of the commanding admiral? Was he paying off a debt to the people who saved his career, when he was discovered to have frequented strip joints? Is a cover-up going on? [This would be a cover-up of how the marines were sent to tempt attack by weakness, not of what the foreign anti-Zionists think, that they were sent to attack, which would gain Israel nothing and is not Israel's modus operandi.] Remember the expert reporter's answers to suggested alternative methods of capturing or disabling the big ship? Today's source disputes them. To the suggestion that the IDF should have disabled the propellers, the prior answer was it would have risked frogmen's lives. Today's response is that it could not have been done by nets or shells. To the suggestion that the IDF should have stopped the ship by blocking it, the prior answer was that that would have required ramming it and risked sinking it. Today's source responds that the passengers had donned life jackets in anticipation of the ship sinking. The IDF could have fired a warning shot. Then, if the ship did not halt, it would be sunk. The admiral reports to Defense Min. Barak. Barak met shortly beforehand with White House Chief of Staff Emanuel Rahm. Both want Netanyahu out of office, and a compliant person, such as Barak, back in. Both have a record of plotting, and Barak has a record of surrendering to the Arabs. Barak also has on his record ordering what was an ambush of a troop of religious soldiers in the first Lebanon War. At that time, his Labor Party, under the influence of Shimon Peres, was denigrating the war effort. Had the war succeeded according to plan, the ruling party, Likud, would have kept Labor out of power for more years. Barak's order may have been sabotage for politics. Too many generals are aspiring politicians. If a fiasco could be engineered that would draw international condemnation, Netanyahu might have to resign or at least bring more leftists into his Cabinet (Barry Chamish, 6/10). I think Mr. Chamish mistaken about sinking the ship having been an alternative to raiding it. It hundreds of real civilians had been sent to the depths, the world outcry would have been worse. In support of Chamish's theory, recall that Peres made an end run around PM Rabin, and sneaked in the Oslo Accords. Labor Cabinet Members in a joint regime with Menachem Begin as Prime Minister betrayed him, too, to the Egyptians. Chamish has written books showing that the assassination of Rabin was masterminded by Peres to maintain Oslo and to succeed Rabin. It was followed up by cover up. More than one controversial person last was seen alive and well supping with Peres or threatening to give Labor a no-confidence vote. Sharon had his two heart attacks, one right after being with Peres, the other right after being with Olmert, who succeeded him. The problem with the Labor Party is that it got more leftist and less
Zionist.
ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF FLOTILLA FIASCO The flotilla raid was planned too badly to have been mere stupidity. When the first commando was attacked, the helicopters above, suggests my source, a former Israeli war veteran, should have provided covering fire. Instead they dropped a couple more paintball gunners into the ambush, where they were heavily outnumbered. In close combat, their pistols afforded little advantage over the Islamists' hand weapons. Was this the fault of the commanding admiral? Was he paying off a debt to the people who saved his career, when he was discovered to have frequented strip joints? Is a cover-up going on? [This would be a cover-up of how the marines were sent to tempt attack by weakness, not of what the foreign anti-Zionists think, that they were sent to attack, which would gain Israel nothing and is not Israel's modus operandi.] Remember the expert reporter's answers to suggested alternative methods of capturing or disabling the big ship? Today's source disputes them. To the suggestion that the IDF should have disabled the propellers, the prior answer was it would have risked frogmen's lives. Today's response is that it could not have been done by nets or shells. To the suggestion that the IDF should have stopped the ship by blocking it, the prior answer was that that would have required ramming it and risked sinking it. Today's source responds that the passengers had donned life jackets in anticipation of the ship sinking. The IDF could have fired a warning shot. Then, if the ship did not halt, it would be sunk. The admiral reports to Defense Min. Barak. Barak met shortly beforehand with White House Chief of Staff Emanuel Rahm. Both want Netanyahu out of office, and a compliant person, such as Barak, back in. Both have a record of plotting, and Barak has a record of surrendering to the Arabs. Barak also has on his record ordering what was an ambush of a troop of religious soldiers in the first Lebanon War. At that time, his Labor Party, under the influence of Shimon Peres, was denigrating the war effort. Had the war succeeded according to plan, the ruling party, Likud, would have kept Labor out of power for more years. Barak's order may have been sabotage for politics. Too many generals are aspiring politicians. If a fiasco could be engineered that would draw international condemnation, Netanyahu might have to resign or at least bring more leftists into his Cabinet (Barry Chamish, 6/10). I think Mr. Chamish mistaken about sinking the ship having been an alternative to raiding it. It hundreds of real civilians had been sent to the depths, the world outcry would have been worse. In support of Chamish's theory, recall that Peres made an end run around PM Rabin, and sneaked in the Oslo Accords. Labor Cabinet Members in a joint regime with Menachem Begin as Prime Minister betrayed him, too, to the Egyptians. Chamish has written books showing that the assassination of Rabin was masterminded by Peres to maintain Oslo and to succeed Rabin. It was followed up by cover up. More than one controversial person last was seen alive and well supping with Peres or threatening to give Labor a no-confidence vote. Sharon had his two heart attacks, one right after being with Peres, the other right after being with Olmert, who succeeded him. The problem with the Labor Party is that it got more leftist and less Zionist.
JEWISH MIGRATIONS AND RIGHT TO HOMELAND, THE LAND OF ISRAEL Geneticists are able to trace people's ancestral migrations and homeland. Two new surveys thus find that Jews all over share a predominance of genes demonstrating their origin in the Mideast more than three thousand years ago. They also have picked up some genes during their migrations. Many of them may have descended from Jews in Italy. The two major groupings of Jews more recently from Europe and the Mideast have a very close genetic resemblance. There was more interchange and intermarriage than commonly believed, between those two branches of Jews, for whom Hebrew was a common language. Jews from Ethiopia and India are less close to the others and closer to native non-Jews, but still carry genes distinguishing them as Jewish in origin. [Of course, people are mixtures of many origins.] Earlier studies worked with just the male, Y chromosome. The new studies draw on the whole genome. "They refute the suggestion made last year by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book, The Invention of the Jewish People, that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times." Interestingly, the studies relate a separation of Iraqi and Persian Jews from the rest at about 587 B.C.E., when the First Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed (Nicholas Wade, NY Times, 6/10/10, A14) as the Bible states. These findings are not that new but more scientific and complete. Being a Levite, myself, which traces me back thousands of years, I once attended a dinner of kohanim and Levites. The cohens were descended from the priesthood and the Levites were Temple attendants, including musicians. You know, the Hebrew Temple that Abbas says did not exist and the Christian Testament insists did. We were told that genetics had determined that the kohanim were very closely related, indicating a straight and common paternal ancestry. The Levites were closer to each other than were other Jews, but less so than the kohanim. What does all this mean? It scientifically explodes the Shlomo Sand or Arthur Koestler theory of Jewish descent from the converted rulers of the Khazars, in Russia. That theory never made sense, because it failed to explain: (1) The presence of three million Jews living outside of Judea, but within the Roman Empire; and (2) How they would have had to disappear, for the Khazars to be the only Jews. Some reader claimed that the Khazar theory removes Jewish entitlement to the Land of Israel. That reader's definition of "Jew" is racial. That is not the Jewish definition. Judaism is race-neutral. Being Jewish is something like being a corporation, but with a soul. People enter and leave the corporation, but the corporation history and culture persist. So, too, people who convert into Judaism become part of the culture, joining the singular combination of religion and nationality that makes up a Jew. With or without these genetic findings, the historical, religious, and legal entitlement of the Jewish people to their homeland remains.
FLOTILLA BOARDING Israel's Foreign Ministry foresaw a public relations problem with boarding the flotilla on the high seas. Yes, such boarding is legal, but it is complicated to explain and it would force Israel to absorb much criticism before the explanation could be put over. Although that problem was brought up in the planning for the operation two months beforehand, the government was not ready with an explanation at the time of boarding. The point of this criticism of the Foreign Ministry, which never did prepare a brief — it was the IDF that finally did, after the fact — is to learn to fully prepare (IMRA, 6/10/10). Yes, more flotillas are coming. As a result of that negligence, the subject of boarding legality now is diverting attention, in the investigation, from more important issues, such as the Islamist preparation for ambush, the large sums of money they carried, and collusion with plans for ambush by foreign government and organizational officials.
THE WITNESS TO BOARDING WHO WAS NOT A WITNESS 
Retired U.S. Army Col. Ann Wright is on a speaking tour in the U.S. for a radical, pacifist feminist group, Code Pink. She claims to have witnessed the IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara and the commando murder of nine 'innocent civilians." Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA, interviewed Col. Wright. She admitted not being on that ship, but on another one, 150 yards away. [That is equivalent to four Manhattan streets. At that distance, even in my youth I could not see who is doing what to whom.[ She also admitted that it still was dark out, when the raid commenced. She also had not seen videos of passengers preparing weapons in anticipation of combat (IMRA, 6/10/10). Since anti-Zionism is a psychosis, the afflicted react to news irrationally. They believe anything against Israel and nothing for Israel. They do not think or check. They readily call dissenters liars. Their psychosis and ideology do not leave room to understand that totalitarian movements, whether Nazi, Communist, or Islam-fascist, lie. Col. Wright's prejudice makes for a strange pacifism. All the violent Arab expression and aggression, no criticism for. Rockets fired every week into Israel at civilians, no criticism for. That photo shows a brutality by Muslim protestors that should disgust pacifists. One supposes fairly reliably that those protestors heard premature and prejudiced reports, and act out their passion.
OBAMA CHIDED FOR DOUBLING U.S. AID TO P.A. The $400 million increase in U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) would raise it to $1.3 billion, double the amount during the Bush administration. This donation to the "unreconstructed, anti-peace, Fatah-controlled" government would be tantamount to rewarding it for refusing direct negotiations with Israel and not meeting its obligations under the peace agreements. Only a few days ago, Fatah terrorists tried to infiltrate into Israel, bent on murder. They slew more than 600 Israelis, in the past decade. Their Fatah charter authorizes terrorism and its use in destroying Israel. My source appends a list of instances in which the P.A. promotes bigotry and terrorism and refuses to recognize the Jewish state as such. That is to say, the P.A. will not make genuine, lasting peace. Here is a citation that thoroughly contradicts the U.S. claim that the P.A. wants peace: "Najat Abu-Bakr, Fatah MP in PA legislature: Confirmed that Fatah's goal remains the destruction of Israel, but that their political plan is to focus on the West Bank and Gaza Strip: "It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [all of Israel] ... but our current political program is to say that we want the 1967 borders." (PA TV, Aug. 25 2008, 'Najat Abu Bakr Ribat 1948,' Palestinian Media Watch, July 12, 2009]. "...President Obama said in this press conference, as he has said on a few other occasions, that the Palestinians must deal with incitement, but at no point has he made an ending of Palestinian incitement a precondition for further U.S. aid to the PA, as it should be." Indeed, Obama protects the P.A. heads from exposure as spreaders of bigotry and terrorism. Obama says he is holding both sides accountable. By lavishing additional taxpayer funds on terrorists? (6/10/10 press release of Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York, where I am a member). My financial adviser observed that the U.S. is not as badly off financially as Greece. I replied that every week of additional Presidential and Congressional profligacy brings us closer to Obama's European model.
IS TURKEY LOST TO WEST AND BY WHOM? Here are four theories about what happened to Turkey: 1. The EU did not admit Turkey, so Turkey turned east. 2. The Ataturk Revolution was working, but one cannot modernize Islam. 3. Demographic changes favored the Anatolian sector. 4. Turkey's electoral rules gave the minority Islamist party a much higher proportion of the parliament than of the votes. Secularists won close to two-thirds of the votes, but had split into a number of parties each too small to get parliamentary seats. Daniel Pipes, who posts theory No. 4, thinks that Anatolia has its secularists, so theory No. 3 does not hold. He says that if his theory is correct, Turkey may yet rejoin the West (June 10, 2010 National Review Online and Daniel Pipes). I think that all four theories have some truth to them. The EU was not tactful. The questions are which theory will have the most effect, will Turkey still have enough democracy for the opposition to rally, and can the democratic opposition unite to regain representative parliamentary seating. Some readers do not understand that a person should not be judged by race, nationality, or religion, but by how he or she behaves toward other people. If you have a different opinion about the theories in this article, let''s see it. I do not expect everyone to agree with me but to disagree civilly. The name-calling in which some readers indulge is not proper debate, not permissible journalism, and it, along with venting opinions irrelevant to the article is not freedom of speech but an abuse of the opportunity for readers to discuss the issues. Hence I delete those. If a reader cannot discuss the issue, just call names, he is not contributing to any exchange of information or views, but obstructing it. The constant name-calling by anti-Zionists ("genocide," "apartheid," "racist," "Zio-Nazi," etc., makes an unfavorable impression of the mentality of anti-Zionists. It also shows lack of knowledge of the subject and an imperviousness to gaining new knowledge lest it contradict their existing prejudice.
POLL OF ISRAELI JEWS ON FLOTILLA AND TURKEY The new, Center-Right Israeli daily, Israel Hayom, commissioned a telephone poll by Wave Research of adult Israeli Jews. Findings, not including undecided, were: 92% approved of stopping the flotilla; 91% approve of stopping the next flotilla; 73% would continue the blockade of Gaza; 78% believe Turkey has become an enemy; 45% approve of Netanyahu's performance, 44% disapprove; 35% approve of Defense Min. Barak's performance, 53% disapprove (IMRA, 6/10/10).
MAJOR MIDEAST MISCONCEPTION 18. BETTER TO TALK THAN TO FIGHT The notion, that "It is better to talk than to fight" sounds more sensible than it is. The notion is based on assumptions that are not always valid. Yes, if an international problem can be resolved by diplomacy, it is better to do it that way than to resolve it by war. Unnecessary wars should be avoided. What about necessary wars, such as the defense against the aggressor of WWII? There was diplomacy. That diplomacy was used by Germany to peel away France's allies before the warfare, and by Japan to lull the U.S. into a sense of complacency. It would have been better for the Allies to have declared war while Czechoslovakia still had its superb military, than to have negotiated away some of what the fanatical Nazi aggressors wanted to facilitate further territorial acquisitions. These days, the fanatical aggressors are radical Muslims. They do not resolve problems by diplomacy, because they are the problem. They want conquest. Ours. They do not have real grievances. One cannot talk them out of aggression and cannot compromise with them. Iran, like Iraq and N. Korea, has used diplomacy to stave off action against it, until it may be too late. The Palestinian Arabs were offered about 97% of the disputed Territories and Syria was offered the Golan. Offers rejected. By waiting for more futile negotiations over territory, Israel encourages the terrorists continue to murder and Israel fails to seek solutions in its own interests. The UN is cited as a place in which governments may talk rather than fight. The UN talks or even refuses to talk while others fight and die. Some examples: Sudan, Arab aggression against Israel, and sub-Sahara Africa. The UN often is an excuse for inaction. Genocide continues, while countries hide behind the struggle to organize collective security.
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 IS WINNING NOT LOSING THE WAR
Posted by Boris Celser, June 11, 2010. |
|
This was written by Robert Weissberg
and it appeared in Family Security Matters (FSM)
Robert Weissberg is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has written many books, the most recent being Bad Students, Not Bad Schools: How both the Right and the Left have American education wrong. Besides writing for professional journals, he has also written for magazines like the Weekly Standard and currently contributes to various blogs. |
|
It's been a little over a week since Israeli commando stormed the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, that attempted to break the blockade of Gaza. World reaction has followed a now predictable formula: government leaders denouncing Israel for its "lawlessness disproportionate use of force," daily street demonstrations erupt in Muslim nations and, of course, "activists" call for an "impartial" UN investigation. Though the commando operation was a clear military success — the ship was intercepted and nine "militants" were killed with no Israeli loss of life, the emerging verdict seems to be that this was actually a defeat. A Wall Street Journal (June 3, 2010) headline summed it up:"Israel's Isolation Deepens." In other words, Israel may have won a skirmish but this is yet another step in losing the larger war. This unwelcome interpretation may be gaining traction, but it is profoundly wrong. Israel is winning the war but victory is hardly self-evident. In a nutshell, the definition of "victory" has almost invisibly sifted in recent decades so what was once a "victory" now may be "defeat" and vice versa. The culprit in this linguistic transformation is how the mass media, skillfully abetted by chronic losers, now substitutes political image — PR — for tangible outcomes. While victory was once measured by enemy casualties and territory captured, in today's upside down, if not Orwellian, vocabulary, "victory" goes to those most skilled at fabricating political reality. What kind of war is it when one side exaggerates its casualties and happily provides guided tours to demonstrate the enemy's military prowess? Some background, and while we'll discuss Middle East politics, our analysis applies generally. The war against Israel has gone through varied stages and Israel has won each one, usually decisively. There were traditional military campaigns (particularly 1948, 1967, 1973, and 2006), paralleled by state-sanctioned economic boycotts (off and on since 1948), which were then followed by intifada terrorism within Israel itself (1987-93, 2000-05). Now, after sixty years, Israel is stronger both militarily and economically; its Arab enemies are even weaker, so what's next in the "resistance" repertory? The answer, as is plain to see: mount a political assault as if lobbying for Security Council will accomplish what Arab armies, homemade rockets or suicide bombers failed to achieve. "Going political" is typically a sign of weakness, a strategy that appeals only after exhausting all other alternatives. Most obviously, political engagement is simple and comes with an almost zero entry fee. Politics is also dishonesty friendly while inconvenient facts are readily disguised with rhetorical trickery. For a dictator worried over local unrest, compare the burden of promoting a modern, job-creating economy versus mobilizing thousand to demand death to Uncle Sam. The former requires years of painful effort, transparency, delayed gratification and risks failure; political actions, however, no matter how grandiose the aim requires only minimal organizational and intellectual talent and can be infused with lies. And who can resist the therapeutic fun of burning Uncle Sam in effigy? Political gesturing is perfect for nations going nowhere economically. This combat is also relatively uncomplicated to orchestrate versus winning a shooting war. No need to worry about positioning thousands of troops and their supplies, or devising a sound strategy let alone incurring horrific casualties. Real wars also risk national humiliation. Winning the battle of public opinion, as certified by today's mass media, typically entails only making sure about a dozen civilians are "mistakenly" killed with cameras rolling to record the dead bodies, the wailing relatives plus some bogus official explanation that the target lacked any military value. Even if nobody died, an adroit video editor can compile a montage of stock combat footage that conclusively demonstrates the enemy's barbarism and by the time the crude fakery is exposed, even more "horrific" footage is on the way. In this media-centered war, brilliant strategists are those able to stage war-like events, dishonest film editors and PR specialist with cozy contacts among sympathetic Western media outlets like the BBC. Thanks to technology, Photoshop can out-perform laser guided munitions to inflict damage on one's foes. The high ground to be captured is the 6:00PM news. Actually, if a prize were awarded for those who embrace image-as-reality politics while avoiding personal risk, academics would retire the trophy. As an academic lifer I know of what I speak. Getting elected to the proclamation-issuing faculty Senate is a snap since few seek this obligation while the Senate typically meets only once a month. It is a perfect setting for sedentary but vocal activists. Now, together with a few fellow schemers, one can effortlessly "show solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian People" by passing endless wacky anti-Israeli resolution, all before dinner. If that fails to demonize the enemy, create an ad hoc committee of "concerned professors" and circulate a petition to boycott Haifa oranges and ban visiting Israeli professors since they work for an apartheid regime. Who said war is hell? Not so for professors, so it's no wonder they are so politically engaged. The lure of politics is extraordinarily seductive for nations like Syria who know from hard experience that its dilapidated military is helpless against Israel. After all, a modern army demands arduous training, mastering technical skills and perhaps most distressing, promoting soldiers according to merit not family connections. It is no wonder then, that these nations "fight" their "wars" by summoning the US ambassador to explain that "Jewish intransigence" is an insurmountable roadblock to a lasting comprehensive Middle East peace. And to drive this point home, they stage a boisterous rally with the usual burning of US flags and "homemade" signs in English to greet the anxious-to-please Ambassador. Street demonstrations easily outshine learning to fly a Mig 29. These theatrical "attacks" can soon become a drug-like addiction. So, when an Israeli Apache helicopter with great skill and concern for collateral civilian life destroys a Hamas bomb factory, round up the usual enraged marchers, shoot the AK-47s into the air (and kill bystanders), issue blistering diplomatic communiqués and demand an emergency UN Security Council session. Again, such histrionics are far more enticing than, say, converting the bomb factory to produce plowshares (recall how when Israeli settlers departed Gaza they left behind fully functioning high-tech greenhouses which were promptly vandalized). And, to continue the addiction parallel, the urge to "do something" soon becomes a manic search for a daily fix, a dysfunctional behavior akin to an alcoholic polishing off little bottles of vanilla extract to sustain the buzz. Now even the most reasonable Israeli act of self-defense becomes a provocation so ending hostilities becomes psychologically impossible. Here's the bottom line for those increasingly despondent by an apparent irreversible tide of anti-Israeli outrage: take heart, revving up the publicity machine confirms that traditional, and far deadlier, options have been abandoned. Though it may not appear so, the enemies have surrendered. In the final analysis, all the raving and ranting, whether from Turkish Prime Ministers or left-loony Professors of Oppression Studies, are nuisances compared to what previously transpired. Arab armies once killed thousands of Jews though they lost the war. Today, these same enemies annoy millions with their duplicitous political machinations and given a choice, I'll take the latter — having one's blood boil is better than having it spilled. Moreover, with time and repeated failure, these largely harmless but seriously annoying political tactics will become even more aggravating. What's next — a boatload of crippled children and senile old folk trying to run the blockade? The dynamic is simple: futility generates exasperation and among the weak, this breeds escalating hysteria. So, next time you witness the Arab street going wild on the BBC demanding that Israel be punished for terrorism, don't fret. This is a sign of weakness, a tacit admission that wars, boycotts, and suicide attacks have failed. To update a familiar adage, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but cockeyed special reports from the UN Council on Human Rights can never harm me." Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
MEMRI: STRUGGLE AND JIHAD IN STATEMENTS BY ISLAMIST IN GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 10, 2010. |
|
This is a MEMRI Special Dispatch|3004| June 7, 2010, Palestinians/Jihad & Terrorism Threat Monitor |
|
The following are further excerpts from reports in the Arab press about the participants in the Gaza Flotilla, and statements by participants and their acquaintances.
Translation is by
the Middle East Media Research Institute
(MEMRI), an independent, non-profit organization that translates and
analyzes the media of the Middle East.
Contact them at P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837 or by
phone at (202) 955-9070.
"Arab Media Reports on Flotilla Participants: Writing Wills, Preparing for Martyrdom, Determined to Reach Gaza or Die," June 1, 2010,
To view the MEMRI page for Flotilla, visit
To view the MEMRI TV page for Flotilla, visit
To view the MEMRI Guide to the Middle East's page about the
Flotilla, visit
Report on Hamas Website: 'Abdallah 'Azzam's Son-in-Law and Grandson Participated in the Flotilla The website www.albian.ps, which is affiliated with Hamas, reports that among the flotilla participants were 19-year-old Muhammad, grandson of 'Abdallah 'Azzam (a global jihad activist killed in Afghanistan in 1989), and his father 'Abdallah Anas (husband of 'Abdallah 'Azzam's daughter Sumayya). The report states that Sumayya, who left Afghanistan a few years after her father's death and settled in Britain, had asked the flotilla organizers to include another son of hers, 17-year-old Ahmad, in the next flotilla even before discovering how her relatives had fared in this one. The website quotes her as saying: "If [my son] Muhammad has been martyred [on board the ship], [I] praise Allah, if he has been wounded, [I] praise Allah, and if he and his father are alive and well, [I] praise Allah." The website also stated that Sumayya was willing "to sacrifice herself and her five sons — Muhammad, Ahmad, Salam (11), 'Omar (10) and 'Azzam (1) — as martyrs for the sake of Allah." She explained that her father had instructed her and her siblings "to raise their children by the light of the Islamic faith, [upon principles of] steadfastness, and upon the sound of [bomber] planes, so they would serve Islam and the [Palestinian] cause."[1] 'Abdallah 'Azzam Flotilla Participants: The Turks Captured Three Soldiers; We Agreed in Advance to Prevent a Takeover Flotilla participants reported that Turkish activists had attacked several of the soldiers who boarded the ship and tried to take them hostage. Turkish delegation head Bülent Yildirim said: "The Turks captured several of the Zionist soldiers after beating them vigorously."[2] Similar accounts appeared in the Turkish daily Hurriyet. Members of the Kuwaiti delegation also told of the Turks' assault on the soldiers. Salah Al-Jarallah said: "[The Turks] beat the three commando soldiers vigorously with clubs, and the Israeli forces responded by sending in troops who shot bursts of [live] fire at the Turks and killed them."[3] Flotilla participant Sinan Al-Ahmad likewise reported upon her return to Kuwait that "at the beginning of the attack, the Turks attacked three Israeli soldiers and beat them."[4]Kuwaiti parliament member Walid Al-Tabtabai, who was on board the ship, told the Kuwaiti channel Al-Rai TV: "There were violent clashes between the activists and the army, and our friends managed to capture three Israeli soldiers. One of the Turks grabbed a soldier and brought him to us, saying: 'Here is a new [Gilad] Shalit." Al-Tabtabai noted that "the Turks had no weapons but used pipes and sticks they found on the ship." In answer to a question about whether the activists "had made any preparations before the arrival of the soldiers," he replied: "We agreed not to let them take the ship... We agreed to fend off any Israeli soldier who came near. Our goal was to prevent a takeover." Al-Tabtabai also reported that Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, was "the star of the trip and gave rousing speeches." Asked whether he would participate in another Gaza flotilla, Al-Tababai said: "If I have to, I will not hesitate. When they asked me, I agreed in principle."[5] Turkish flotilla participant Mahir Tan took photos of the captive Israeli soldiers that were published June 6, 2010 in the Turkish daily Hurriyet, and also described their capture in an interview with the paper.Friends and Relatives of Turkish Activists Who Were Killed: They Wanted to Become Martyrs. In interviews with the Turkish press, friends and relatives of some of the activists who were killed said that they had expressed a wish to become martyrs. Yusuf Bilgen, son of activist Ibrahim Bilgen who was killed, said that his father had always wanted to become a shahid and that he was proud of him for being one.[6] The wife of Ali Haydar Bengi told the Turkish paper Al-Watan that he had always beseeched Allah to grant him martyrdom.[7] His friend Sabir Ceylan told the Milliyet daily: "Before setting out on this journey he told us he wanted to become a martyr. He wanted very much to die as a martyr."[8] Mehmet Faruk Cevher, a friend of Ali Ekber Yaratilmis, head of the IHH in the city of Iskenderun, likewise told the paper Sabah that his friend "had always wanted to be a martyr."[9] At a solidarity rally in Aqaba, the former general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, Salem Al-Falahat, recounted that Turkish delegation head Bülent Yildirim had told the Turks on the ship: "Smile. Those of you who die will become shahids." He had also said: "Either we [act] like the men [who fought in the battles] of Badr and Uhud,[10] or we [act] like the men of Al-Hudaibiyya [who accepted humiliating terms of surrender[11]]."[12] Members of the Jordanian Delegation: We Hoped to Return in Shrouds During the reception in Amman for the Jordanian delegation, the head of the delegation Wael Al-Saka, said: "We had hoped to return to you in shrouds, like our Turkish brothers who gave their lives." He called the latter "Turkish shahids who demonstrated the noblest form of jihad and resistance."[13] Jordanian delegation member Raed Al-Bustanji said: "The Turks kept us away from the dangerous areas. They took the lead and [spearheaded] the resistance against the Zionist soldiers, using the simplest means... We hoped to return in shrouds and to give our lives for the sake of Allah." He referred to the Jews as "the brothers of snakes and the descendents of apes and pigs."[14] Kuwaiti Delegation Members: We Wrote Our Wills Members of the Kuwaiti delegation, including MP Al-Tabtabai,[15] said that they wrote wills before setting out with the flotilla. In an Al-Rai TV interview with 11 delegation members, Salah Jarallah said: "[Before setting out] I made a verbal will and wrote out its [main] points. All the delegation members agreed that it was necessary to write a will before setting out."[16] Attorney Mubarak Al-Mutawa' said: "I wrote a will and purchased a one-way plane ticket because [I knew that] all options existed. It was not just me. The Turks did the same before us."[17] 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kharraz said: "I wrote my will before joining the flotilla... We reminded each other of the [principle] of self-sacrifice. That was our approach [even] before we boarded the ship: victory or self-sacrifice."[18] Raed Salah: When the Activists Learned About the Fatalities, One of the Turks Handed Out Sweets In an interview with the Iqra TV channel, Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, recounted that when the wife of one of the activists heard of the death of her husband, she said: "I will not cry over him. I regard him as a martyr for the sake of Palestine." Also, when the activists on the ship learned that there were many fatalities, one of the Turks said to Sheikh Salah: "Congratulations, my Sheikh! Blessings to those who gave up their souls for the sake of Allah." Salah also reported that, at this point, "one of the Turks began to hand out sweets, namely raisins, to [the other activists]."[19] Egyptian MP from Muslim Brotherhood Bloc: The Journey of the Freedom Flotilla Was a Journey of Jihad Deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the Egyptian parliament Muhammad Al-Baltaji, a flotilla participant, told the Muslim Brotherhood website upon his return: "Everybody was ready for anything that might happen, because all the options were open and we did not rule anything out, especially since the basic goal of the participants was to reach Gaza or else die for the sake of Allah... For all the participants, who came from 40 different countries, the journey was a journey of faith or jihad, call it what you will..." Muhammad Al-Baltaji Asked whether he would join future flotillas, Al-Baltaji said: "Without a doubt. Moreover, I'm sure that all those who participated in the flotilla will repeat the experience, because our goal of reaching Gaza was not achieved... I am sure that in the coming days we will see flotilla upon flotilla... even if the participants have to sacrifice their lives, for this is a religious obligation and duty..."[20] Flotilla Participants: Foreign Activists Converted to Islam En Route to Gaza and Cried "There Is No God but Allah" Flotilla participants reported that some of the foreign activists on board converted to Islam during the trip. In an interview with Iqra TV, Sheikh Raed Salah said that he had befriended several non-Arab activists from Europe and the U.S., and that some activists had converted to Islam after befriending their Muslim fellows. He said that one had approached him in tears, saying, "I converted to Islam when I witnessed your brave Muslim conduct."[21] Numerous newspapers and websites reported that British activist Peter Venner (63) had converted while aboard the Mavi Marmara, after boarding the ship in Antalya. Venner was said to have many Muslim friends in England whom he occasionally accompanied to Friday prayers at mosque. It was also said that Venner had visited the Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul, where he resolved to convert to Islam.[22] The Hamas website cited Turkish activist Ayub Gukhan as saying that "some of the foreign non-Muslim activists resisted [the Israeli soldiers] and shouted 'there is no God but Allah' after witnessing the Zionists' attack and the activists' resistance [against it]."[23] Hamas Member: Those Killed Will Celebrate Their Marriage to the Virgins of Paradise In article in the Hamas bi-weekly Al-Risala, Palestinian Legislative Council Member from Hamas Dr. Salam Salama wrote: "The pure Muslim Turkish Ottoman blood mixed with the Palestinian soil when the shahids and the wounded arrived in our holy, occupied land [after] the savage, barbaric, rapacious Nazi attack on the blockade-breaking flotilla... The Jews, those 21st-century Nazis, did not realize that they were putting the train back on the tracks from which it had been derailed when the Zionists stole Palestine in 1948. "Behold, the pure Islamic blood mixed once again with the soil of Al-Israa wal Mi'raj [Muhammad's ascent to heaven from Jerusalem], in a communal wedding [a reference to martyrdom], an unprecedented international festival, so that 20 grooms could celebrate their marriage to the black-eyed [virgins of Paradise] last Monday, [May 31, 2010]... These valiant shahids who left their homes and families and came to help their enfeebled brothers in the blessed and holy land knew that the sons of Zion would try to stop them [from reaching Gaza]. But they were determined to proceed even if it meant giving their lives. This spirit of self-sacrifice and enthusiasm was a clear expression of their love for the holy land and its inhabitants."[24] Turkish Islamist Leader Fethullah Gülen: The Activists Should Have Obtained Israel's Permission Fethullah Gülen, the most influential Turkish religious leader, who resides in the U.S., criticized the flotilla for operating without Israel's consent. In his first-ever interview with a U.S. news channel, he said that by refusing to obtain Israel's permission for their activity, the flotilla participants had "defied authority," which would not lead to any positive outcome. Mr. Gülen recounted that when a charity organization linked with his movement wanted to help the Gazans, he insisted that they coordinate with Israel. He added that the task of assigning blame in the affair was best left to the United Nations.[25] Footnotes [1] www.albian.ps, June 3, 2010. [2] www.palestine-info.info, June 3, 2010. [3] Al-Rai (Kuwait), June 3, 2010. [4] Al-Rai (Kuwait), June 3, 2010. [5] Al-Rai (Kuwait), June 3, 2010. [6] www.haberler.com, June 6, 2010. [7] Al-Watan (Turkey), June 1, 2010. [8] Milliyet (Turkey), June 2, 2010. [9] Sabah (Turkey), June 2, 2010. Ali Ekber Yaratilmis was initially thought to be among those killed, but has since been discovered to be alive. [10] In the Battle of Badr (624 A.D.), the Prophet Muhammad's men defeated the Meccans, who outnumbered them three to one. The Battle of Uhud (625 A.D.) is frequently mentioned in connection with martyrdom, because it is associated with the Koranic verse: "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord (Koran 3:169)." [11] In the Hudaibiyya Treaty (628 A.D.), the Prophet Muhammad accepted humiliating terms dictated by his Meccan enemies, because he realized that his military power was inferior to theirs and that he could not defeat them at that time. [12] www.albosata.com, June 5, 2010. [13] Al-Dustour (Jordan), June 3, 2010. [14] www.albosata.com, June 5, 2010. [15] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 3002, "Eyewitness Reports about the
Flotilla Clash: There Was Resistance and Israeli Soldiers Were Captured; IHH
Official: Our Goal Was to Reach Gaza or Die Trying," June 6, 2010,
[16] Al-Rai (Kuwait), June 5, 2010. [17] Al-Rai (Kuwait), June 5, 2010. [18] Al-Rai (Kuwait), June 5, 2010. [19] Iqra (Saudi Arabia), June 4, 2010. [20] www.ikhwanonline.com, June 3, 2010. [21] Iqra (Saudi Arabia), June 4, 2010. [22] Kul Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 31, 2010. Al-Wiam (Saudi Arabia), June 3, 2010. [23] www.palestine-info.info, June 3, 2010. [24] Al-Risala (Gaza), June 6, 2010. [25] Wall Street Journal (U.S.), June 4, 2010. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
ISLAMISTS/WESTERN INTELLIGENTSIA INVERT
REALITY; OBAMA GIVES $400M T0 PA; ABBAS LIED TO OBAMA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 10, 2010. |
|
ISLAMISTS AND WESTERN INTELLIGENTSIA INVERT REALITY Orwell Prize-winning Daily Mail journalist Melanie Philips told the Middle East Forum, today, that the Western intelligentsia has adopted the Islamist story about the Mideast. The Islamists turn reality and logic upside down, to advance their agenda. It attacks Israel, but calls Israel's self-defense aggression. The intelligentsia reacts ideologically, rather than rationally and empirically on Israel, the Iraq War, global warming [and the economy]. The intelligentsia is secular, but reacts religiously, in claiming to trod the path to perfection. Mainstream Islam defines freedom and equality as submission to God [i.e., to its interpretation of divine requirements]. Islam claims it monopolizes absolute truth and the "path to perfection." It believes it must supersede Judaism. Hence it has an underlying hostility to Jews and therefore to the Jewish state. Some secularist ideologies also are hostile to Jews and Israel, because of the ideologies' underlying principles, regardless of what Jews do. [Ideology distorts what Israel does, and interprets it as bad.] Ms. Phillips said "that objective truth has been replaced by subjective opinion, and that we live in an age of 'cultural totalitarianism,' where the decline of reason in the West is allowing Islam to fill the vacuum." What about moderate Muslim leaders? She said there are none of
significance. Many Muslims who would prefer quiet lives, but their
leaders betray them into jihad, which Western politicians try to
appease (6/10/10).
TURKEY JOINS IRAN IN LEADING ARABS AGAINST U.S. 
Turkey has returned to the "East." It aspires again to lead Islam, starting by joining with Iran to lead the Arabs against the U.S.. Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan has become most popular among the Arabs by grandstanding against Israel about the flotilla. Examples: "The heart of humanity has taken one of her heaviest wounds in history." "Bloody massacre." "spilling the blood of innocent humans." "in the history of humanity this has been recorded as a major shame." "a despicably cowardly and vicious act." "Turkey, unlike Israel, bellowed Erdogan, is not an 'adolescent, rootless state.'" "As precious as Turkey's partnership is, so harsh will be her hostility." "Today is a turning point in history. Nothing will ever be the same again." Turkey's Foreign Minister Davutoglu called the Israeli raid "murder," but N. Korea's sinking of a S. Korean ship only of "great concern." Although Erdogan claims the government inspected the ship, only the Turkish ship resisted boarding, and it had Islamists possessing "clubs, wrist rockets that fire deadly projectiles, switchblades and military-style night vision equipment." By contrast with Erdogan's warmongering, Davutoglu urged the West to drop sanctions against Iran. Turkey probably is emboldened by the lack of U.S. leadership and its bias when it does lead. By pressuring only the Israeli side of the Arab-Israel conflict, Obama encourages hostile demagogues to pile on Israel. Obama let a nuclear resolution single out Israel, which is not violating any nuclear rules, and omit Iran, which is. Considering Hamas' subservience to Iran, ending the sea blockade of Gaza would give Iran a port in the Mediterranean. Can't America see the harm in that? (IMRA, 6/8/10). As more dangerous weapons proliferate, and as the planet's resources dwindle, these power politics become more counter-productive. How do we curb primitive, anti-social attitudes in this technological age?
TURKISH PREPARATION FOR FLOTILLA COMBAT The Intelligence and terrorism Information Center reported interviews with passengers and the captain of the Turkish ship in the flotilla, data found in computers there, and items collected. Turkey's strategy was to boost PM Erdogan's prestige and its tactic was violence, so as to lower Israel's prestige. IHH maintains close contacts with Erdogan, who expressed intent to exploit the flotilla to boost his prestige Turkey and the whole Muslim world. "Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, P.M. Erdogan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs." He succeeded in becoming the leader of the Islamic world. He hopes to capitalize on more flotillas. Ordinary passengers were x-rayed and boarded at Antalya. But the ship first set sail from Istanbul, with 40 IHH members and equipment exempt from any security check. When boarding, the IHH men were given walkie-talkies. The captain said that the crew confiscated some saws they realized were to dismember ship railings to fashion into weapons. The IHH arrogated to themselves the upper landing, set up a situation room for communications, posted guards in the passageways, and restricted movement of the crew. Two hours before the confrontation, the IHH operatives were briefed by the head of the organization, who commanded them. They were told to bar boarders if possible, else throw them into the sea. IHH operatives and others donned up to 100 ceramic vests and 200 gas masks. From equipment on board, they had obtained or fashioned weapons: knives, axes, metal cables, metal pipes used as clubs, wrenches, slingshots, and box cutters. They sent below deck all passengers who would not join them in combat. They spread metal screw nuts on deck, to inhibit commando movement. Many passengers carried tens of thousands of Euros each. They claimed it was for their own use. The Intelligence Center believes it was for distribution to Hamas. A journalist on board said that he had visited Gaza before, and saw no distress or lack of commodities, just propaganda (IMRA, 6/8/10). Added to previous information, this intelligence makes clear that the Israelis were ambushed, had to kill in self-defense, and the slain were not innocents.
FLOTILLA POLL A Rasmussen poll of Americans found that by 5:2, people here believe that Palestinian Arab activists were responsible for the Israeli raid's outcome (IMRA, 6/8/10). I think this means that the American people have healthier instincts and less biased media.
HARD CURRENCY BACK IN GAZA For some time, banks and ATM machines in Gaza had a lack of hard currency. They no longer lack it. This may reflect a relaxation of the embargo (IMRA, 6/8/10) or a greater smuggling in of cash.
AHMADINEJAD TRASHES UN SANCTIONS, U.S., RUSSIA, ISRAEL COMMENT U.S. President Obama said the sanctions send an "unmistakable message" that the world will not let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Iran's President Ahmadinejad said that the new UN sanctions against Iran should be thrown into the garbage. He said it would not deter Iran's nuclear program. Israeli P.M. Netanyahu said that the world's greatest problem is irresponsible governments getting the most dangerous weapons. His ambassador to the UN, Michael Oren, said that individual countries may use the sanctions as a basis for additional sanctions. Russia indicated that it would not now sell to Iran the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. Earlier it had stated that the imminent sanctions would not inhibit the sale. The sanctions' final draft do not ban the S-300. Russia noted that the sanctions do not prevent negotiation (IMRA, 6/10/10). Russia has zig-zagged on that issue, just as it did on nuclear factories it was building for Iran, almost operational now.
BRAZIL, TURKEY, AND U.S. COMMENT ON SANCTIONS Diplomats from Brazil and Turkey, which had negotiated a partial foreign enrichment deal with Iran, contended that the sanctions derail diplomacy. The U.S. had demanded tougher sanctions, but Russia and China refused to let them affect daily life in Iran (Neil MacFarquhar, NY Times, 6/10/10, A4). Some people, obviously those Brazilians and Turks, but I think also Obama, are content to let diplomacy run on so long as to prevent effective action from coming In time to work. The ostensible purpose of sanctions to declare negotiations as futile, and go to the next step. Were our President a wise representative of the American national interest, he would have understood that diplomacy cannot work without being backed up by a will to impose stiff sanctions and military measures, so that that diplomacy alone, might work. Even then, one has to be dubious about diplomacy working with fanatics and expect Iran to test how resolute the UN would be. Obama failed that test, having let much time pass as Iran disseminated undiplomatic sneers by Iran and escalated violations. He also knew that Russia and China would pass barely enough sanctions to pretend to be enforcing the UN resolutions but not enough to actually enforce it. Obama's is not the only U.S. regime to make the further mistake of imposing sanctions gradually. Gradual sanctions mean they start too weak to work, and encourage evasion or adaptation by the targeted country. The weaker they start, the less credibility they possess.
U.S. AND EU ON TURKEY U.S. Defense Secretary Gates says the EU pushed Turkey away by dragging out negotiations on Turkey's admission to the EU, imposing conditions for it, and still not accepting it. Nevertheless, he believes the theory that Turkey is just making friendly relations with neighboring states, rather than outright becoming our enemy (Marc Champion, Peter Spiegel, Wall St. J., 6/01/10). Apparently Sec. Gates does not want to give Turkey the final push, or an excuse for claiming he did. This reminds one of how long it took for a reluctant West to acknowledge that we were in a Cold War that the Soviets had started years before. What factors should Gates consider? The ruling party in Turkey is Islamist. The people are being indoctrinated in jihad. The government made alliances, actual alliances, with Iran and Syria. The regime is imposing radical Islam on the country and dictatorship in the same gradual ways as have some South American leaders. Turkey organized the ambush of Israeli embargo enforcers in order to regain a central position among Muslims. The EU did rub Turkish feelings raw by constant conditions, which the State Dept. supported. Among the conditions was curbing the military. What a misconceived notion about democracy requiring civil control over the military, the ethno-centrist West had! In Turkey, the military was the defender of the secular republic. It wasn't perfect, but it would have prevented a turn to Islamism, if not curbed and pressured by the West. If the EU had admitted Turkey, the changing Turkish demographics and the former ruling party's corruption may well have brought the Islamists to power, anyway. An EU with a vibrant Islamist Turkey as a member would not likely survive, the EU already being precarious vis-à-vis Islam.
OBAMA INCREASING AID TO PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY President Obama met with Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas, and pledged $400 million in U.S. aid. $70 million of that is new. Obama suggests that Israel loosen the blockade, which it has been doing. He would like to eliminate the blockade, but cannot figure out how to prevent weapons from coming into Gaza without blockade (Laura Meckler, Charles Levinson, Wall St. J., 6/10/10). The prior arrangement, that Hamas overthrew, was for European supervision and Israeli monitoring. Responsibility without authority does not work. Final authority was in the hands of the P.A.. Hence terrorists were free to move about. They chased the Europeans away. Now there are proposals to have Europeans monitor shipments to Gaza. Meanwhile, Europeans in UNIFIl did nothing much to stop Hizbullah from smuggling in weapons. In past years, UNIFIL used to collude somewhat with terrorist raiders. Actually, it is not clear how much of the proposed subsidy is new. The total seems to be past $1 billion for a regime that still glorifies terrorism and pledges war rather than eradicating terrorism and making peace. It is hard enough to give money to benign foreign countries, but wrongheaded to give it to supporters of jihad, from which we are suffering, too. At the same time, this President, who says we must double our exports, blocks free trade agreements with S. Korea and Columbia, that would increase our exports more than imports. Total U.S. aid to Arab regimes is passing that of aid to Israel. Some people object to aid to Israel on the grounds that it sacrifices the U.S. economy. Where is their purported patriotism when it comes to subsidy of the Arabs, at least as much if not more? In objecting to U.S. aid to Israel, people misunderstand the reasons for it, some mercenary, some out of obligation after having armed Israel's enemies. They also exaggerate its importance to Israel. They think Israel dependent on it. Last I checked, the aid was $3 billion out of a budget of $80 billion. No dependency there. I previously explained that the aid harms Israel. On the other hand, the P.A. is totally dependent on foreign aid and Jordan would be insolvent without it. For perspective, Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke said that the U.S. should plan gradually to reduce the deficit, but not in ways that might crimp our economic recovery. Nevertheless, our President and his allies in Congress keep coming up with large new subsidies. We are in an economic hole, but the government keeps digging deeper. Time to re-evaluate foreign aid.
ABBAS LIED TO OBAMA At their recent meeting, Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas lied to U.S. President Obama. Abbas denied that the P.A. continues incitement against Israel, claims he is complying with requirements not to, and says he wants to live in peace with Israel. It happens that Palestinian Media Watch just documented P.A. incitement to hatred and violence against Israel and non-recognition of it. Two examples: 1. Official P.A. TV, directly under Abbas' control called for Israelis to leave their country and go to European countries. That is not living in peace with Israel. 2. In May, the P.A. named sports events after murderers of Israeli civilians. Obama has criticized the practice. Indeed, the P.A. violates the various conditions set by the U.S. for a peace partner (, 6/10/10). Just weeks ago, the U.S. government claimed to be insulted when some Israeli agency posted approval of just another of several steps housing proposals need before starting. Israel did not breach any agreement with the U.S. by doing so. Now we find the P.A. violating almost all the U.S. conditions for being a peace partner, without repercussion. We also find the head of the P.A. lying to the U.S. President. Obama says nothing. How can Obama get so angry over a non-offense by Israel, and stay so calm over deliberate offense by the Palestinian Authority? They talk about the P.A. being a democracy, despite all its repression. They justify it as P.A. officials having been elected. The officials' terms expired without new elections.
U.C. IRVINE STILL CODDLES MUSLIM STUDENTS UNION U.C. Irvine has completed an investigation of its Muslim Student Union (MSU) fundraiser of a year earlier. It found that the MSU broke university rules in its fundraising, but is taking no action against MSU. The University is leaving it to law enforcement authorities to act on the evidence that the funds went to the terrorist organization, Hamas. This is a whitewash. Terrorism is a serious problem for the U.S. We are fighting wars against it. Terrorists killing Americans on U.S. soil, too. The University should be vigilant and active when organizations on campus promote terrorism and especially when the evidence is presented to the University. Zionist Organization of America furnished it the evidence. At the campus event, MSU and its guest, M.P. George Galloway, raised funds for Viva Palestina. Viva Palestina, the furnished evidence shows, has been giving funds not only for charity but also for Hamas. As the furnished transcript shows, Galloway told Hamas officials, on Arab TV, that he is turning the money over to them. Thus the fundraiser violated federal law and university policy. At the fundraiser, four University employees were present. They should have known that fundraising was not authorized by the university, but they did not stop it. Irvine's chief campus counsel reported she was unable to determine whether the violation was" negligent, reckless or intentional," so she is passing the buck on it. The rule does not say enforcement depends on motive. She ignored the terrorist destination of the funds (6/10/10 press release of Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member).
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 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Posted by Patrick Dempsey, June 10, 2010. |
|
People should not have the immediate right to say whatever it is that they wish to say, and certainly not without bearing in mind the rights, and even the feelings of the individuals they may confront or even offend. While I do suggest that my opinion on the topic of free speech, and more definitely as it is contained within America's First Amendment is an issue, which does not necessarily meet with everyone who would defend the right of anyone to say 'whatever they want', I have to consider the effect that this has on the rights of the individual who would be adversely affected. To many, freedom of speech is regarded as a fundamental part of everyday life and that it has become almost sacrosanct in a life ruled by the pressures of strictures and the mounting poverty for a majority of the world's population. But, unlike Elie Wiesel who insists: "..I don't want to touch the First Amendment" Elie Wiesel. I most certainly do. When an individual wants to say pretty much everything that they want to say, regardless of the effect it might have on 'the other', then this does not have the best interest of the majority contained within its founding. The regard, or even the respect, for those who might well be maligned, insulted, damned or condemned, even by mere words, must be protected along with all other considerations. For me, it is a fundamental element of any compassionate society to not only protect the physical body of its people but to fully uphold the sanctity and the very feelings of all of those within that congregation. This, for me, is reason enough to defend the rights of ALL against the wishes of the few. That the few might have to suffer the consequences of such an impediment has to be weighted against the better good for the majority. Then, and when we consider that one of the most common criticisms of these restrictions, is that we cannot shield all against the words of the few, the few forgo that right for the betterment of the many. On any level, of every regard for freedom of speech, surely we must be more concerted in our efforts to ensure that we can even defend the sensibility and sensitivity of all of our citizens. That this has to be wrong, when the majority are to be offended by those demands of these few, is surely a test of our overall humanity to become restrictive of these demanded practices. Also, and whether or not that majority is Black or White or apathetic, be they Catholic or without belief, whether they are Muslim or Jew, then few should deny the right to the many to be free from wrongful insinuation, specious accusation or even damnable lies. Toward that distinctive battle for every ones individual right, nothing should override the authority of the majority. That stated, this is just not within a world's judicial law, for it is more ably contained within all moral, ethical and even Religious Principle. "..We are in danger of losing the battle for freedom of speech." Salman Rushdie. Though there is this vast perception that our right to freedom of speech might well be under attack, and both Elie Wiesel and Salman Rushdie seem to be in agreement, is only true for some. However, that any laws that are brought to bear against religious blasphemy, and that these are a problematic area for both religious and secular concerns, it must be seen that religious tolerance's for all must be extended to all and by all. There are already laws against slander and defamation, which do not cover all the intolerance's properly enough, but they are extended far enough to ensure words cannot be used to defame the individual. Though Elie Wiesel has agreed that religious defamation should not be made illegal, he does countenance on the side of caution and clearly makes the statement that: "..It all depends what you do with it." Elie Wiesel. And that is just the point. What we do with it must not impede upon what rights exist for the majority over the demands of the few. However, though Elie insists that Holocaust denial must be banned, and as I have spent much of the last 15 years competing for those terms which best represent that form of Remembrance, I can only agree with him. I would equally demand though that the world should follow what is a major concern in our research of the Holocaust, by ensuring that all due deference is given to these victims of the worst genocide ever conceived of, in all of human history. In places where the Holocaust was catastrophically delivered, in Poland, Hungary, Russia and Rumania, the pressure to ensure the memory of the Holocaust has a lasting effect on us all, which must be advanced more suredly. That certainty, which has delivered many Laws in defence of those dead who can no longer defend themselves, needs a broader acceptance from the many nations of the world who proved culpable in the worst terms of horror to affect our senses. All of this has become my passion, borrowed from stalwarts of a catastrophe, like Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal, Etty Hillesum, Primo Levi, Nechama Tec and Yehuda Bauer, who clearly acknowledge that the destroyed existence of too many has a need of all protection. Therefore, more must be allowed to speak without restriction, and for the need to protect the many who have been lost to our humanity. While most who choose to speak volumes about that loss and can state most eloquently about what has been lost, more still needs to be said. "..I feel that, having survived, I owe something to the dead. That was their obsession, to be remembered. Anyone who does not remember betrays them again." Elie Wiesel. For me, it is not just my own personal wish to remember 'The Holocaust' but, in order to write in remembrance of a terrible event, that could have been so much more lessened by intervention, protestation and prevention, my work is also accusatory in intent. It has become too easy for far too many to state that the Second World War concealed so much from public gaze, or that the engagement in war prevented even more from becoming noticed, but these are both so untrue. What the Nazi's accomplished was in full few of a civilian population that knew fully the context of what was a planned annihilation of all the Jews within Hitler's reach. The other pretext that has emerged to disguise the inactivity of so many within Europe has been that nothing could be done while the conduct of the war was being waged. Both these contentions have got to be seen as wrong, and given the commitment of the nations to destroy the infrastructure of the Reich, to debilitate further the warring capability of the Nazi 'blitzkrieg' and to blunt the racist efforts of Hitler's regim,e more could and should have been done to blunt this idealistic fallacy for Hitler's 'aryan' principle of Jewish destruction. "..When I think of them, I accept that freedom of speech in this case should be against the law." Elie Wiesel. Elie Wiesel has attained an immense credibility with regard to what inspires people, and none more so as he reflects upon his own survival from the Death Camp system. If Elie Wiesel suggests that the laws considering the freedom of speech must be annulled for those who would denounce or renounce the terms we have come to recognise as mass genocide, we should bear Elie's ideas with more than a modicum of compelling respect. As to his very articulation over the terms of this Holocaust, or as to his eloquence with regard to lecturing others upon the need for Holocaust Remembrance, none exemplifies the daily struggle which he conducts with regard to the very memory of a deceased People, his own People, better than him. What he inspires in people such as me, has much to do with what he has survived, what he has experienced and for those hard learned lessons he wishes to now impart. His battle, to come to terms with not only his own experience, with the degradation of a humanity he had come to know and for the degeneracy of a nation he was forced to come to terms with, has many of us seeking for sublimes in describing what he has to say. Don't get me wrong, Elie Wiesel might not be the infallible creature literary circles suggest, but in speaking of the very Holocaust that he experienced personally, there is no purer testimony to be gained. "..It would be very inappropriate to think of any system of ideas as something that should be protected from debate. ...This is in a way at the heart of the free-speech argument, that you should by all means protect individuals against discrimination by reason of whatever their belief system may be. But the beliefs themselves are open for debate, criticism, satire, and all kinds of disrespectful remarks." Salman Rushdie. The debate thus goes on with regard to what we must be free to state, but we all must be guided by those persons best placed to teach us what it meant to be deprived of everything, including life. For those people, who can best know what it felt like to share in the abandonment of their People and who struggle to acknowledge that there was a world wide indifference to their plight, we need to further shoulder the responsibility our forebears waived. When we associate what is to be learned from those such as Paul Celan, Anne Frank, Etty Hillesum or Ruth Elias, we thus add further to an experience we have now only recently chosen to learn from. I make the point that while we cannot 'know' the full specifications of reference that encapsulates the Holocaust term, we can know of its effects, and hopefully articulate our own concerns over its enactment and the ability for such an enactment to achieve too much. Speaking of the continuing attack upon the freedom of the individual, whether to articulate on their own concerns over attacks on their rights, or whether in connection with artistic expression or religious profession, Salman Rushdie has suggested that all:- "..is strongly under attack by religious authorities and religious armies of different sorts, and not only Islam." Salman Rushdie. In the collective literature that is known as the Holocaust we learn from the Jewish Faith that Halakha, which deals with a Jewish legal tradition, and forms the very moral basis of the Jewish being, the Jewish People are thus guided in their daily lives. The Christian world has such standards enshrined in the Bible, as does Islam in interpreting the Quoran. But here we are, divergent from a morality which not only speaks morally, but interprets morally and acts accordingly and still allows for the mass destruction of a People. The Jews of the Holocaust had been fully abandoned, while the tenets of the Bible or the Quoran should not have allowed for any expression of such contempt for human existence let alone allow for such an assault upon Gods own creation. Yet, the statistic that remains, of 6,000,000 Murdered Jews, wholly speaks volumes of an inaction that abandoned a whole People and placated all moral effrontery with platitudes, with inaction culpable in the commission of the genocide and then with the offertory of implausible excuses, sought to divest themselves of criminal responsibility. That the Jews faced such unspeakable and death dealing conditions, all created by the nominal Christian Nazi presence, not only made it difficult and virtually impossible for the Jews to appreciate the horror they were caught up in, they could do little to extricate themselves from its midst. The Jewish People of Europe were so totally caught up in the terms of a final solution that for them, to either strictly observe what Halakha meant for their earthly lives or ask the pertinent questions that might just save them, was given over to the responsibility of enlightened nations who were caught up in their own concerns. Any risk that might be encountered, in order to preserve the very life the Jews barely held a tentative line to couldn't form a question more devoted to the terms of Halakha. Today, the Jewish People still deal in terms which question their lives, but they no longer face what the Jews of Europe had faced under Hitler's yoke. That said, while the moral fibre of any community seeks to act within the constraints of religious countenance, it is the ambivalence of others which calls into question the respect one might give to this moral probity. Whilst others would seek to even deny the very existence of a People, these speak outside a God given remit that states we must 'Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself'. While words were sought to countenance action, others words were being stilled to question the resolve to destroy the very fabric of Jewish antecedence. Then, while 'der Einsatzgruppe' were rampaging through the Baltic States, and they reached Kaunas (Kovno) in Lithuania, there was a well respected Rabbi who was dealing with such fundamental concerns for Jewish existence and survival. He was now assured that any attempt at moral guidance was to become swamped by the destructive capacity of an amoral regime, by those very echelons of devastation now residing outside the very Synagogue that had brought such expression of great hope for the Jewish future. Away from old ideas of morality, and disregarding all ethically entrenched wisdom's, the Nazi terror struck a desolating blow to the Jews of these Baltic States. How then was the Jew to live, when the Nazi terror sought fully to destroy their very existence? How could the world look on as the Jewish World faded into near obsolescence. The interred of history would be moved sideways to accommodate a mass of Jewish humanity that would swell the soil of so many nations and with more than just a glut of words. "..situation of ...Jews in ...ghetto is a battle for life and death ...a halakhic obligation to fight ...Germans until they are defeated." Rabbi Ephraim Oshry. Thus stated, the world must continually struggle to ensure that the words that denied the Jews of a life fit for what civilises us all, must be allowed to stifle the call for Remembrance that is all that is now left to them. This conflicts very much with Salman Rushdie's cautiously held view that any Holocaust denial laws merely tend to create those undeserving 'free speech martyrs' and names the likes of herr irving as an example of those who should be denied any right to defame the memories of a deceased People, now afforded no right to respond. I agree with all those who suggest that deniers have 'an attention and prominence that has largely been discredited and that their views have long since lost them any credibility', but surely that must now mean that they must not be allowed to enter an arena were they can peddle their bile and infect the reason of true knowledge and truthful dialogue. But while Rushdie sought not to accept the need for making the subject of denial illegal, the topic of such censorship is an urgent need which 6,000,000 still beckon from history, that we should keep discussing it. So here we stand, those of us who seek, on behalf of those who no longer are enabled by their destruction to press their own case, to demand for the future posterity of integrity, truth and honesty an honourable place that is the only platform for our study. Who then should have the last word on this demand to offer the only things that are left to the stilled voices of The Holocaust. Only those who would speak up for the rights of the dead, only those who defend these dead from all accusation, from slur or cheapening of their name, only those who would not wish to cause hurt to the feelings of those these dead have left behind, only these should have the right to free speech in this arena. But then, there are the many whose demise has still left us a legacy of hope and expectation and for us to take up the challenge that this presents and for us 'to maintain our opinions, in a time when all ideals are being shattered, destroyed and when people are showing their worst side.' Some of us now choose to speak out against this continuum of wrongs, and for the very reason that we did not speak out enough in the past to make a difference. "..have one outstanding trait in my character ...that is my knowledge of myself. I can watch myself ..just like an outsider. ..without prejudice ..without making excuses ..watch what's good ..what's bad. ..so many things about myself ..I condemn. ..final forming of a person's character lies in his own hands. ..I don't think I shall easily bow down before ..blow's that ..come to everyone. ..It's hard ..to ..maintain our opinions ..in a time when all ideals are being shattered ..destroyed ..when people are showing their worst side." Anne Frank. Contact Patrick Dempsey by email at pd1010@hotmail.com |
|
WHITE HOUSE REJECTED ISRAELI INTEL, BLOCKED USE OF ANTI-RIOT GEAR AGAINST FLOTILLA
Posted by Chuck Brooks, June 10, 2010. |
|
This appeared as an exclusive to World Tribune. |
|
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama stopped Israel from using anti-riot gear to prevent a Turkish-sponsored flotilla from breaking the siege on the Gaza Strip. Diplomatic sources said the White House rejected Israeli intelligence assessments that the six-ship flotilla contained weapons and Islamist fighters trained to resist any boarding operation. The sources, privy to Israeli-U.S. government communications, said Obama and his leading aides pressed Israel against any act that would be deemed excessive force. "The White House demanded that Israel exercise extreme caution and restraint in any scenario," a diplomatic source said. The Obama administration demands were relayed through Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor, the sources said. They said Barak, who has sought advanced weapons from Washington, persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree that the Israel Navy would not use anti-riot equipment, including tear gas, to stop the flotilla. The sources said the Israeli intelligence community had informed the White House that the flotilla contained scores of Turks trained in weapons and hand-to-hand combat. They said the Turkish-flagged ship Marmara was believed to have contained weapons and components ordered by the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. In the end, Netanyahu approved a plan for the Israel Navy to board Marmara with commandos armed with paintball guns. The commandos were quickly overpowered by Turkish fighters until the Israeli commander ordered live fire, which killed nine passengers, eight of them Turks. Obama, whose aides were said to have been in contact with the flotilla, did not condemn the Israeli naval interception. But within hours of the bloody clash, the president withdrew his invitation to Netanyahu to come to the White House. "The last thing the president wanted was to stand next to Netanyahu as he defended this action and blasted Hamas and its supporters in the West," another source said. The sources said Barak and Netanyahu decided on the details of the interception without consulting a seven-member security Cabinet committee. Later, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, a former chief of staff, asserted that the naval operation had endangered the commandos. "The prime minister decided to settle everything with the defense minister," Ya'alon was quoted as saying. "Netanyahu shouldn't have left such fateful decisions to an irresponsible defense minister drunk with power." In wake of the clash, Obama has sought to ease tensions with Turkey. On June 2, Obama telephoned Prime Minister Recep Erdogan amid rising Islamist threats against Turkey's Christian and Jewish communities. The following day, a Roman Catholic bishop was killed by an alleged Islamist. "Obama told Erdogan 'Don't rock the boat too much. We'll take care of business,'" another diplomatic source said. "It was a very friendly message." On June 4, the administration, which reinvited Netanyahu, demanded the easing of Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip. The White House said the United States was working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to "develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza, while also increasing opportunity for the people of Gaza and preventing the importation of weapons." "The current arrangements are unsustainable and must be changed," White House spokesman Mike Hammer said. "For now, we call on all parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides to avoid any unnecessary confrontations and to ensure the safety of all involved." Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com
This appeared in World Tribune and is archived at
|
|
THE PERFIDIOUS UN — LOOK AT ITS UNHRC MEMBERS
Posted by Isi Leibler, June 10, 2010. |
|
The Gaza flotilla imbroglio has provided the UN with the pretext for a new wave of anti-Israeli incitement. The Security Council instantly summoned an emergency meeting, which merely served as an arena to slander Israel and endorse a US-modified resolution demanding an investigation of its actions. The bias of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was even more blatant. It immediately condemned Israel, and only subsequently demanded an investigative commission which, like the notorious Goldstone Report, would simply be a kangaroo court. The idealists who founded the UN and crafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would turn in their graves were they aware that the noble institution they created has been hijacked by rogue states. Today the majority of the 189 UN members consistently turn a blind eye to the abuse of human rights and outright massacres, frequently even among their own citizens. Examples abound: Russia's response to the Chechnya insurrection in which Grozny was razed to the ground leaving 700,000 corpses; China's brutal suppression of dissent in Tibet; the genocidal killing of more than a million Christians and animists by the Islamic government in Sudan; the barbaric crimes committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people. UN international initiatives have also culminated in disaster. During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the UN recalled its peacekeeping force, facilitating the brutal massacre of more than a million Tutsis. Subsequently, a UN force mandated by the Security Council provided a safe haven for the Hutu killers. This was under the watch of secretary-general Kofi Annan, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. During the cruel ethnic war in Yugoslavia, a UN battalion in July 1995 handed over 8,000 Muslim civilians to the Serbs, who promptly slaughtered them. In fact, it was only after 250,000 people had been killed that the Americans bypassed the Security Council and intervened to end the conflict.
THE MOST damning UN humbug is the ferocious hatred directed against Israel, the sole UN affiliate whose right to exist remains under threat. Efforts to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state serve to unite the Islamic world, rogue states and Third World countries. They effectively resurrected the rescinded notorious Soviet UN resolution which bracketed Zionism with racism, harnessing the entire bureaucracy of the UN to portray Israel as the primary source of the evils threatening mankind. Alas, motivated by realpolitik and a desire to curry favor, most democracies either stand on the sidelines or support such unethical conduct. It is particularly distressing that the US which, prior to the Obama administration, represented somewhat of a barrier against such perfidious behavior has muted its opposition, conforming to its new policy of "engaging" Islam. The appallingly misnamed UNHRC is the principal subcommittee driving the anti — Israel campaign, with more than 80 percent of its condemnatory resolutions directed against the Jewish state. Whereas the Bush administration boycotted the UNHRC, one of President Barack Obama's first foreign policy initiatives was to join it. Today, democracies comprise only 40% of UNHRC membership. Last month, seven additional authoritarian regimes were elected — unopposed — joining other "human rights devotees" such as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Russia. [emphasis added] The most notorious, Libya, is a dictatorship which sanctions torture and lethal amputations, executes women for violating moral codes and criminalizes homosexuality. Currently, the Libyan envoy, notorious for his anti-Semitic outbursts, is president of the UN General Assembly. Libya's flaky dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, provided a state welcome to the perpetrator of the 1988 Pan Am flight bombing over Lockerbie which killed 270 people, and behaved like a buffoon at the UN General Assembly, where he delivered an incoherent two-hour speech. The brutal Iranian regime of Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a frequent speaker at the General Assembly) withdrew its nomination for UNHRC membership in return for a backroom deal to obtain a seat on the UN's Commission on the Status of Women. To enable Iran, which probably holds the world's worst record of abuse of women, to participate in an organization purportedly advancing women's rights transforms the UN into a total farce. It also highlights the growing clout of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which allegedly brokered the deal. The venom of the UNHRC is almost exclusively directed against Israel, while the other member states get a free pass. The murder of innocents in Iran, Pakistan, Kenya, Zimbabwe, China, Nigeria or Afghanistan is ignored. Sudan, the site of the Darfur genocide, was cited in 2009 for its "progress" in human rights. After the horrific slaughter of civilians that took place when the government subdued the rebel Tamils, the UNHRC passed a resolution praising Sri Lanka. It refuses to take action against human rights abuses in Iran. The UNHRC has created a number of subcommissions exclusively for the purpose of bashing Israel. There is also an advisory committee chaired by Halima Warzazi, who shielded Saddam Hussein from UN censure after the 1988 gassing of Kurds. The deputy chair is Jean Ziegler who, following the Libyan bombing of the Pan Am airliner, recommended Gaddafi for a human-rights award. The UNHRC Durban II Conference, purportedly launched to combat racism, was transformed into an anti-Israeli hate-fest. The most recent UNHRC initiative was the notorious Goldstone Report, which brands Israel a criminal state and accuses the IDF of deliberately murdering Palestinian civilians. This is now being augmented by the "investigation" of Israeli "barbarism," "banditry," "piracy," "massacre of civilians," etc. in relation to the Gaza flotilla. The UNHRC also promotes anti-Semitism on its Web site. It currently reproduces a document accusing Israeli physicians, medical centers and rabbis of "plucking organs of dead, kidnapped and killed Palestinians" — a monstrous replay of the medieval blood libels. REGRETTABLY, DESPITE outstanding UN ambassadors like Dan Gillerman,
the government fails to take the offensive. It is scandalous that an
impending appointment of a new UN ambassador has been delayed for over
a year, allegedly because the prime minister and foreign minister
cannot agree on a candidate. In this context, we should note the
valuable contribution toward exposing the scandalous behavior of the
UN by the NGO UN Watch, headed by Hillel Neuer
The US together with European countries funds the bulk of the $20 billion plus budget. Unfortunately, despite the UN concept of human rights having become a macabre travesty, the Obama administration avoids confronting the antidemocratic bodies. It even failed to formally object to the inclusion of Libya on the UNHRC. This month it announced that it would join the UN "Alliance of Civilization," another body whose agenda is driven by Islamic nations purportedly to combat Islamophobia, but in fact to institutionalize limitations in freedom of speech. Were it not for the Obama administration's obsession to "engage" with rogue states, it would now be timely to question maintaining this sham body which primarily serves the interests of tyrannies, and consider forming a new multilateral association limited to countries that are broadly democratic and share genuine respect for human rights. Contact Isi Leibler by email at
ileibler@netvision.net.il
|
|
NOT SO DELICIOUS RESPONSE TO HELEN THOMAS
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 9, 2010. |
|
Not so delicious, because it doesn't give that smelly old bat the insults she deserves. You probably have been overwhelmed by email so you haven't read our blow-back to the Washington Post and other media-plonks. We thought our idea of linking the old bat to Christianne Amanpour and that cob-nosed viper, Hanan Ashrawi was both constructive and delicious. Here's an excerpt from our blow-back: "Helen, we put this question to you: How are you any different from that PLO-paid mouthpiece, Hanan Ashrawi? We also want to know whether you helped that woman gain entry to Foggy Bottom social circles so that she could join you in spewing lies about Jews and Israel? And what is your relationship to Christianne Amanpour? We think you women have played a role in inciting arabs to attack innocent Jewish women and children. Let's have some sun shine on the role you've all played in shaping anti-Israel propaganda and planting it in the minds of the uninformed. We believe you all have the blood of the victims of Islamic imperialism on your hands. It is our further opinion that your bigotry should be exposed and reviled without any regard for your age or your ethnicity or your pleasant relationships with past and present US administrations." Viva Israel from the SC4Z On Jun 9, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Naomi Ragen wrote: Took the words right out of our mouths!! Every blessing,
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
REVIEW OF ZERO HOUR
Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, June 9, 2010. |
|
At the DR2 Theatre
For those unfortunately unacquainted with the great comedic actor, Zero Mostel, who died in 1977 at only 62, he is best known for his portrayal of beloved comic characters such as Tevye onstage in Fiddler on the Roof, Ulysses in Ulysses in Nighttown, Pseudolus both onstage and onscreen in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, the rhinoceros in Ionesco's Rhinoceros, and, especially, thanks to frequent plays on TCM and elsewhere on late-night TV, as the schvanz-faux producer Max Bialystok in the original film version of The Producers. Blacklisted during the 1950s, his staunch testimony before the now-infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was well-publicized. Among his many encomia, he was a Tony and Obie award recipient. More than that, he was the independent comic genius who had merely to walk down the street for one to break out into grins of anticipation. Under the capable direction of actress/director Piper Laurie, and with subtle lighting mood painting by Jason Arnold, the outsize life-force of Zero Mostel, born Samuel Joel Mostel, is brought again to feisty, hilarious life by writer/performer Jim Brochu. It is a 2-hour tour de force, as Brochu peoples the stage with theatre greats, HUAC betrayers, stage performers, people just a few moons behind us, but living still in the Brobdingnagian life of Broadway. Brochu says in his bio that he "was born six miles and 30 years from the Brooklyn house where Zero was born" in 1915. Among Brochu's many acting credits and plaudits, we found most amusing the fact that due to his having appeared as a dancing raisin for a Post breakfast cereal, and as a lemon from outer space for soap product Palmolive, along with being a petulant peach for Hawaiiian Del Monte, he earned the nutritiously enviable title of "Most versatile fruit in show business." More important than his chops as victuals, however, is the artful way he looks disarmingly like the great Zero, sounds like him, and weaves a remarkably accurate picture of Mostel's episode-stuffed life into a nonstop fascination for the audience to drink in. One of his tantrums, in a rare departure from picturesque and pointed hilarity, concerns the harsh lives of the actors and artists caught in the no-win vise of HUAC's congressional inquisitions. Anent one of those who blabbered away with names of men and women who may not even have been communists at all, Jerome Robbins, Mostel quips, "Loose Lips [Robbins] was the Babe Ruth of stool pigeons." Certainly, beyond the chuckle and guffaw quotient to be had in the art studio of the great Tevye and Pseudolus, a master of "how butterflies look when they are resting," the life of this showbiz comic-kazi deftly chronicles for us the life of New York's artistic, martial, societal and proscenium pages for the decades during which he created mirth and merriment from the '20s until his regrettably premature death in 1977, during Philadelphia rehearsals for the new play The Merchant (in which Zero played a re-imagined version of Shakespeare's Shylock). Diagnosed with a mild respiratory disorder that should have spelled no danger, on September 8, 1977, Mostel complained of dizziness and lost consciousness. Attending physicians were unable to revive him. It was later decided that he had suffered an aortic aneurysm. Jim Brochu shows us the Falstaffian "Z" (to friends), before the decline into lesser billing for still-handsome pay cheques. The play doesn't go there, though. Brochu's encyclopedic biographic familiarity and embodiment of the great Zero brings the marvelous funnyman to life for two rich hours. Director Piper Laurie, herself an honored actress, sculptress and performer, masterminds a flawless show, not for a second boring or overdone. It disabused us of one of our all-time personal favorites: We always thought he got his name because his father looked at him one day and uttered the Yiddish malediction, "Vet zein ah gornischt!" (You'll be a ... nothing.) Apparently, in truth, his nickname came straight from...his agent. For the L.A. production of Zero Hour, Brochu was nominated for Best Solo Performance by the L.A. Drama Critics; ZH was also awarded 2006 Best Play by the L.A. Ovations. His caricature was installed on Sardi's storied walls in 2001, a tribute to his 40-plus years as a playwright and performer par excellence.
Contact Marion DS Dreyfus at mdsdm@rcn.com
|
|
ENCOUNTERING ISRAEL
Posted by Stephen J. Kramer, June 9, 2010. | |
|
This book is intended for: armchair travelers (even if they live in Israel); travelers who have been to Israel; and those who intend to travel to Israel. My goal is to give readers a personal feeling for contemporary Israel, while not neglecting its tumultuous past. This book covers many of Israel's wonderful sites and locales, including some unusual, less touristic ones. After reading each vignette, you'll have a feeling for the geography, history and culture of the place, as if you've been there with me. Even better, you may decide to put down this book and tour Israel yourself. When you read Steve Kramer's vignettes about sites and sights in Israel, you'll feel like you've been there yourself. Divided into three sections, Central, North, and South, Encountering Israel will give you an almost first hand experience of Israeli life and its attractions. You'll never feel closer to Israel unless you land at Ben Gurion Airport! Stephen J. Kramer grew up in the Atlantic City, NJ area and graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 1967. After several years of traveling and working across North America, Steve worked for two decades at his family's beverage distribution company in southern New Jersey. With his wife Michal and their two young sons, the family made aliyah to Israel in 1991, where they live in Alfe Menashe. Steve is the Israel correspondent for the Jewish Times of South Jersey. This is his second book about Israel. |
|
FIGHTING U.S. PRESSURE
Posted by David Isaac, June 9, 2010. |
|
In his Jerusalem Post column "Surrendering to Pressure" (April 11, 1986), Shmuel Katz wrote: "Surrender on vital issues to pressure — or the fear of pressure — has been a central feature in the behaviour of Israeli governments, from Labour to Likud. The examples could fill a bulky doctorate thesis; and each surrender has been followed by the unabashed pretence that nothing important had been sacrificed." Shmuel Katz frequently observed that Israel's leaders often showed themselves to be unworthy of the people they led, who were far more resilient in character. Unfortunately, two events last month — one large, one small — demonstrate that Israel's leadership still hasn't found its backbone. In both cases, Israel's government did the right thing at the start, only to buckle as pressure was brought to bear. The first example is Noam Chomsky. Israel quite rightly prevented this moral invertebrate from entering via Jordan. As Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor document in their book, The Jewish Divide Over Israel, "The central theme of Chomsky's anti-Zionist propaganda — the idee fixe that underlies all his books, articles, speeches, and interviews on the subject — is that the Jewish State must cease to exist." Yet, Israel back-tracked the very next day, calling the decision to stop Chomsky an error. The second example regards the far more serious flotilla. When Israel's raid to stop a fleet of ships from running its Gaza blockade went awry, Israeli spokesmen defended Israel's actions as necessary, well within its rights and in keeping with international law. Prime Minister Netanyahu, during his press conference, came up with the memorable sound-bite, "This was no love boat." It appeared that Israel, despite the mounting pressure — or more accurately, the unhinged and madly disproportionate reaction of the world — would hold firm. It took less than a week for the international pummeling to soften Israel up, as the Wall Street Journal revealed in its front page headline "Israel Explores Easing Its Blockade of Gaza" on June 4th, a mere four days after the event. The Wall Street Journal article explained that under mounting pressure, and with news that a dual Turkish-American citizen was killed, Israeli officials were reviewing their Gaza policy and would look for ways to make it easier for humanitarian goods to enter Gaza.* Israel is also considering allowing foreign observers to sit in on its investigation panel. From the article, one is left with the impression that a big factor in Israel's change was U.S. pressure. "Protecting the welfare of American citizens is a fundamental governmental responsibility and one that we take very seriously," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying. Never mind that the American citizen in question left the U.S. for Turkey when he was two-years-old and was probably as culturally American as a piece of baklava. What would Shmuel say? One of the refreshing things about Shmuel's writings is that he did more than just analyze a situation — he nearly always recommended a course of action. Given the dangerous penchant of this administration to pressure Israel, he likely would have offered the same prescription he did in "Surrendering to Pressure," in which he called for the American Jewish community to put pressure on the U.S. government to ease up on the Jewish State. Weakness of character in the Israeli government increases the responsibility of the American Jewish community to be supportive of Israel. Administration pressures can be countered. There is a tremendous body of support for Israel in the American political world. It stems from the perception that the U.S. and Israel share not only common values, but also common interests. ... That "administration pressures can be countered" has already been proven true with this administration. Jewish congressmen, feeling the heat from their constituents, recently sent a letter to the administration to ease up on its criticism of Israel, which led to a meeting with the president. This pressure needs to be applied doubly by American Jewish organizations, whose responsibility is the Jewish community as a whole. This administration must be made to understand that its misguided Mideast policy is not only inimical to U.S. interests, but risks losing large Jewish financial and electoral support. * Not only do these goods maintain Hamas in power, but Hamas is already getting all the aid it wants. The Gaza Strip is flooded with merchandise. As Jonathan D. Halevi reports, "Given the abundance of supply, the price of diesel fuel and gasoline, delivered to Gaza through pipes from Egypt, is half that of the price in Israel." David Isaac is the e-Editor of the Shmuel Katz website (www.shmuelkatz.com). Contact him by email at David_Isaac@shmuelkatz.com |
|
TAXPAYER MONIES USED TO PROMOTE ISLAMIC JIHAD — JUDGE ASKED TO DECIDE
Posted by Dr. Milt Fried, June 9, 2010. |
|
Taxpayer Monies Used to Promote Islamic Jihad — Federal Judge Asked to Enter Judgment Against Government in AIG Bailout ANN ARBOR, MI — In a motion for summary judgment filed this week, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff was asked to enter a judgment against U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board over the federal government's bailout of AIG. The basis for the motion is that over a billion dollars of the bailout went to fund Islamic religious activities in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, and attorney David Yerushalmi filed the lawsuit in December 2008, challenging the AIG bailout on behalf of Kevin Murray, a former Marine who had served in Iraq. As a taxpayer, Murray objected to being forced to support the propagation of the Islamic jihad which he fought against as a U.S. Marine. Robert Muise, Senior Trial Lawyer with the Law Center, and David Yerushalmi prepared the motion for summary judgment. The motion is based on depositions of Treasury officials, affidavits of AIG officials (sealed per court order), answers to interrogatories, and the sworn declarations of two of the nation's notable experts on Islamic law and terrorism, Stephen C. Coughlin and Robert Spencer. [ Go here to read Summary Judgment motion] Coughlin, a lawyer and a decorated Army Reserve officer in Military Intelligence, is often cited as the Pentagon's leading expert on the nexus between Islamic law and jihad. He concluded that by engaging in Sharia-compliant financing, AIG and the federal government, which now owns 79.9 percent of AIG, are engaging in the religious practice of Islam. According to Coughlin, Islam inculcates hostility and discrimination against Jews, Christians, and all others who do not accept the Koran as the "word of Allah." It is the same law that motivated the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. [ Go here to read Stephen Coughlin's Declaration] Robert Spencer has studied Islamic theology and history for thirty years. He is the Director of Jihad Watch and the author of ten books dealing with Islam. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Command and General Staff College, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community. According to Spencer, by engaging in its Sharia-compliant financing and business practices, AIG is engaging in religious behavior that inculcates hatred and discrimination against Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslims. Spencer states that in abetting the spread of Sharia-compliant financing, AIG and the federal government are abetting the same legal system that motivated the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. [ Go here to read Robert Spencer's Declaration] Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "It's outrageous that the federal government is the owner of a corporation engaged in a business with interests adverse to the United States. We filed this lawsuit not only to defend constitutional principles, but also to defend our national security. It's clear we can't leave the job of protecting America to the Washington politicians." The federal lawsuit challenged that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) that appropriated billions in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish. According to the lawsuit, AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Sharia-compliant financing which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet." According to the lawsuit, "The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Sharia-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." Judge Zatkoff, in an earlier decision, denied the request by the Obama administration's Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit. In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG's Islamic religious activities. The court noted: Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution. In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG's subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled "Islamic Finance 101." These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government's involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff's claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings. With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG employs a "Shariah Supervisory Committee, " which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan. Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Sharia authority for Sharia-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments." The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org. Contact Dr. Milt Fried by email at docmiltfried@mindspring.com |
|
CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON CHRISTIAN FLIGHT; HAMAS DEMOLISHES HOUSES ON
PUBLIC LAND; AHKMADIS IN ISRAEL VS PAKISTAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 9, 2010. |
|
FLOTILLA INQUIRY 
Not only is Israel being singled out for investigation, again, this time over the flotilla incident. UN Secretary-General Ban even suggests that Turkey be represented on the panel (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 6/7/10, A4). Having a representative from Turkey would be like having a North Korean official on the international investigation of the sinking of the South Korean ship.
CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON MIDEAST CHRISTIAN FLIGHT PLIGHT 
Catholic bishops issued a paper on the flight-plight of Christians in the Mideast. One passage reads, "Today, emigration is particularly prevalent because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the resulting instability throughout the region." The menacing social situation in Iraq and the political instability of Lebanon further intensify the phenomenon." Reporter Rachel Donadio states that "In recent decades, the percentage of Christians in the Middle East has fallen from 20% of the population to less than 5 percent, and the number is dropping." The bishops attributed much of the problem to what the newspaper words as "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories." This, the bishops contend, inhibits freedom of movement, the economy, and religious life. Access to some Christian holy sites becomes more difficult. The Italian language version of the document is harsher on Israel, asserting that scripture should not be used "to justify the political injustice imposed on Palestinians." Difficulty between Christians and Muslims arises "principally because Muslims make no distinction between religion and politics, thereby relegating Christians to the precarious position of being considered non-citizens, despite the fact that they were citizens of their countries long before the rise of Islam." A Tunisian teacher of Islamic studies in Rome, Adnane Mokrani, attributes the inseparability of religions and politics in the Muslim countries more to culture than to Islam. He suggests that dictators use religion and nationalism to prop up their power (New York Times, 6/7/10, A9). Those points contradict themselves. They show that the problem is region-wide and centuries old. It is unfair to emphasize the Arab-Israel conflict and to imply that this conflict is the fault of Israel, when Israel is confronted by a religion that uses political and military means against rivals, admittedly including against Christians. The Paper concludes that the Arab-Israel conflict helps destabilize the region, but its facts indicate that instability vis-à-vis Israel is a reflection of region-wide and, I would add, world-wide jihad, itself reflecting problems of modernization. How much more unstable the Mideast would be if the Arabs in it were not united against Israel and more reluctant to fight each other when a non-believer state is among them! Iran's new role in destabilizing the Mideast is unmentioned. Also omitted from the newspaper report and one would surmise from the Bishop's paper are the exculpatory facts that the Christian population has been increasing in Israel, but it was decreasing in Jerusalem when Jordan controlled it. Why would Israel want to make difficulties for Christians in the Territories and be inviting to Christians in the State? The report fails to explain who any difficulties by Israel would be greater for Christians than for Muslims. The document's cautious wording obscures the fact that difficulty in access to Christian holy sites is because Muslim terrorism requires safety checks. The Muslim gauntlet that Christians sometimes have to run, to go to church in Bethlehem is not Israel's fault and not mentioned. Calling the disputed Territories "Palestinian" and "occupied" by Israel is itself a tendentious political statement. The notion about scripture used to impose political injustice upon Arabs is biased and misleading. The biggest political injustice is that the Palestinian Authority in both its sections is a terrorist dictatorship that prefers war and embezzlement to the welfare of its people. That is not scriptural in origin. The second biggest problem is that Islamic scripture has put these Arabs into religious war. The secularists who run Israel are guided more by history than religion. The document ignores Jewish claims to the Territories. Shouldn't it at least have understood that the Israelis entered the Territories after 1967 in self-defense against genocidal Muslim Arab aggression? Israeli control over the Territories could be compared with hanging on to a snarling tiger's tail. How do you let go without being mauled? Depart a la Gaza, and get thousands of rockets fired in? I would agree with the Tunisian teacher that Islam sometimes gets unfair blame for excesses of Arab culture. However, Islam was founded as a society and way of life, without separation of government and religion. About that, the Tunisian teacher is misleading. Who will really speak out for the persecuted Mideast Christians? A.M. Rosenthal, who kept defending persecuted Christians of China, might have, but the NY Times fired him.
AHKMADI SECT IN ISRAEL COMPARED WITH PAKISTAN Recently we reported two bombing and automatic rifle Sunni Muslims
attack s at mosques of the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan. Number murdered:
98.
Across the street from the home of Prof. Plaut in Haifa, Israel, and gracing his view, is the Ahmadi mosque. Nobody has harmed it or has a quarrel with it. Oh if only the Pakistani Ahmadis lived in as non-apartheid and tolerant society as Israel! (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/7/10) A couple of articles back, I asked who will join me in standing up for Christians persecuted by jihad. Here I ask who will join me in standing up for Muslims persecuted by jihad. Apparently not those who falsely accuse me of being anti-Christian and anti-Muslim. They don't understand tolerance.
IRAN THREATENS ACT OF WAR ON ISRAEL The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has offered to escort ships headed for Gaza (IMRA, 6/7/10). http://www.imra.org.il/ In a similar case of naval belligerency, the Wall St. Journal reports a warning by U.S. Defense Secretary Gates about bullying by China. China's navy has bulled its way into other countries' territorial waters, including Japans and Vietnam's, harassing their naval vessels. Chinese officials call the South China Sea a "core interest," as if its busy shipping lanes belong to China. Sec. Gates said that he does not consider China an enemy, but its severance of military communication with the U.S. over arms sales to Taiwan would allow serious miscommunication. He asserted, "The U.S. supports 'stability, freedom of navigation, and free and unhindered economic development," and objects to "any effort to intimidate U.S. corporations or those of any nation engaged in legitimate economic activity." (6/8/10, Ed..) Our planet cannot afford the old thinking of imperial spheres of influence. Attempts to break a legal blockade are themselves illegal and acts of war. If Iranian ships fire on Israeli ones attempting to enforce the blockade, the repercussions could be horrible. Will the "international community" wait for conflagration and then rue it, probably with an unfair condemnation of Israel, or will it tell Iran not to start a war? What do you think? Perhaps the threat is bluster, but Iran has been building up militarily. Certainly the threat is irresponsible. Is Obama really reconciled to nuclear weapons in such irresponsible hands?
ISRAEL STRIKES GAZA ROCKET CREW In the past three weeks, terrorists fired 10 more rockets into Israel. The IDF spotted a rocket crew there and struck them down (IMRA, 6/7/10). This kind of terrorist aggression and war crime is frequent, but the UN is silent.
ISRAELI HOSPITAL SAVES ARAB BOY An Arab boy in Jenin, Palestinian Authority, was bitten by a Palestinian viper. His arm swelled and hurt unbearably. He went to the hospital in Jenin, but they had no snake bite serum and could not help him. Fearing they would be ignored because of all the bad things they had been told about Israel, but desperate, the father took the stricken boy to Emek Hospital in nearby Afula, Israel. Immediately they were greeted in Arabic and the proper medicine was administered. Boy saved, apprehension eased, suspicion eliminated. The father says he and his son are going to tell their relatives and friends about this humane and professional treatment. It goes on often (IMRA, 6/7/10). Look at the photo. Ever eat Israeli watermelon? What a treat! why didn't the Palestinian Authority send it to Gaza as humanitarian goods? Remember when Israel left Gaza, it turned over a thriving, advance hothouse industry, but the Arabs looted and destroyed most of it? Some readers are sure that Israel pays me and well, for what I write. Being modest, I did not realize how highly my critics think of my writing ability. That they must, because they rarely criticize my articles' points, they just call names and try to change the subject. They do not realize that the contrast between my civilly delivered facts and their empty name-calling makes their case and their character appear wanting. I should ask them for recommendations, so perhaps I can earn those large sums.
NUCLEAR BREAKTHROUGH COULD FACILITATE PROLIFERATION Egypt Daily News reports an American breakthrough in nuclear enrichment. A new technology is being perfected that greatly reduces both the size of enrichment equipment and the processing time. If that technology gets into the hands of rogue states [and terrorist organizations], they could conceal their development of nuclear weapons. Someone like Pakistan's former nuclear chief, Mr. Khan, may well give out the secret. No wonder Pres. Obama wants a tougher nuclear development treaty! (IMRA, 6/7/10.) We are reaching a dilemma of being unable to live with the UN and being unable to live without one.
SAUDI ARABIA AND FRANCE SHARE CONCERN ABOUT IRAN France's Defense Minister Herve Morin visited Saudi Arabia. The two countries share concern about Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Saudis warned that if Iran gets it, they feel they may have to (IMRA, 6/7/10). Saudi Arabia did not tell Min. Morin that it will not support an effort to stop Iran unless Israel resolves the Arab-Israel conflict, meaning to the Arabs' satisfaction and the end of Israel. The Obama-alleged linkage between Israel and Iran is specious. Saudi Arabia is worried about Iran, not about Israel. Obama's neglect of the problem with Iran may result in a regional nuclear arms race. Whom is that good for, Mr. President? Then why does Obama pursue the false linkage? Inability to comprehend? Excuse for not making hard choices and instead blaming Israel? Wish to get Israel destroyed? Irrationality like his is difficult to explain. Iran has defenders in these pages. They probably agree with those who say that since so many countries are suspicious of Israel, Israel must be doing something wrong. By that same "logic," one could say that since so many countries are suspicious of Iran, Iran must be doing something wrong.
HAMAS DEMOLISHES HOUSES ON STOLEN PUBLIC LAND Hamas has demolished 20 houses built, it states, on public land. It has told people not to buy public land from supposed owners. The regime now is going to build public housing on the site. Some people in Gaza say this is just what they objected to Israel doing (IMRA, 6/7/10). No word on whether the people object to the fraud and to the land theft. Tear down and rebuild? Weren't the houses good enough to keep? Have they so much money that they can afford double construction?
SYRIA STILL NOT COOPERATING WITH IAEA The International Atomic Energy Association has been trying to investigate the site in Syria that Israel bombed in 2008. Syria still does not cooperate with the investigators. Syria has its explanation of what went on at that site, and why traces of radioactivity were found there. It won't let the IAEA find out for itself (IMRA, 6/7/10). If the UN makes a non-binding resolution about Israel or a resolution conditional on Arab compliance with it, and the Arabs do not comply, and Israel does not obey it, some of my readers condemn Israel as violating UN resolutions. At least, that is what we are left to surmise, since the comments do not identify and quote the resolutions. On the other hand, when the Arabs violate UN commitments, as Syria and Iran do, those readers ignore it. Makes one wonder how sincere is the indignation they express against Israel, which is not violating anything.
FLOTILLA INVESTIGATION, ISRAEL, AND TURKEY 
Israel is said to have designated openings for two foreign observers on the investigation of the flotilla. One would be American. The investigation would be a broad one, including the legality of the blockade and the legality and manner in which it was enforced. Turkey's PM Erdogan reacted to Israeli identification of five terrorists among the passengers by saying that if they were terrorists, why did Israel release them. He knows, however, that Israel was trying to appease the wave of criticism over its raid. He made a number of undiplomatic statements, and Israel said it would not respond to them. This restraint seems to have won some foreign respect (IMRA, 6/8/10). There are calls in the U.S. for investigating Turkey's role.
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:
|
|
JEWS WILL NOT GO MEEKLY TO SLAUGHTER AGAIN
Posted by Tom McLaughlin, June 9, 2010. |
While I was in Israel three years ago, Hamas took over control of the Gaza Strip. Israel had pulled out two years earlier, and the fight was between two Palestinian terrorist groups: Fatah and Hamas. Our Palestinian guides advised us to call home and tell relatives we were okay because there was widespread media coverage of the fighting and they would be worried about us. We were about thirty miles from the fighting at the time and safe enough. Every since, Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel from Gaza daily. Israel sends fuel and electricity into Gaza, yet Israel is the villain and Hamas the victim in the eyes of the world. It's Theatre of the Absurd in the mainstream media. There are 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel and 5.5 million Jews and I was struck by contrasts. Jewish towns and cities are orderly, blooming and booming. Arab towns and cities are strewn with trash, graffiti and idleness. 
The contrast is even sharper in the mostly-Muslim West Bank. It's a microcosm for the entire Arab Middle East. With huge deposits of oil and the trillions of petrodollars for Arab countries, they remain primitive. Yet, with no oil, industrious Jews from around world have made the desert bloom in Israel. They've built a thriving economy, and fought off three invasions by much larger, fanatic, Arab-Muslim neighbors. It's the ultimate humiliation to have tiny Israel existing in their midst and providing a constant contrast to their backwardness. Rather than taking lessons for their own improvement, they hate Israel with a passion and rabidly plot its destruction. 
When I'm teaching about the Arab Muslim invasions of 1948, 1967 and 1973 to my US History classes, I tell students to imagine a kindergarten kid waiting alone at a bus stop and being jumped three times by several large, high-school boys. Imagine how the big boys feel after the kindergarten kid thrashes them single-handedly all three times. Their humiliation is unbearable and it's their own fault. There can be no such thing as a peace process in Israel without the destruction of Israel's enemies. Neither Fatah nor Hamas wants a Palestinian State. Palestinians want Israel gone and they're willing to play victim poster-children for the wider Islamic world's propaganda against Israel and the United States.After the 1967 invasion, Israel took territory from Egypt, Syria and Jordan as buffers against future invasions — including the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. In the Camp David agreement, Egypt took back the Sinai in return for recognizing Israel's right to exist, but didn't really want Gaza. Nobody does. It's an insane asylum full of Palestinians who have been indoctrinated since infancy with hatred of Jews and groomed to become "shahids": suicide bombers. Israel pulled out in 2005 but terrorism increased. So much for leftist claims that Israel's occupation is the cause of Palestinian terrorism. 
After years of daily rocket attacks against its civilian population, Israel went back into Gaza to take out launch sites, which Hamas puts in or near schools and hospitals. Palestinian terrorists hide behind children, but the UN ignores this and instead investigates Israel for war crimes if civilians are killed. 
Hamas is a terrorist proxy for Iran, who supplies the rockets raining on Israel, and who promises to wipe Israel off the map. The United Nations does nothing as Iran builds the nuclear weapons with which to perpetrate a second Holocaust while denying the first ever happened. Under the noses of UN "peacekeeping" forces, Iran supplies Hezbollah with rockets and other weapons in southern Lebanon that are periodically shot at northern Israeli civilians. Why we continue to support an inept and corrupt organization like the United Nations, I cannot fathom. Israel's strategy now is to blockade Gaza to prevent Hamas from importing more Iranian rockets but Turkey, which had hitherto been the most supportive of Muslim countries toward Israel, is now leading the effort to break the blockade. There's been a profound policy shift in Turkey's relations with Israel. Looks like the Turks have stopped westernizing and, by demonizing Israel, are allying with Syria and Iran. Not good for regional stability. According to its own charter, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and killing all Jews, yet Turkey's President Erdogan insists Hamas is not a terrorist organization. The man has no credibility, but he's a hero in the eyes of the American and European left and their media sycophants. Meanwhile, President Obama has shined up to Hamas. He's obsequious with Iran, and he's distancing himself from Israel. Israel has faced existential threats since its birth in 1948 and met
them head on. It will meet today's threats and tomorrow's as well.
Israel will do what it must to survive. A preemptive strike against
Iran — with nuclear weapons — is a very real possibility. This is a
nation founded on the ashes of the Holocaust. Israel's Jews will not
submit meekly to slaughter again.
ISRAELI STARTS FLOTILLA INVESTIGATION The IDF Chief of Staff has appointed a team of high-ranking investigators to look into the flotilla problem. None on the team was part of the operational command at the time of the incident. They are to report back on July 4 (IMRA, 6/7/10). July 4? What is this, an Israeli plot to manipulate the media, knowing most Americans won't be paying attention on Independence Day? No mention was made of an international observer. Might that be to preserve national sovereignty or military secrets? I have seen the public releases of many IDF investigations of alleged misconduct. They often fire the officers involved.
WORLD OPINION SHIFT ON FLOTILLA, RIFT IN TURKEY Increasingly the media is shifting to the view that Israeli commandos resorted to bullets only after three had been captured and several had been stabbed. A rift in Turkey opened up when a Turkish spiritual leader, Fethullah Gulen, criticized IHH for its actions. This encouraged opposition newspapers and politicians to accuse Prime Minister Erdogan of demagoguery, by fanning anger over the slaying of some Turks on the flotilla. Two major dailies published photographs of the captured Israelis, all bloody, on their front pages. In reaction, a religious daily published on its front page the names and photos of eight columnists who criticized the Turkish government's handling of the flotilla. This kind of publicity had gotten another journalist assassinated (Marc Champion, Wall St. J., 6/8, A10). The significance of showing the wounded Israelis shifts some sympathy away from the jihadists as being brutal and as probably the initiators of the violence. I sense a shift in world public opinion away from the hysterical ganging up on Israel, in this issue, to a realistic assessment. Evidence keeps coming out. If Israel could be swifter at getting the evidence and message out, it would avoid half the obloquy.
ISRAEL'S DEFENSE MINISTER ON FLOTILLA AND GAZA SITUATION Israel's Defense Minister Barak pointed out that if the commandos had not reacted professionally, there would have been many more casualties among them. He admitted that military operations did not always go according to plan. He asserted that there is only one person in Gaza who needs humanitarian aid. That is the kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. Hamas does not let the Red Cross see him, does not let him out of doors, and does not let his state of health be known (IMRA, 6/8/10).
ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC VALUE TO U.S. The crude antisemitism of Helen Thomas would have gotten her fired, if uttered years ago. Now however, there is so much Jew-hate, and it is more accepted, so the White House waited three days even to react. [Perhaps the White House shares it. To be fair, Obama takes long to react to many things, including the oil leak.] Confused by this hatred, people who should know better stumbled over strategic analysis. Andrew Cordesman did recently, when he attempted to downgrade the important of Israel to the U.S., strategically. [I had stated some corrections that I won't repeat hear.] He put his arguments in an antisemitic manner, which, even if getting popular, does not make it correct. Mr. Cordesman omitted the gratitude a number of U.S. officials expressed to Israel for valuable assistance. Not well known is that it was the Mossad that smuggled out Kruschev's speech denouncing Stalin's crimes. Publicity over that helped win the Cold War. Israeli destruction, using American weaponry, of the Syrian missiles and air force demonstrated the superiority of U.S. weapons over the Soviet ones. Some experts believe that this victory encouraged Pres. Reagan to attempt to win the Cold War. The mainstay of the U.S. war on the Taliban depends on drones, to keep Americans safer from al-Qaida. Israel invented drones. Cordesman admits that Israel is a democracy with values similar to Americans'. He fails to draw the proper conclusion. Point is, Israel is stable. The U.S. does not have to worry that a change in administration ends its alliance with us, as may happen in Egypt and did happen in Turkey. A related point is that both the U.S. and Israel have the same enemies. Each success of Israel strengthens the U.S.. [Implication: the U.S. should help Israel to help the U.S..] Israel is of strategic value in these three additional ways: 1. Israel has kept radical states from acquiring nuclear weapons and dominating the oil routes on which the U.S. depends. [But Obama is holding Israel back.] 2. "Second, Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it [actually, to the Jewish people but with independence in mind] in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded." 3. Since Israel cannot get real Arab allies, it is not tempted to form alliances for the purpose of defeating other states. When the U.S. keeps its promises to Israel, the U.S. is respected as faithful. When the U.S. breaks its promises to Israel, other countries may feel they cannot trust the U.S.. For example, by taking Hamas' side recently, the U.S. worried Egypt that it cannot rely upon the U.S.. Vice-President Biden had to fly to Egypt to reassure them. The two-state deal that the U.S. proposes, which would weaken Israel, counters American interests. The U.S. alliance with Israel is most cost-effective (IMRA, 6/8/10 from Caroline Glick).
GAZA NOT CUT OFF Nobody calls life in Gaza idyllic, but propagandists present an unrealistic picture of a starving people cut off from the world. Israel's and Egypt's maritime and land blockade of Gaza is meant to keep heavy arms out and terrorists in. Otherwise, Israel has removed all its people from Gaza and all its administration of it, reserving self-defense. Hamas turned Gaza into a hostile area, a hostility officially recognized by Israel. P.A. head Abbas, himself, attested to the sufficiency of goods in Gaza, except for cement and iron [which Hamas grabs, when it can, for military purposes]. Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), December 31, 2009. P.A. economy minister Bassem Khoury said that the store shelves are full, though prices are high. Many observers report likewise. He complained that the tunnels enable Hamas to collect the excise tax that Israel used to transfer to the P.A., so that Hamas' treasury is swollen and the P.A.'s is shrunken. Last year, Gaza received 56% of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) budget within a total of $5 billion from all known sources. 7,233 truckloads of humanitarian aid entered aboveground and an estimated $650 million of goods via hundreds of tunnels. The fact is, Egypt and Israel do not turn back humanitarian goods [though sometimes Hamas does, not letting the flotilla goods in or attacking the gates]. P.A. and Hamas figures back these statements. The hundreds of tunnels do present a military problem, because Hamas uses them to import explosives and iron and to transfer terrorists. Their flow has tripled the price of Gaza real estate. Kuwait also reports a flow of drugs and white slavery. [Hamas probably opposes the drug trade.] There is some agricultural export from Gaza. Israel has reduced, but did not eliminate, fuel and electricity going to Gaza. [Hamas hogged electricity for use in manufacturing rockets.] The electricity comes from Israel's plant in Ashkelon [that, ironically, Hamas tries to destroy, and fired rockets at it while I was visiting]. Israel let pass 41 truckloads of equipment for maintaining electricity in Gaza. There may be a shortage of cement for Hamas bunkers, but no absence of it and indeed a growing presence. Judge its increase growth by the declining price — even the Obama Democrats cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. A year ago, a ton of cement cost NIS 3,000. That price has plummeted to NIS 800 (including Hamas' tunnel tax). Correspondingly, construction employment rose by 25%. People also can enter and exit the Strip. Naturally, passage must be coordinated with Egypt or Israel, neither of which wants a flow of terrorists. 63,480 people passed between Gaza and Egypt. The P.A. confirms that Egypt and Israel have approved 98% of requests for passage for medical reasons. [Terrorists have exploited humanitarian sentiment of their enemies to claim medical needs to embark on missions of murder.] The number of exiting patients and companions was 10,544. Medicine and medical equipment was 4,833 tons. Several hundred Christians and soccer players got passage and delegates to Fatah's convention. The UN still calls Israel an "occupying power" [which it never was], responsible for the welfare of the people in Gaza. Its argument is that Israel [why not also Egypt] controls the entry/exit points. [Blockade does not make the blockader an occupier.] The UN and associated NGOs want to keep Israel on the hook and Egypt off it, for their joint blockade. Note, Egypt did not declare Gaza a hostile entity. Is it Israel's duty to help Hamas gather the implements of war on it? By that standard, the U.S. should be subsidizing Taliban-controlled villages. But the UN and the so-called humanitarian NGOs have a double standard for Israel. If these agencies are concerned about Gaza welfare enough to condemn Israel, an outside party, why not condemn Hamas, the inside party, which oppresses the people and imposes harsh Islamic law on them? (IMRA, 6/8/10). If Hamas became tolerant and made peace, there would be no blockade. The UN ignores that.
Tom McLaughlin is a teacher and columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine.
His column is published in Maine and New Hampshire newspapers. Email
him at
tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net
This article is archived at
|
|
SINISTER AIM OF 'AID FLOTILLA';OBAMA IS NOT A FRIEND; TARGETING KILLINGS OF AL-QAIDA TERRORISTS
Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 8, 2010. |
|
Sinister Aim of 'Aid Flotilla'.
The emergence of Turkey in a leading position against Israel is developing as the most significant aspect of the efforts of an "aid flotilla" to run the blockade of Gaza that is maintained by both Egypt and Israel. Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and which aspires to join the European Union, ranks as chief instigator, leader, and organizer of the so-called Gaza aid flotilla of boats arrested overnight by Israeli commandoes. Inevitably the clash resulted in several dead and wounded, the latter including Israeli navy personnel, as well as condemnation of Israel, some via anti-Semitic rhetoric, from both Western Europe and the Arab world. Yet there was nothing accidental about this collision. Videos show demonstrators on the boat attacking Israeli navy personnel with knives and live fire and seizing at least one of the soldiers' weapons. Training, preparations and the loud propaganda preceded the flotilla, all earmarked to shed blood and launch another "hate the Jews" campaign. Turkey and Hamas, the Islamist group governing Gaza since 2007, teamed up overtly to engineer the exercise for weeks. It was out there to see for all on Al Jazeera. So-called non-governmental aid groups included Turkish militants trained to fight and prepared to shed blood. The charade was meticulously watched over by the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan whose Islamist Justice and Development Party spared no effort inveighing anti-Israel sentiments in the greater Middle East region ever since it emerged in 2002. The "Hate the Jews" campaign will undoubtedly follow its course to the United Nations where the Security Council will fashion yet one more anti-Israeli resolution within days. The White House issued a statement today "regretting" loss of life but failing to offer any support for the beleaguered Jewish state. There is nothing new about blockades. Britain imposed a blockade in 1982 on the Falkland Islands and levied a 74 days long war, in which 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers perished, to protect its sovereignty over these far-flung territories occupied by Argentina. Egypt has blockaded Gaza since 2007, reinforced with an 18-feet-deep steel wall to prevent tunnels to Gaza. (Instead of blaming Israel for the incident, the United State and European countries must reassess the validity of Turkish membership of NATO and realize that this 'moderate' Islamic country has no place in the European Union! At the same time, Israel needs to end the pretence that Turkey is a friendly Muslim country.) NOTES: 1) IHH, the Turkish group which organized the armada to Gaza which was intercepted by the Israeli navy, had ties in the 1990s to the Al-Qaeda terror network and World Jihad, according to a 2006 study by the Danish Institute for International Studies. 2) The Gaza flotilla ships held at least 40 professional mercenaries, some affiliated with Al Qaeda, apparently hired to engage IDF soldiers in combat. The Turkish media has revealed that three of the four Turkish victims of the Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla had previously expressed their desire to be Muslim suicide martyrs. 3) Israeli navy commandos with paint ball rifles (I assume to reduce the risk of civilian casualties) were descending from a helicopter into a Moslem mob. They were separated from the unit, then beaten, stabbed and assaulted with flying objects. Some were pushed down into the hold and stripped of their anti-flak vests first. The soldiers reported they barely escaped lynching or possibly being taken hostage. 4) Flotilla is a Smoke Screen — transfer of humanitarian assistance was not the top priority of the flotilla's organizers: the 25-odd truckloads of equipment offloaded from the ships is roughly a quarter of the amount Israel transported into the Gaza strip every day. According to the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, 100 truckloads of assorted goods are transferred into Gaza daily. 5) There were materials on the ships specifically banned by the Israeli authorities, such as cement and metal rods, which Israel fears may be used by Hamas and other terrorist organizations to build bunkers and weapons. Close-Up Footage of Attack on IDF Soldiers:
Flotilla Organizers Wanted Blood to be Shed. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke out on Monday evening regarding Israel's interception of boats trying to break the naval blockade of Gaza, saying that "The aim of the terror activists was the spilling of blood and not any humanitarian aid in Gaza." He continued, "Everything proves that it was a group of terrorists who want to promote terror and cooperate with terror." Lieberman rejected claims about Israel acting in international waters, explaining, "It's every state's right to check ships entering its territory. Action in international waters was in accordance with all accepted international law." Hamas Refuses Flotilla Aid. The IDF Spokesman's Office reports that Israel has loaded 20 trucks with various types of aid found onboard the flotilla but the Hamas is refusing to accept it. "Unfortunately, the Hamas terror organization is unwilling to accept the cargo and the trucks filled with humanitarian aid have not been allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. It appears that Hamas is in fact stopping the transfer of the humanitarian aid." (This is another proof that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the Flotilla was just another anti-Israel publicity stunt in support of terrorists of Hamas!) Obama is not a Friend. The flotilla violence caught Netanyahu in the midst of a diplomatic trip to North America. He was in the Canadian capital of Ottawa at the time, about to leave for Washington for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. Netanyahu announced immediately after the flotilla news broke that he would remain in North America and would meet with Obama as scheduled. However, Obama told him to leave because he didn't want Netanyahu to use the White House as a stage on which to present Israel's side of the story. (Obama is another puppet of Saudi Arabia and the oil companies! Sometimes fake friends of Israel are worse than enemies. Netanyahu must demand an apology from Obama and not rush to visit Washington next time.) Support from a True Friend. President of the Czech Senate, Dr. Farmisal Subotka, visited the Knesset on Wednesday and expressed unprecedented support for Israel regarding the Gaza flotilla. Subotka said it was a planned provocation against Israel: "Many in Europe agree with me but are afraid to voice their opinion," Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Even if Israel had performed the interception of the flotilla without any casualties and executed it perfectly, the enemies of Israel would have portrayed it as a "fiasco" anyway and would carried out a well prepared, rehearsed and executed anti-Israel spin. This fake humanitarian flotilla was a smoke-screen, with perfect timing, to take the focus of the international community from the Iranian nuclear program and raise the Islamic status of Turkey and bring it closer to an unholy Islamic alliance! Kurds to Send Flotilla against Turkish Occupation. The Free Kurdistan Movement, human rights group, says it is planning the first international flotilla and motor convoy to reach Turkish-occupied Kurdistan: "We want to break the siege and raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of Kurdistan. We hope to pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for the continued Turkish occupation". (I doubt that it will work — Kurds are not 'Palestinians' and Turkey is not the Jewish state! After all, the international community is still indifferent and silent about the genocide of Armenians committed by Turkey in 1915.) Only Hamas May Demolish Palestinian Illegal Structures. On May 16 Hamas police dragged a family with eight children out of their squat cement house and pummelled them with wooden batons as bulldozers razed the building along with nearly 20 other homes. Khalil Shahin, of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), said the demolitions were part of a larger project targeting some 180 houses. Two of the houses that were destroyed were made of mud bricks and had been hailed by Hamas as a feat of Palestinian ingenuity in enduring the siege. Quote of the Week: "If indeed it were a humanitarian mission, it would have accepted, weeks ago during the planning stages, the offer by the Israeli authorities to transfer the aid through to the port of Ashdod to Gaza through the existing overland crossing, in accordance with established procedures." — Daniel Carmon, Israel's deputy permanent U.N. representative — Egypt has made a similar offer. Internet Opinions about a 'Humanitarian' flotilla: Since when did these people care about the truth? (The negative publicity and humiliation of Israel was not enough for the organisers of this 'humanitarian aid'. They were looking for blood and martyrdom to amplify their anti-Israel stunt!) Targeting Killings of Al-Qaida Terrorists. Sheik Said al-Masri — Al-Qaida third-most senior commander and the financial brains behind the 9/11 attacks and a foiled plot to bomb the New York subway — was killed in a suspected drone strike almost a week ago, along with his wife, three daughters and a grandchild. (When Israel used the same tactic, minus the killing of innocent children, against the Hamas and PLO terrorist leadership it was widely denounced by the international anti-Semitic hypocrisy!) Hizbullah in Syrian — Getting Ready for War. Hizbullah terrorists are running weapons to Lebanon from secret arms depots in Syria, situated near the town of Adra, where the terrorists have been accorded their own living quarters, arms storage site and a fleet of trucks. This is the first proof of Hizbullah guerillas encamping on Syrian soil. IDF Intelligence Officer, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, told the Knesset recently that even without the Scud transfers, which he called the 'tip of the iceberg', Hizbullah's arsenal contains rockets of all kinds in numbers that exceed by far their arsenal before the last war with Israel. Weapons transfers from Syria had passed the stage of 'smuggling' and were 'organized and official'. While all Pressure is on Israel. Syria has informed the United Nations about nuclear testing it conducted in the past according to a secret report by the International Atomic Energy (IAEA) obtained by Reuters. The report adds that, since 2008, the Damascus government has not given permission to inspectors to examine the Dir Az-Zour nuclear site which Israel bombed in 2007. (Syria and Iran are Ratified members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — NO pressure on them! India and Pakistan have recently developed nuclear weapons — NO pressure on them! Israel is the only country international hypocrites do care about!) Turkey is Proud Genocide Denier. The prime minister of Turkey cancelled a two-day visit to Argentina to protest the annulment of an event honouring Turkey's late leader, under pressure by Armenian activists. 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 |
|
MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN FLOTILLA STORY? EVIDENCE EMERGES OF GOVERNMENT-FLOTILLA LINK
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 8, 2010. |
|
I've written about how the Gaza flotilla issue and stirring up a hysterical hatred of Israel is playing a role in internal Turkish politics as the government tries to use this demagoguery to continue eroding Turkish democracy and to win the next election. And a little later I'm going to talk about a major new development in the flotilla story. In addition, while Turks are united in anger and sorrow about the deaths of nine of their citizens, they do not necessarily agree with the current government's extremist response which threatens to lead to involving Turkey in violence and damaging its reputation abroad. The leader of the main opposition, Ataturkist and social democratic party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu stated that Prime Minister Erdogan, "Almost declared war against Israel in his party's meeting....Our party displays a more moderate and careful approach. Foreign policy can't be carried out with heroism but with reason. The Turkish Foreign Ministry should publicly disclose correspondence made with Israel so that we may all learn whether Israel warned Turkey or not." Now you might ask yourself what is Kilicdaroglu hinting at here? And the answer is important and potentially explosive. There is a widespread story, which cannot yet be verified but seems to be more than a rumor, for why this tragedy might have happened. People ask: Why did the Israeli soldiers land on a ship where they should have expected to be received with a violent attack? According to some people who are in a position to know, here's the
reason: Erdogan assured Israel that the ship's passengers were
peaceful and there would be no violence. That's why Israel approached
taking and diverting the ship in the manner it did. Is this true? I
don't know but it is definitely a story to watch. And here — the
important development I referred to above — is the most detailed
account yet of the connection between the Turkish government and the
IHH, a group with terrorist connections which organized the flotilla
and initiated the violence. Don't fail to check out this source
It is understandable, especially given what they've been told by their government and media, that Turks are very upset about the deaths. Yet it is important to understand that there are different views in Turkey over how to handle this problem. The government wants a confrontation and has been moving into an alliance with Iran and Syria long before the latest events. The opposition wants to uphold Turkish honor but not to break with the West or turn this into a near-war situation with Israel. Here's an interesting example. Erdogan said that Israel's peaceful seizure of five boats and its self-defense on the sixth (you can imagine, these aren't his words) was against Judaism, a subject on which he purports to be an expert. Kilicdaroglu, responded: Erdogan knows the Torah; we thank him. What does its sixth commandment say? Do not kill! But the holy book also has an eighth commandment, which says 'Do not steal.' And the ninth commandment says 'Do not lie.'" Kilicdaroglu has built his career on fighting the current government's corruption and presumably will make a major election theme. Erdogan responded by accusing the leader of the opposition of being an apologist for Israel, saying among other things,: "He is acting like Tel Aviv's lawyer." The attempt is to paint the opposition leader as a flunky of the hated state, another step in the regime's effort to transform Turkish politics into something more closely resembling those of Egypt, Syria, or Iran. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
This article is archived at
|
|
WHAT MOTIVATES ISRAELI POLICY AND ACTIONS
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 8, 2010. |
|
I use the opportunity of being interviewed to discuss current developments. Vice-President Joe Biden has visited Cairo. Do you think his summit with President Husni Mubarak could be useful for solving the Gaza crisis? Is Egypt a strong voice inside Palestinian world? No, in fact the Egyptians have given up in disgust as they have failed. They worked hard for years to bring Hamas and the Palestinian Authority together and Hamas rejected their efforts. Incidentally, they were just as frustrated trying to move Yasir Arafat toward peace in the 1990s. Remember that Egypt has a blockade on the Gaza Strip just as much as Israel does. And their reason for doing so is self-interest. They know Hamas is a revolutionary Islamist group close to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. A Jihadi state in Gaza will subvert Egypt, becoming a base for propaganda and terrorism. Moreover, Egypt's government knows that Iran is an increasing threat to itself, and an Islamist state in Gaza accepted by the world and free to function is also a base for Tehran on the Mediterranean. Incidentally, Egyptian soldiers regularly shoot and kill refugees trying to cross the border and have opened fire on Palestinians from Gaza on a number of occasions but the world is indifferent to such things since the obsession is to condemn only Israel. Do you consider the Gaza crisis a possible new reason for tensions between Israel and the United States? Their relationship is getting worst till the beginning of this year. Is there any solution? So far the U.S. government position has not been good in the sense of actually supporting an ally whose previous handling of the Gaza issue has been approved by Washington. At the same time, it has not been as bad as many think on this crisis. The U.S. stance seems to be that the blockade should be eased, but in ways that are likely to be acceptable to Israel. This means that Israel will transport into Gaza, after inspection, goods delivered by volunteer flotillas and will ease the rules on what can be sent into the Gaza Strip. Israel has already agreed on the first point and has constantly been revising those rules. A key question will be the U.S. attitude toward an investigation. It is hard for Israelis to believe that any UN investigation will be fair. What about the Israeli public opinion? Are they conscious that there isn't any possibility except for giving more concessions to the PA, regarding the settlements, and ending the embargo of Gaza? The idea that Israel must give in does not seem either realistic or necessary to Israelis. I agree. Just because others panic and draw their own conclusions does not mean Israel has to make unilateral concessions that damage its security. In addition, people should understand that Israelis have a long experience of making such concessions only to have them be quickly forgotten and more demanded. Among these, of course, was Israel's complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, from which came not peace or quiet but a Hamas takeover; frequent terrorist, mortar, and rocket attacks; and now this current situation. In my opinion, this current crisis will not change the facts on the ground very much. Western countries are not going to normalize relations with Hamas or demand an end to the embargo. Public opinion and media coverage is important but it is not the same as national policy decisions. Government leaders understand the reality enough to know that Hamas is a very destabilizing and deadly organization. But let's look at Israeli public opinion, based on a Pechter poll released today. Of those Israeli Jews interviewed, 39 percent said that not enough force was used, 46 percent said the right amount. Only 8 percent said Israel used too much force. These people understand, by the way, that the Israeli soldiers were attacked, taken hostage, and had to fight their way out. Sixty one percent felt that Israel should not adjust its tactics to elicit a more favorable international reaction. And fifty-six percent indicated that Israel should not agree to an international inquiry committee to investigate the incident. Do you look at the Netanyahu government and its majority in the Knesset as a strong influence on the country? Is there any risk of it falling? According to the poll cited above, fifty three percent (53%) were satisfied with the job Prime Minister Netanyahu did while only forty one percent (41%) were satisfied with Defense Minister Ehud Barak's performance. Remember that those not satisfied in many cases felt that the tactics of the operation were not handled well, which is one reason for the gap between Netanyahu and Barak in the poll. It is important to understand three things: --Israelis are acting on the basis of their knowledge and experience. Some people abroad write in bewilderment as if Israelis are paranoid or don't know what the world thinks. They know very well what the world thinks. They also know that several thousand Israeli lives were sacrificed on the belief in the 1990s that the Palestinians and Syrians were ready to make peace and also that the world would support Israel if it took risks for peace. They also know the nature of Hamas, as well as Hizballah and Iran. Incidentally, no people in world history have tried longer and harder the approach of apologizing, conceding, avoiding violent responses even while being slaughtered, trying to prove their worthiness as citizens (or even to be allowed to live), depending on logical arguments to persuade those who hate them, and throwing themselves on the mercy of others than have the Jewish people. Having tried such things for centuries, and within living memory, Israelis are understandably skeptical about the utility of such methods, despite more of the same constantly being recommended to them. --Israelis know that when people are lying about them and slandering their country the response is not to blame their leaders but to give low credibility to their critics or those who claim to know better how they can obtain security. Just as revolutionary Islamists are being taught by Western reaction that being intransigent and violent produces gains, Israelis are being taught that making concessions ultimately means greater dangers, no compensation, and even more criticism. I always think here of an essay written by Ahad ha-Am, the great essayist who lived much of his life in Tel Aviv. A century ago, he wrote along these lines: How do we know that we are right and our critics are wrong? Because we know ourselves and we know that we don't use the blood of little children to make matzos. The same situation applies today. Incidentally, according to the Pechter poll, seventy one percent of Israeli Jews dislike U.S. President Barak Obama with more than half, forty seven percent say they strongly dislike him. In all, sixty-three percent of those polled are dissatisfied with the U.S. government's reaction to the incident. --There is no viable alternative. No matter how many people talk about how easy it would be to make a compromise peace or to make radical, openly genocidal Islamists moderate, Israelis know from observation and experience that these things aren't true. They also know what is said in Arabic in places like official Palestinian Authority and Hamas media but never translated by the Western media into English. It is interesting to note that the opposition has not been able to come up with a single persuasive option for a different policy. Indeed, outside the farther left, even opposition voters generally share in the national consensus outlined above. The basic Israeli view is this: We are ready for a two-state solution, we are ready to turn almost all of the West Bank over to a Palestinian state. But we don't believe there is a real partner for such an agreement. This government, by the way, is not a right-wing government but a national unity government that includes the main party of the left, Labour. The religious parties are at about the weakest point in power that they've been in Israeli history. And even Avigdor Lieberman, whatever his shortcomings, is not a stereotypical rightist and he does favor a two-state solution. So this government is very solidly in power and will certainly serve until next year. If elections were to be held today it would win. Indeed, when one sees how unfair and misinformed a lot of the foreign criticism is, and how these same places constantly make demands for concessions and then don't keep their promises, this only solidifies the national consensus supporting the government and understanding the need for continuing-albeit with reasonable changes-the current policy. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
This article is archived at
|
|
HEROIC, WOUNDED ISRAELI SOLDIERS HONORED IN NEW YORK CITY
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, June 8, 2010. |
|
This is about the ongoing visit to New York City by ten heroic, wounded members of the IDF. The outpouring of support for them by community members has been extraordinary. All best,
|
|
"What you are doing means the world to us and gives us the strength to go on," said Roi G. earlier this week at a small press conference in New York City. Roi, a member of Israel's Nachal brigade, was seriously wounded in the Second Lebanon War. To date, he has undergone twenty operations. Rabbi Michael D. Shmidman, of Orach Chaim, who is currently visiting Israel but who will be back for Shabbat, said: "The Rambam teaches us that one who is prepared to stand to save the life of a fellow Jew is considered Kadosh. Orach Chaim is honored to host these Giborei Yisrael." Rebbitzen Bat-Sheva ("Shevy") Vigler, who has been instrumental in shaping this trip, told me that "being with these guys gives me the opportunity to be part of something that is so much bigger than anything I've ever been involved in. They never complain. They are such good spirits. One soldier wakes up every morning with excruciating pain in his leg. He takes a pain pill. He is the life of the party. He makes everyone else happy. The airline misplaced another soldier's luggage, it never arrived. He said: 'Look, I have two eyes, two legs, two arms, I can live without luggage.' They are walking on canes, they have mechanical hands, bandaged limbs, and still they have amazing, positive energy. You should see them singing and dancing with the kids." And thus, these heroes continue to show us what truly matters; they continue to teach us how to respond to danger, suffering, and to profound loss. According to Chabad Rabbi Uriel Vigler, "The Rebbe once wrote a letter to a wounded Israeli soldier. He said that 'you may have a medal which you'll keep in a box. But your true medal of honor is on your body. It is permanent as is your merit for having saved Am Yisrael." Rabbi Vigler's idea was to make a "small but memorable contribution to these heroes of Am Yisrael, who have quite literally put their lives on the line in the continued effort of securing Israel." He told me that the soldiers are "so excited, they are loving every minute here and the outpouring of community support, especially given the recent confrontation with Gaza, is amazing." Vigler observed one the soldiers who had difficulty feeding himself because he had lost a hand — and because his other hand was broken. The rabbi must have looked concerned. The soldier consoled him. "Don't worry, it was worth giving up my hands for Am Yisrael." According to Vigler, today, one of the soldiers laughed for the first time in two years — so said his companions. He laughed at the wax figures at Madame Tussauds. Congregation Orach Chaim (OC) will host a dessert reception for the soldiers on Shabbat, June 12th, from 5-7:30pm. President Jamie Lassner of OC told me: "We are very excited to welcome these heroes to Orach Chaim, especially at this most difficult time for our homeland. I am certain that we will all walk away awed by their strength of character and humbled by their courage. I hope that we are all invigorated to l'taken olam, to do something to better the world. We at OC have always been thankful to our US Military and also to the members of the IDF, those currently serving and those who have served in the past, as it is they who have protected us and our peoples' ability to freely worship and serve Hashem." Some say that Israel's military victories and heroic warriors have faded into history and are no more. I strongly disagree. The kind of courage now required to keep on fighting for Jewish and national survival — knowing that this fight is probably one that your children, grandchildren, maybe even your great-grandchildren will also still be fighting, requires even more courage and determination, not less. Perhaps it is a bit easier when you believe that the next battle will be the last one, that once you've won enough battles or enough wars the matter will be settled, that you will have earned 50 years of peace and prosperity. As my Yiddish-speaking mother and grandmother might have said: "A nechtica tuk." (This really can't be translated but let's agree that it means "the chances that this will happen are unlikely at best"). After all, Israel is located in the Middle East, where fighting is a permanent way of life. Family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe — and then there are the religious wars, both within Islam and Islam's war against infidels; the war between Arab nationalism and Islamism; and the war now being waged by extra-state terrorist actors. I am talking about the war being fought by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, etc. against the Jews, against Israelis, against Americans — against the entire civilized world. What does a nice Jewish boy or girl have to do to survive in such a neighborhood? They have to fight — and fight well. And Israelis are doing so. They are "managing the matzav (the troubles, the situation), as well as — better than can be expected — given the diabolical constraints the Israeli Army is forced to endure by a world that does not want Israel to defend itself and which condemns the Israeli Army for doing so, and for defending itself in ethical ways. Today's IDF is up against many more enemies than the founding generations once were. This is not Ben Gurion's or Moshe Dayan's kind of war. This time, Israel is not just up against five Arab armies. This time, Israel is up against 56 Muslim states, the Palestinian terrorists, the United Nations, state-funded and shadow-funded terrorist groups, the world's professoriate and the world's media. This time, Israel is condemned even when it sacrifices its own young warriors in order to avoid enemy casualties — death-cult enemies who position themselves among their own civilians for a propaganda if not a military victory. This is precisely what happened in Jenin in 2002. And I wrote about it in the Jewish Press and in my book The New Anti-Semitism. I wrote: "The Israeli (mainly reserve) army is exceptionally principled, sensitive, haunted by any accidental civilian deaths, grief-stricken by the deaths of their own comrades. Unlike the Palestinians or al Qaeda, the IDF does not glorify death, and mourns each life lost in necessary battle. This must be said — not once, but over and over again to counter the monstrous propaganda against Israel....(In 2002) Israeli soldiers went in on foot to Jenin, not only to prevent Palestinian civilian casualties but because world opinion would not allow Israel to defend itself properly. The relentless sacrifice exacted by the world meant that 24 young Israeli soldiers had to (needlessly) die in the siege of Jenin. The Israelis went from booby-trapped house to booby-trapped house and were easy prey for snipers, rockets, grenades, etc. For its efforts, Israel was falsely accused of committing a massacre there.As we now know, the Israelis did not perpetrate a massacre in Jenin. On the contrary. Israeli soldiers not only gave out food and water, they gave up their own rations to civilians. They stocked up on candy for children and diapers for infants. Israeli soldiers did not confiscate or destroy civilian property. In fact, they slept on floors so as not to soil beds. Israeli soldiers systematically rolled up oriental carpets to shield them from their muddy military boots. They even left notes apologizing for any damage and thanking the absentee home-owners for their 'hospitality.' Sleepless, embattled, freezing, the Israelis refused to "borrow" blankets or coffee. Only one caffeine-starved soldier did so and his commanding officer wrestled with the question of whether or not to punish him." Recently, we have just learned of the ferocious and well-funded barbarism that Israeli soldiers met onboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara. Nevertheless, they escaped without any loss of life. Our visiting heroes are cut from this same morally and militarily mighty cloth. These ten soldiers served in the Golani, Givati, Nachal, and Tzanchanim Brigades. All have been involved in extensive and painful surgical and rehabilitation programs. Their heroism — and the heroic persistence of their physicians — is a credit to our people and to the state of Israel. You may read their stories online here. The soldiers are touring New York City and Washington, D.C., where they will have a VIP tour of the White House and be officially welcomed at the Israeli Embassy. They will also have boat rides, a beach barbecue in the Hamptons, and a visit to Niagara Falls. This coming Shabbat, June 11-12, Chabad is offering a "Shabbaton of Thanks" for them on the Upper East Side in order to give their American Jewish supporters a chance to meet them in person. (Details below). This coming Shabbat, June 12th, from 5-7:30pm, Rabbis Michael Shmidman and Haskel Lookstein will be joining Rabbis Ben Zion Krasnianski and Uriel Vigler at Congregation Orach Chaim (1459 Lexington Avenue between East 94th and 95th Streets) to welcome our precious heroes, the guardians of our future. All are invited. Please come to stand with them, with us, and with all Israel.
Dr. Phyllis Chesler, Emerita Professor of Psychology, is the author of thirteen books, including The New Anti-Semitism. She regularly writes for Pajamas Media, The Jewish Press, Middle East Quarterly, Frontpage, NewsRealBlog, and for FOXNews.com. She may be reached at her website www.phyllis-chesler.com
|
|
ISRAEL AND UNIVERSAL JIHAD
Posted by Bill Warner, June 8, 2010. |
|
Today we have a very different newletter, not because it deals with Islam and politics, but because it is written by a politician — Vijay Kumar is running for Congress in Tennessees' 5th District. His billboards say "Defeat Universal Jihad". Imagine for a moment, that we had elected officials who actually knew who Mohammed was and what the true nature of jihad is. Instead, we have officials who believe Islam has been maligned and misunderstood and if we are just "nice" enough, they will love us. |
|
Israel is the target of Islam's Universal Jihadists, whether they come from Turkey, Palestine, Lancashire, the United Nations, Maine, or Sweden. Islam's own Syed Qutb said it best: "A Muslim has no nationality except his belief." The exact same statement applies to the allies and supporters of Islam's Universal Jihadists. That's why all the talk about Gaza and Palestinians and Turkey and "humanitarian aid" is pure fraud and nothing but fraud, all merely part of the Islamic Universal Jihad against Israel and everything it stands for. The Muslims involved in the attacks on Israel — no matter what piece of land they call home — care nothing for manmade geographical boundaries, just as they care nothing for manmade laws, or, for that matter, human life. What they care about is wiping Israel and everything it stands for off the face of the Earth. That is their goal. The one thing that Israel stands for that drives the Universal Jihadists of the Middle East mad — however short a trip that may be — is the right and freedom of a human being to be something other than Muslim. Universal Jihadists are dedicated to wiping such freedom from the face of the Earth. That's why their overtly stated goal is to destroy Israel and the Jews. It is pure, seething hatred. The "humanitarian aid" mission these Universal Jihadists and their liberal handmaidens are parading before the world press is nothing but a flotilla of pure, seething hatred, and it is a criminal fraud on Israel and on the world. It is actually a massive propaganda mission whose sole purpose is to smear and defame Israel, and weaken it for future attacks. For those people of reason in the world who care about facts instead of hysterical Jihadist propaganda, over a million tons of humanitarian supplies have gone into Gaza through Israel in the last 18 months. That's nearly a full ton of supplies for every man, woman, and child in all of Gaza! So who is lying? The Jihadists and their liberal "friends" fraudulently pretending to be on a "humanitarian aid" mission are lying. That shouldn't be a surprise: Islam demands that Muslims lie to non-Muslims if it benefits Universal Jihad and the Islamic goal of world domination. Hamas is just one arm of Universal Jihad, and they've sent over 10,000 mortars and rockets into Israel. Why? Pure, seething hatred, that's why. Israel is completely within its legal rights under international law to have mounted the Gaza blockade, and to have enforced it in international waters by stopping the Jihadist flotilla of pure, seething hatred fraudulently calling itself a "humanitarian aid" mission. But the Universal Jihadists surrounding Israel on every side care nothing whatsoever about "international law." That, after all, is just more man-made law, and means absolutely nothing to the Jihadists, who honor only the allegedly "divine law" of the Quran and the Sunnah: Shariah law. Islam's own Syed Qutb said it clearly: "There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shariah." Islam's own Syed Qutb also exposed the complete fraud being perpetrated by Hamas and the rest of the Jihadist liars claiming that Gaza, and even Israel, are somehow important for the land to Muslims: "The homeland of the Muslim, in which he lives and which he defends, is not a piece of land; the nationality of the Muslim, by which he is identified, is not the nationality determined by a government." So it's all Jihadist fraud, and nothing but fraud. The real driving force behind it is the one that has perpetuated 1400 years of the same kind of aggression, invasion, war, terrorism, slaughter, propaganda, and conquest of entire civilizations, such as Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran: it is Universal Jihad, the eternal Islamic quest for complete world domination. Israel is just the next most important target in this 1400-year war against mankind and civilization. The "humanitarian aid" mission is a Universal Jihad war flotilla, and it is nothing else. Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, AKP) is the Turkish headquarters for Universal Jihad. The 10,000 rockets and mortars thrown by Hamas at Israel are missiles of Universal Jihad. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the American headquarters of Universal Jihad. The Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan flooding the world with heroin (which is only sold to non-Muslims) are doing their part for Universal Jihad. The Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be "wiped off the face of the map" is the voice of Universal Jihad. Universal Jihad is not only a declared war on Israel, it is a declared war on the United States and on our Constitution. And to our eternal shame, our own President, Barack Hussein Obama, is now aiding and abetting Universal Jihad by his words and actions, and has turned his back on Israel. I support Israel absolutely and unconditionally. I decry and denounce Universal Jihad as the most hateful, destructive, amoral, and vicious assault on mankind and human rights and freedoms that the world has ever known. Vijay Kumar
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/ |
|
IRAN & TURKEY ARE THE ACTUAL THREAT TO THE ARABS
Posted by Elias Bejjani, June 8, 2010. |
|
Introduction: In his recent rhetorical salvo with the State of Israel in the aftermath of the maritime Flotilla confrontation, Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has proved par excellence his supremacy over Iranian and Arab leaders and their intelligence and media linguistic experts in the venomous usage of fabricated, misleading, camouflaged, deceptive and demagogical slogans. In his theatrical, emotional, religious speeches and statements, he appealed to the Islamic world, Arabs and Palestinians, and evilly resorted to all tactics and strategies of bragging, hatred, stirring of instincts, fundamentalism and hostilities. Mr. Erdogan cunningly and with malice endeavored to portray himself and his country as guardians for the Palestinian liberation cause and as holy angels whom heaven has sent to work on lifting the sea blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza strip. In his hysterical anti-Israel rampage he did not only viciously attack Israel and defend the Palestinians, but he also boldly and stupidly humiliated and insulted the Arabs when he said in one of his fiery bragging statements: "Israel must know that Turkey is not like other countries, and definitely not a tribe". What he was saying loudly and clearly is that he is not an Arab, but Turkish and Turkey is not like the Arab countries". In his recent rhetorical salvo with the State of Israel in the aftermath of the maritime Flotilla confrontation, Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has proved par excellence his supremacy over Iranian and Arab leaders and their intelligence and media linguistic experts in the venomous usage of fabricated, misleading, camouflaged, deceptive and demagogical slogans. In his theatrical, emotional, religious speeches and statements, he appealed to the Islamic world, Arabs and Palestinians, and evilly resorted to all tactics and strategies of bragging, hatred, stirring of instincts, fundamentalism and hostilities. Mr. Erdogan cunningly and with malice endeavored to portray himself and his country as guardians for the Palestinian liberation cause and as holy angels whom heaven has sent to work on lifting the sea blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza strip. In his hysterical anti-Israel rampage he did not only viciously attack Israel and defend the Palestinians, but he also boldly and stupidly humiliated and insulted the Arabs when he said in one of his fiery bragging statements: "Israel must know that Turkey is not like other countries, and definitely not a tribe". What he was saying loudly and clearly is that he is not an Arab, but Turkish and Turkey is not like the Arab countries". What the whole world, and specially the Arabs, should know is that the Turkish government does not actually care about the Palestinians or about their cause, and historically Turkey never did. Erdogan and his government are trying to sell the Arab countries and people mere rhetorical merchandise that the Arabs sadly emotionally and religiously cherish. This recent aggressive Turkish rhetorical maneuvers have been taking place through a forged theatrical show of hostilities and hatred against Israel and a deceitful support to the Palestinian cause. It is just an empty rhetoric that the Turks are smartly abusing as a vehicle to get into the Arab countries and have more power as a pretext to their expansion, hegemony and covert ploys for domination. The Turks cannot deliver anything that they are offering, advocating for or bragging about. Their rhetoric is void of any actual context and has no credibility at all. Meanwhile, Iran has been playing the same game and using the same rhetoric, but also combined with force and terrorism through its two armed proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Both Iran and Turkey share the same anti-Arab and anti-Israel schemes of expansionism and a persistent quest for power and domination. They are fighting their battles through different means and ways to gain more power and more control in the Arab countries and have a piece of the Arab oil cake. Both countries believe that the USA is now weak and will get weaker after withdrawing from Iraq and that its withdrawal will leave a power vacuum in the region which both countries are working on very hard to fill. They are using the Israeli hostility tag and the bogus support for the Palestinians as a camouflage for their vicious schemes. Sadly, the Arabs love and cherish these two tags and have a weak spot for them. In reality and actuality, both Iran and Turkey, and not Israel, have become the actual and lethal threat to the Arab countries and their natural resources, particularly the oil. They are the real enemies that the Arab countries, especially the Arabian Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, should focus on seriously and work united to face and deter with no hesitation, dhimmitude or fear whatsoever. Ironically, the moderate Arab countries are not yet openly standing together to stop and abort the Iranian and Turkish invasion attempts. Unless these countries unite, declare their intentions of confrontation and take all measures required for the confrontation, Iran and Turkey will gradually conquer their countries and resurrect both the dead Ottoman and the Persian empires. The whole world by now knows for a fact that the so called "Freedom Fleet" was a mere jihadist mission and not a mission of peace. It was fully orchestrated jointly by Turkey and Iran in a bid to serve their anti-Arab and anti-Israel plots and plans. Both countries couldn't care less about the Palestinians and about their cause, but they are deviously abusing them as a mere vehicle of deception and camouflage. Unfortunately, the Arabs love day dreaming and imaginary heroism. Without a doubt, the Flotilla confrontation played on the Arabs' wishful thinking and blurred their vision to see the actual hidden Turkish and Iranian agenda of hostility and expansionism. Turkey's deceitful Flotilla propaganda escapade was successful in selling the Arabs and fanatical Muslims a false grandiose feeling of heroism, while Iran was successful at the same time in temporarily diverting the world focus away from its nuclear activities. In conclusion, Iran and Turkey, and not Israel, are the actual threat to the Arab countries. The time has come for all free world countries, especially the US Obama administration, Arab world, and Europe to start speaking to the rogue countries and organizations, including Turkey, using the only language that they know and understand, the language of strength and force. All other means are futile and a complete — and an existentially dangerous — waste of time. Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist,
journalist and political commentator. Email him at
phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
|
|
WTC RALLY AGAINST MOSQUE: IHH SUPPORT OF JIHAD DOCUMENTED; IRAN GETS NUCLEAR COMPONENTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 8, 2010. |
|
WTC RALLY AGAINST MOSQUE: 1. ISSUES, EXCITEMENT, DECORUM 
On Sunday, June 6, just before the hot spell broke, thousands of New Yorkers attended a three-hour demonstration against a mega mosque approved for construction near Ground Zero. The organizers were "Stop the Islamization of America," headed by journalist Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch. Before reaching the rally, I approached a man with a placard. He asked if I were attending, I replied, yes, as a journalist. He said, "Journalists are useless. We need protesters." He sees no relation between publicizing an issue and public awareness of it. The crowd was in patriotic mode. A high proportion carried placards. Most declared Ground Zero sacred and jihad alien. Most were reasonable. Did attendees oppose this mosque or all mosques? Some told me, this one; far fewer said, all. None expressed phobia. Behavior was civil. The first couple of speakers were notable for good diction, short sentences, clear logic, memorable phrases, and pertinent points. Robert Spencer said that just because the mosque sponsors profess belief in tolerance does not mean they do and should not end the controversy. The prospective imam's books demand Sharia (Islamic law) here, which would deny tolerance. This is the same religious law that got radical Muslims to murder 3,000 Americans here, Mr. Spencer said. Some of the speakers had protested in the community board meeting that approved the mosque unanimously. One is C. Lee Hanson, who lost son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter on 9/11. At that meeting, a Mrs. Chen accused opponents, like him, of bigotry. She had no idea whom she was categorically denigrating. Mr. Hanson has a mixed family to which immigrants of different races and national origin joined. He waxed indignant at her own intolerance and at that of politicians equally defamatory. He finds that no argument for building the mosque. "Shame, shame, shame!,' he chanted. Speaker Simon Deng, cited his own story as a warning not to let Islam get entrenched. Mr. Deng was a Christian age 9 when Sudanese Muslims enslaved him. Enslavement was a tactic in turning the country Islamic. The Muslims went on to murder three million of his people. Whereas just one mosque had stood in his area before, 130 stand now. His lesson to us: "We New Yorkers must stop this mosque here." Mr. Deng pointed out that America's wars in the Mideast are because of what Middle Easterners did here, to us. Their bid to build a mega-mosque near this site is a "slap in the face" to us." One sign read, "The World Trade Center was full of innocent people." Another followed up with, "And they think a cartoon is an insult?"
WTC RALLY AGAINST MOSQUE: 2. FIRST RESPONDERS AND TASTES OF 9/11 
Still looking strong and speaking with a poised military decisiveness, the former policeman, active at the site on 9/11, was left, however, with 60% of normal lung capacity. Well after the explosions, he took off his gas mask, an impediment to rescue work. He did not realize that the very dust he stirred was toxic.
WTC RALLY AGAINST MOSQUE: 3. HINDUS AND OTHER MODERATES 
A family was demonstrating with a sign, "Moderate Muslims do not accept Sharia." Was she representing moderate Muslims, understanding hurt American feeling and not seeking to dominate? Turned out, they were Christian. The woman had studied Islam since 9/11; this was her conclusion. Walking through the crowd, I did not find any Muslims present to show solidarity with fellow Americans. How would they have been received? Among the speakers was an ex-Muslim. A protester, Mike C., commented about moderation, "Reasonable Muslims wouldn't be building a mosque by Ground Zero. If this mosque were being built on 23d Street, there wouldn't be any protest." After offering me a drink of water, a Hindu likened his Hindus to other fellow Americans on reaction to jihad. He said, "Because Hindus are tolerant, they assume other faiths are. Hindus are good people, so they don't see evil in certain others. They don't do enough in self-defense." He was differentiating firmness against aggression from non-violence. In prepared remarks, the President of the Indian-American Intellectuals Forum, Narain Kataria ( Narainkataria.Blogspot,com ), made some singular points. When surviving the partition of India, he witnessed fellow Hindu and Sikh "brothers," as he puts it, murdered by jihadists, and "sisters" raped by jihadists. He does not want America changed so as to similarly threaten his grandchildren. He offers his experience so fellow Americans can benefit, "to oppose the barbarian and totalitarian ideology extolling...violence, intolerance, and hatred." His organization opposes mosques at Ground Zero (a second one is planned, too), because it further would add insult to injury and humiliate the families of the slain, especially because those terrorists were trained in mosques. Noting the relationship between mosque and terrorism, Mr. Kataria links the imams who preach in mosques with those who teach in madrassas. Pakistan has 20,000 madrassas, graduating half a million annually. 75% of the madrassas are controlled by the extremist Saudi sect, Wahabi. Kataria states that after rigorous training, 10,000 graduates become jihadists. They crisscross the world, slaying innocent people in the name of Allah. The terrorists who killed innocent people in New York on 9/11, and in Mumbai, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Delhi, Nigeria, and Cairo "were all trained in madrassas." [Radicals use U.S. mosques as recruiting and plotting grounds for terrorism.] The crowd might not have been so aroused, if 9/11 were the only incident of its kind. However, Kararia points out, "...after 9/11, terrorists have carried out more than 15,000 attacks and murdered more than 75,000 people." What about the proposed Cordoba mosque? Its prospective imam, "Abdul Rauf wants to establish Sharia law in the U.S.. Sharia is the antithesis of democracy. Sharia Law denies equal rights to women." Its practitioners "want women to wear burqas from head to toe." They do not allow women to drive. In Pakistan's northwest, the "Taliban bunt all the music video stores and schools for women. Under Sharia law, if anyone is found guilty, his limbs are chopped off. Sharia Law is completely incompatible with our Constitution." Why is the mosque named, "Cordoba?" Kataria explains, Cordoba was the center of a Muslim caliphate in Europe that lasted for a few hundred years. It was a period of great Islamic oppression and brutality against Christians and Jews. To Muslims, "Cordoba is the symbol of Islamic victory over Europe. Muslims feel proud when they talk about Cordoba and humiliation of non-Muslims." "Imam Rauf wants to establish Islamic domination over America." The mosque would no center of moderation and tolerance.
WTC RALLY AGAINST MOSQUE: 4. BOMBING PROMPTED STUDY OF ISLAMIC HISTORY Another speaker, who had lived in a Muslim part of Asia, said that millions of Muslims would see this mosque as an example of weakness of the U.S. and as triumph of Islam. At the rally, I met another young New Yorker prompted by 9/11 to study Islam, Christopher Ikaris, clear of speech and thought. He described the likely Muslim reaction to the mega-mosque: "We can knock down their tallest building, and they let us build a mosque here! Let us push them more." Pointing out that there already is a mosque about 10 blocks from there, Mr. Ikaris asks why another? Ikaris likened the mosque to the start of Islam's three-step process: (1) Invite to convert; (2) If gain political control, tax those who did not; and (3) If they refuse the discriminatory tax, wage jihad on them. A friend of mine had originally heard the professions of tolerance by the mosque group. Then she heard that it is being backed by sinister forces. Mr. Ikaris researched this. He found that the Imam of the proposed mosque tells us that the mosque would be financed locally, but is raising funds from radical Islamic sources abroad. As others at the rally explained, deception is an authorized tactic in jihad, and three-fourths of mosques in the U.S. and of the madrassas in Pakistan are financed by radical Saudis. This imam, who tells us he is tolerant, wants the U.S. to change its foreign policy to favor Islam and to change domestic policy to allow Islamic law, which discriminates and oppresses. England already has adopted aspects of Islamic law in some areas. Ikaris' cousins in England are in a state of denial about their own peril, as the religious extremist boa constrictor fastens its grip on them. Ikaris cites Walid Shoebat's report of an interview of Imam Rauf who declared: "Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws." Thus he denounced American law. He explained, 'New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad ... so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia." Ikaris also looked up the 9/31/01, 60 Minutes show, at which host Ed BRADLEY asked Rauf, "Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened? Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. BRADLEY: How? Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA." Ikaris concludes that Imam Rauf is not moderate but extremist. He engages, for now, in the ideological form of jihad rather than in the military form. (For more on Rauf's views, see his 2004 book, What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West.)
WTC RALLY AGAINST MOSQUE: 5. RUSSIAN-AMERICAN SPEAKER 
At the rally, and even at my friend's table, later, at the Third Avenue Street Fair, the question arose, "Wouldn't the mosque lead to dialog?" Speakers and attendees answered that dialog does not depend on this mosque. Muslim leaders usually do not conduct the exchange of views that we call dialog but denounce other faiths and attempt to conceal their extremism and to proselytize. (I have reported on two phony dialogs.) A speaker who immigrated from Russia depicted an Islamic center as a place of separation from the U.S. effort against terrorism. "They use our freedom to kill American democracy." He thought our politicians should oppose this. He named President Obama, Governor Paterson, and Mayor Bloomberg. Thousands of boos sounded at each name. One got the impression that Americans are ready to trade appeasement for vigorous defense. In them, the American spirit lives. In these immigrants, patriotism thrives. Not in those politicians. Another speaker pointed to an American Revolutionary flag's motto, "Don't Tread On Me!" Herb London, of the Hudson Institute, which has a New York City branch, said from the podium on Liberty Street, "We are fighting for our liberty," today. He vowed, "We will not allow this sacred ground to be contaminated by totalitarian logic!" That think-tanker made effective street speech. The consensus is: the crowd resents the implied insult of the mosque, the war on America that its imam would represent, and extending our own tolerance to those who subvert our free country. Shortly after 9/11, when New Yorkers' wounds still were raw and feelings still heightened, a Muslim Day parade jogged by me, chanting, "New York, down, down, down. Islam, up, up, up."
ANTI-FLOTILLA ALTERNATIVES? Yediot Ahronot's senior military analyst, Alex Fishman was asked whether the IDF might have tried certain alternatives in boarding the battle ground ship. Could chains have jammed the ship propeller? The propeller might have sliced the frogmen. Could ships have blocked the boat? No. [No traction when floating.] How about ramming the boat? That might sink hundreds of people. Why board in international waters? Because about 100 ships were being sent to meet the ship (according to Maan News). Suppose some were rigged with explosives to be set off when near Israeli ships (IMRA, 6/5/10). People wanted to second-guess the IDF, but operations are not simple, choices not ample. The thirst for blood is all in the jihadists' imagination and propaganda.
SOME FLOTILLA TERRORISTS IDENTIFIED The IDF has identified the following terrorists aboard the Mavi Marmara: Fatimah Mahmadi, U.S. resident from Iran. Belongs to "Viva Palestine." Tried to smuggle electronic components into Gaza. S. AFRICA WITHDRAWS AMBASSADOR FROM ISRAEL Israel expressed "regret and disappointment" at the withdrawal of South Africa's ambassador. Israel suggested it would be more useful to criticize the terrorist-supporting sponsors of the flotilla, who are far from humane (IMRA, 6/5/10). South Africa must have forgotten the many agricultural and other experts whom Israel sent to sub-Sahara African countries to boost their output. The U.S. and USSR also sent experts. The Americans usually operated in offices. The Soviets usually segregated themselves from the blacks. But the Israelis got down on the ground and worked the soil by hand alongside the native farmers. The Israelis were best liked. Then came politics, which sent the Israelis home.
FLOTILLA BOARDING LEGALITY: MORE Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz discussed the Gaza blockade and the blockade running in his usual thorough way. He cited an example of the U.S. blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis. The novel points he makes here is that the breaking of the blockade was a military act. The passengers therefore may not have been innocent civilians any more. Those who attacked the Israeli boarders certainly were not. Even if the blockade-running were not a military act, the Israeli boarders certainly had a right to defend themselves. How did Israel violate international law, as alleged? The critics do not specify. They mistakenly call illegal the blockade itself, the boarding on the high seas, and the deaths of so-called peace activists by Israelis apparently lawfully defending their lives. Prof. Dershowitz asks what other country would have been gentle enough to have armed its troops with paintball guns and ordered them not to draw regular pistols unless their lives were threatened, as indeed they were (IMRA, 6/6/10).
IHH SUPPORT OF JIHAD DOCUMENTED 
IHH was the owner of several flotilla ships. The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, in Israel, has "reliable information" that IHH supported terrorist cells in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and other countries. In the trial over 1999 plot to bomb L.A. airport, IHH was implicated for helping the cell get forged documents. Jean-Louis Bruguière, head of the French anti-terrorist unit in the 1990s, testified that IHH helped recruit jihadists and infiltrate them into combat (IMRA, 6/6/10, more details in source). IRAN GETS NUCLEAR COMPONENTS Using false end-user certificates for companies in Asia, Iran has smuggled in banned technical equipment from an apparently unwitting German company by way of Dubai port. This effort has persuaded the West that Iran has resumed work on nuclear weapons. Dubai has blocked further sales by that German company, which, in any case, agreed not to ship such equipment to Iranian companies hereafter. The UN and the US are investigating how Iran evaded UN sanctions to smuggle in banned components from Western companies. A senior UN source wants Dubai to be more vigilant (IMRA, 6/6/10 from Sunday Telegraph). When it came to doctored passports used in assassinating a terrorist, Dubai police showed great talent. Where is that talent now? Comments were sent to me that if Israel had nothing criminal to hide, it would release photos showing its soldiers being beaten on the ship, photos that would harm morale. But when it comes to all the Iranian violations and deception, the same people fail to comment that if Iran had nothing to hide, it would operate aboveboard and, indeed, not have gotten itself restricted in the first place. Likewise, comments allege undefined Israeli violations of UN resolutions, but where are the same people's comments about definite Iranian violations of UN resolutions? These double standards undercut the credibility of Israel's critics.
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:
|
|
INACCURACY OVER GAZA
Posted by Patrick Dempsey, June 7, 2010. |
|
I tire of the same question, though I constantly answer it with regard to the 6,000,000 Jews who were taken from us. All Jews have a right to existence and not one Muslim has any right to deny that. There can be no God who would condone the taking of a life, and in defence of all life, no God would give the right of one over the other to commit murder. Well it appears Adrian that you did not learn from History that the truth is the factor which teaches us what was honest and what has been fabricated. Your potted 'history of Gaza Strip' is slanted and slightly biased, against the Jewish People. You do a great disservice to your trade and are disingenuous not only to the Jews of the region, but to the Arabs as well. Journalism should tackle each and every issue with an integrity that appears lacking in this piece. Firstly, one million Arabs were not expelled from Israel, while 700,000 to 800,000 Jewish refugees were forced to flee Arab lands, and with barely the clothes they were wearing settled in a besieged land, their land, the State of Israel. Secondly, and this is very important to the absence of your historical foundation, Muslims are not a disenfranchised people in the State of Israel, whereas Jews are an oppressed People in their own land, circled as they are by an Arab ring of hatred. You make one sided points to dispel a double sided argument. While the ordinary working class Palestinian scrapes around for a living, an average smuggler can extort £2,400,00 per annum from fleecing their own people. On your own assessment this substantial sum would keep nearly 500 Palestinians in gainful employment, per year. Assuming there are many others, of these smugglers, stealing from the very lifeblood of a Muslim people, how many proper jobs does this then steal from the local economy? Basic economics would have taught you that the struggle is overseen by those who wish to extort power, make profit and shield this all behind a rabid hatred of the Jewish People. Were you missing from Maths and Economics Classes also? Why is it that Egypt, a Muslim Country seeks to prevent this urgent aid from getting to those of their own faith? History can fully detail the struggle for the Jewish People, their very existence under constant attack since the declared State of Israel was created in 1948. That truth, however, will never acknowledge that Hitler had clearly set a precedent which many in the Muslim world would seek to emulate and continue. That fundamental truth, which you omit from your piece, brought about the creation of a State on the back of the worst ever genocide mankind could ever have conceived of, and with a delivery of 6,000,000 Jewish Murdered, could ever expect to achieve again! Here, in 1948, the Arab World set before the alter of history its own ambition to outdo Hitler and let the Jews of the World sink permanently without trace. As to the million displaced Arabs that you so wrongly identify with expulsion, these were Arabs whom the Jewish Sate were happy to incorporate. Remember, Muslims have equally treatment under Jewish Law as Jews do! The Arab world more or less ordered these, now Israeli Arabs, if they so chose, to exit the land of Israel or face the same annihilation planned for the Jewish People. Ever since then, the Palestinian people have been the rod with which the Muslim world uses to whip the Jews of Israel into an under siege, threatened and assailed People. Israel has a history, a truth that is quite fundamental to all of democracy, a memory of what was allowed to happen to their People, which might blur the judgement of lesser people and a forgiving nature that lives carefully with the knowledge of what we allowed to happen, 70 years ago. That very thought, their history and truth must bolster them more solidly as a People, and more readily as an assaulted Nation, to shore up a resistance that has been a daily ritual for them ever since the terms of The Holocaust became known to the free world. There is also a very salient point to be made in all of this, it is that the Jews do not strap a suicide vest to their body in order to kill. Those killed may well be Jews, but they are just as like to be Muslim and Christian also. It is also true that while Israel persists in its own defence of its own Land and People, more and more Jews will die, alongside ever more Muslims and an increasing toll upon a Christian community caught in the middle. If Islam is so concerned with the plight of all of its people, their God will understand the placation of a few Jews who seek to live in peace with their neighbours. But it is a stark reminder of our recent past that many Muslim leaders have not only extolled the virtues of Hitler's reach for a final solution, they have resolved to complete this task with an urgency that sweeps aside their own peoples resolve and ensures their complete impoverishment. This final act must not be allowed to take precedence over what honest, decent and, those who embrace all humanity, must demand. Where was the clamour from the Muslim world in 1967 when the Arab League's response to the plight of the Palestinian's was distilled down to the Khartoum Declaration? This declared that no peace would prevail and there would be:- 1) no recognition of Israel, We must also remember that both Gaza and the West Bank are embroiled in a power struggle, with both Fatah and Hamas still killing each other to gain that brokerage of power that seeks to deny the very peace its own people would demand and seek? Whereby all assistance to a beleaguered Muslim people is denied, in favour of a resolute determination to prevent Israeli existence, more Muslims are denied the truth of their own existence above the rights of the Jews to live in harmony amongst them. The resolve of Islam is a power to see, but their God is beholding to the Muslim world that has declared its own intention to deny Israel coexistence, and thereby deny Jews their God given right to live in peace. This right to declare what they suppose God would demand, must be denied those who would seek to subjugate a world to a limited view of what God intended. As for Sinn Fein efforts to run the blockade and their representative in particular, there is no reason to presume or even seem that he was there to represent my views, or even the views of the Irish People. His view is biased and an ill conceived siding with a particular faction. His politics are morally corrupt and such ethics are subliminal at best. The history of SF's coalition with terror has paved the way for what has destroyed too many lives in this world, including Palestinian lives. Individuals cannot commit the Irish people to a lie which hides the fact that despises the right of life to the Jewish People, all while they sponsor Hamas, Fatah and those other groups whose only allegiance is to personal power. Need we pick over the bones of the IRA to know that Pearse, Ceannt, Connolly and Clarke would not recognise in the Ireland we now inhabit a Country they would be proud of. Where nationalism has become tainted, republicanism has blown all chance at acceptance. The awareness of the perspective of history for us today is severely lacking in what blinds those who seek the promotion of violence and hatred. In Ireland, where once a proud Brotherhood stood for some semblance of decency, an orchestration of violence has left a Country facing the worst evils ever witnessed on the streets of our Villages, Town's and City's. Contact Patrick Dempsey by email at pd1010@hotmail.com |
|
LEADING JOURNALIST: ISRAELI MEDIA DROPPED THE BALL
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 7, 2010. |
|
Yoni Ben-Menachem, veteran journalist and five-year Director of Voice of Israel, says that better Israeli media coverage before the flotilla arrived could have prevented the ambush. "It is likely that professional and accurate coverage of the preparations for the flotilla," Ben-Menachem wrote at the end of last week, "would have helped reveal the ambush that the IHH activists planned for the Israeli commando forces above the ship." Though the press is considered the "watchdog of democracy," it's time to admit the truth, Ben-Menachem writes: "In this story, the Israeli press fell asleep on the watch — and after it woke up, it re-entered the same conception in which Israel's defense establishment was mired." Specifically, Ben-Menachem rails against the fact that though PA and Turkish media had been talking about it for three months, "the Israeli media did not see fit to cover the preparations for the flotilla — even when the PA media publicized widely the fact that Hamas planned to send 100 boats with children from Gaza to greet it. The Israeli press simply went into a deep coma, while the Turkish, Arab and Hamas media continued to deal with it extensively. Ben-Menachem also feels that the Israeli government decisions regarding how to deal with the flotilla once it arrived could have been influenced for the better had the media paid more attention: "The Israeli media also barely covered the governmental discussions on the flotilla that was about to arrive. The mini-Cabinet made a decision to keep the story on low-profile, and it succeeded in this very well." He further noted that though Israeli journalists with foreign passports occasionally enter Arab countries and return with in-depth, daring stories, "How did it happen that not one Israeli journalist reported from within Turkey on the send-off of the Marmara ship? Nor did any Israelis manage to penetrate the IHH and report back about the organization and its members? And the biggest question: How could it be that not one Israeli media person was able to penetrate the ship with 600 passengers, even with a false identity?" Nor did any of the Israeli journalists think to challenge the official estimates as to the level of violence: "When the IDF briefed the reporters on its evaluations that the worst violence that could be expected would be 'spitting' on soldiers, why did not one journalist think to ask, 'And what will happen if there is worse violence? Is the IDF prepared?' The words of the IDF officers were received as if they were Torah from Sinai." Furthermore, Ben-Menachem asks, why was there no coverage of the PR efforts under the auspices of Minister Yuli Edelstein's office, and its ties — or lack thereof — with other governmental advocacy bodies? "The media is now preparing its knives for all those responsible for the 'mistaken' action — but what about its own mistakes, and possibly even cooperation with the political and security echelons in keeping the story on a low flame?" "It is very likely," Ben-Menachem concludes, "that if the Israeli media had carried out their job properly, with a series of investigative pieces and reports from the field before the flotilla, they could have revealed who the IHH really is, and who really were the 'activists' on board the Marmara. They could have thus exposed the ambush in advance, and possibly even helped Israel's PR efforts about the real role played by the Turkish government in supporting the flotilla." INN, however, it should be noted, was not the focus of his criticism. It covered the planned arrival of the flotilla and profiled the terrorists who appeared at the sendoff immediately, as well as exposing IHH days before other Israeli news sources. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
PROPHECY
Posted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, June 7, 2010. |
|
Many Jews talk about the need to make Israel an authentic Jewish state, and of course they know what is an authentic Jewish state. It's a state based on the Torah, on the Sinai Covenant. It's a state whose ultimate purpose is to sanctify the Name of God by revealing His infinite Wisdom, Power and Graciousness in every domain of existence. But if we understand what an authentic Jewish state is, why don't we have a road map to such state? The basic reason is because we have focused our attention and energies on the "Arab problem," more precisely the "Palestinian problem." This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only is entire world is focused on the Palestinian problem, but Israel's Government is committed to the establishment of an Arab-Islamic state on Israel's own territory! Let's try to get to the bottom of this bizarre situation. (1) Israeli governments have focused the world's attention on the Palestinian problem because these foolish governments have failed to address Israel's most fundamental problem the Jewish problem! (2) Stated another way, every Israeli government has been focused on the territorial-cum-security issue. So lo and behold, Israel is losing territory and has never been more insecure! Want more? Okay. (3) Israel's (paranoid) prime ministers are always preoccupied with Israel's image in the media or among the nations. This is precisely why Israel has never had a more horrible image among the nations. Are you getting the message? You all know that the Zionist enterprise had two basic goals: to provide for the security and restore the dignity of the Jewish people by establishing a Jewish state in Eretz Israel. Right? But where was God in this scenario? Do you find God mentioned in Theodor Herzl's The Jewish State — Herzl, the only name mentioned in the document now called Israel's Declaration of Independence? So, instead of God, what does Israel look up to — because if a people have nothing to look up to, it's on the way to looking down on its feet. Instead of looking up to God it will look up to man. It's called "humanism." But inasmuch as biologists such as Richard Dawkins have shown that man is descended from the apes, an awful lot of Israelis have discovered that Israel has no statesman at the helm — just apes! Let me put it another way. What do Israel's decision-makers and opinion-makers exalt? But of course — DEMOCRACY! Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that the paramount concern of Israel's ruling elites — politicians and judges, academics and journalists — is to secure Israel's reputation as a Democracy. This is what gives Israel's government Legitimacy and Israel's elites with Respectability. Right? But notice that the nations are now seeking to delegitimize Israel despite its vaunted democracy! Sort of ironic, no? But where is the Torah in this Israeli scenario? Wasn't it the Torah that preserved the Jewish people and endowed them with personal and national dignity? Will someone tell me what would have happened to the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple without the Torah? Why they would have become as extinct as the dodo. Which means that had Israel been led by the likes of Yitzhak Rabin (read Shimon Peres), Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Binyamin Netanyahu — and let's add that "everything-is-justiciable" jurisprudent Aharon Barak — the Jews would have suffered the fate of the Neanderthals. Poor Israel! Having abandoned the God of Israel and the Torah, various leaders of the so-called Jewish state are so desperate that they solicit the political support of Christians! Christians may think this is the fulfillment of prophecy. But the Jewish sages knew that in the end of days, Israel would be ruled by paltry governments. That's where Israel is today. Like the foolish governments of Europe and the United States, they are succumbing to Allah and the Quran — to barbarians. But don't despair. The Jewish sages saw the current state of affairs as a preliminary to a renaissance of Hebraic civilization. Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
OBAMA AND HAMAS
Posted by Ted Belman, June 7, 2010. | |
|
Pres Obama is not letting the flotilla crisis go to waste. He is using it as a springboard to change US policy regarding Hamas. In his words, uttered in a recent interview by Larry King, 'Time to move forward and break out of the impasse' and "the status quo is unsustainable." Totally aside from whether it is really unsustainable, one need not wonder how he intends to break out of the impass. He will bring Hamas in from the cold. It was recently disclosed by Aaron Klein that,
Jerome Corsi went so far as to report:
The anti blockade movement was promoted by a Turkish "charity"
IHH which has been designated as a supporter of Hamas by both Israel
and the US. One of the backers of this "charity" is Tariq Ramadan
In April of this year, Obama's administration lifted the ban on Ramadan. A week ago, the Guardian reported "Hamas leader says American envoys making contact, but not openly." And this was before the crises. But the Obama-Hamas connection goes way back. Two years ago
"From BizzyBlog comes evidence that Obama's church not only has
anti-white, anti-American feelings, but may also have a pro-Hamas
bias.
The July 22, 2007 Trinity United Church of Christ bulletin reprinted an article written by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas. Originally printed in the LA Times as "Hamas' stand", Pastor Wright added a new title, "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle". The Times was criticized for giving a "Platform To Genocidal Terrorist." Where does that leave Obama's church? Marzook is a known terrorist and created an extensive Hamas network in the United States." Indeed, where does that leave Obama himself? During Obama's election campaign he was aided by Hamas-controlled Palestinians manning a phone bank from Gaza. Al Jazeera reported on the story. Seven days later, on January 27/09, Obama allocated
$20.3 million for Palestinian migration and refugee assistance. Quite
a reward. Why was he bringing Hamas terrorists to the US?
But his gratitude didn't end there. One month later, in the middle
of a great economic crunch, Obama sent $900 million
to Gazans or should I say Hamas.
So how does Obama intend to end the impass? An indication may be
in Pres Carter's written initiative, which he delivered to Hamas a
year ago. In it, he proposed talks between the Islamist group and the
U.S. without Hamas having to accept all conditions previously laid out
for dialogue by the American government.
After the Hamas take over of Gaza three years ago, the US and Israel decided to impose a blockade on Gaza to bring Hamas down. Hamas started firing rockets at Israel over the next few years to force a change in this policy. This resulted in Cast Lead in which the IDF attacked Hamas and delivered a major blow. Israel shocked everyone by ending the operation before Hamas was annihilated. It was reported that she did so at the request of President-elect Obama who was about to be inaugurated. For the time being, the rockets being fired by Hamas are few and far between perhaps because Hamas has a friend in the White House. Instead, Hamas has been planning, along with friends of Obama above mentioned and Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, to break the siege with a flotilla. And to make sure to create a sufficient crises to enable Obama to chart another course more favorable to them, they planned a violent confrontation. "Ending the impass", means lifting the blockade. Netanyahu in a recent speech gave Israel's bottom line saying, "Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem". The same, I am sure, goes for an airport in Gaza. Let's see how Obama squares the circle. No doubt he will propose some international inspection of cargo, certainly arriving from the Mediterranean and possibly from Egypt. But Israel need look no farther than UNSC Res 1701 which ended Lebanon War II. That resolution was to put a stop to the rearming of Hezbollah. It failed miserably. Why should better results be expected in Gaza.
This article is archived at
|
|
WHY HAMAS BARS HUMANITARIAN GOODS; FLOTILLA ISLAMIST LYNCHING BRUTALITY AGAINST CAPTURED ISRAELI SAILORS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 7, 2010. |
|
WHY HAMAS BARS HUMANITARIAN GOODS 
Reuters explains why Hamas blocks the flotilla aid. Hamas is playing politics with it. It won't accept it except under certain conditions. The main condition is that it all be turned over to it, at once. The humanitarian aid should not be given out to needy individuals, but put at Hamas' disposal. Hamas disposes of foreign aid goods in two ways. One is it gives it all to supporters and none to non-supporters. The other is, in getting the cement in all at once, it could use it for its military purpose of bunkers, against which the blockade was imposed in the first place. There is some local resentment against the foreign goods. Pharmacists, for example, feel they have enough stock to sell, but foreign medicine is given out free, cutting down their income (IMRA, 6/5/10). The world was noisy about demanding that Israel let the goods through, and is silent now that Hamas bars the goods. Hypocrisy, yet again!
FLOTILLA ISLAMIST BRUTALITY AGAINST CAPTURED ISRAELI SAILORS Not yet released but reported by an Israeli newspaper, the IDF recovered film from the battle ship's security cameras and observers' cameras, showing Islamist brutality against Israeli commandos. The film purportedly shows the violent Islamists beating helpless commandos, stripped of clothing and on the floor. It also shows several instances of Arabs and Europeans trying to hold off or shame away the beaters and a blood-in-the-eye mob. The objections to the beating of the helpless, captured sailors demonstrate that this was gratuitous brutality, that these militants were not acting in self-defense, and that PM Netanyahu was right, this was not a love boat. Whether to release these films poses for Israel a moral dilemma. Releasing the film and at least making it part of a publicly known investigation, would help prove its case. On the other hand, releasing it would enable Islamists to identify and punish the true humanitarians aboard. Islamists do take retribution against those who do not cooperate with them (IMRA, 6/5/10). Taliban retribution prolongs the war in Afghanistan. It is a form of terrorism. The old American expression for the unethical behavior of the
Islamists on the ship is "kicking a man while he is down."
OBAMA LINK TO ISLAMIST FLOTILLA TO GAZA? 
Obama administration representatives deny any White House link to the Free Gaza Movement that sponsored the flotilla and that the Administration is striving to change policy to work against Israel. The link, reported by Jerome R. Corsi of World Net Daily (WND), is Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, O. John Brennan, "according to a reputable source close to the Netanyahu government." Mr. Brennan has met with terrorist organizations. Question is whether he was coordinating the flotilla operation with him. Now, Brennan has made a number of pro-terrorist and anti-American statements at odds with his job description. For example, he has defined himself as a "citizen of the world." You may recall that Brennan: (1) Met with Islamic law students at a meeting sponsored by an unindicted co-conspirator; (2) Mis-defined "jihad" the way radical Muslim apologists do, pretending it does not mean holy war; (3) Encourages Hizbullah integration into the Lebanese government [which leads to greater Islamist control]; (4) Defended Hizbullah as not solely terrorist [neither was Nazi Germany, but the non-terrorist aspects were irrelevant]; (5) Spoke in Arabic, at NYU, and refused to translate it; and (6) Referred to Jerusalem only by its non-official, Arabic name [indicating his bias] Praised S. Arabia's fulfillment of religious supervision [which has led to madrassas and mosques that promote terrorism]. Another Obama link to the flotilla is that Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink, were top supporters of the Free Gaza Movement. Ayers and Dohrn gave Obama his initial, Illinois campaign fundraiser. [During the presidential campaign, he used to claim not to know certain terrorists, just as he claimed that in the 20 years he attended sermons by the avowedly and outspoken anti-American, racist, and bigoted Rev. Wright, he never heard any of it.] "In January, WND reported that Ayers, Dohrn and Evans were involved in provoking chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Hamas-controlled Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement..." Brennan has been striving to turn U.S. policy against Israel, as has
the Administration. If the Obama administration coordinated with the
flotilla to break Israel's legal blockade, it made an act of war
against a declared non-NATO ally. This would be another ground for
impeachment. It should be investigated (Emanuel Winston, Mid East Report and
Analysis, 6/5/10).
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:
|
|
REVIVING JEWISH RACE SCIENCE AT COLUMBIA U CONFERENCE
Posted by BE Shep, June 7, 2010. |
|
This was written by Brendan Goldman, a senior at New York University majoring in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies and an intern at the Middle East Forum. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. |
The population of Jews in the US is three percent ... but [their 'genius'] leads to their controlling so much power that even presidents are scared [of them]. Whether [President Barack] Obama will be able to escape the notion that three percent of the country is so powerful that the top gentile in the land cannot criticize Israel is not clear. The above statement was made not by a Hamas or KKK leader, but by Ali al-Amin Mazrui, director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at SUNY Binghamton. He was addressing the Ifriqiyya Colloquium Conference, held on the top floor of Columbia University's International Affairs Building, on Thursday, May 6. Mazrui is a darling of the far left, appearing prominently in venues such as Democracy Now, as well as at Islamist forums like the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Columbia Professor Mahmood Mamdani and Barnard College Professor Nadia Abu El-Haj also sat on the panel, the former serving as moderator. Mamdani introduced the speaker, telling the audience that the Ifriqiyya Colloquium was about "gain[ing] some depth to the study of Africa." It may require a Ph.D. to appreciate how Mazrui's anti-Semitic diatribe relates to that mission statement. Mazrui's lecture was entitled "Euro-Jews and Afro-Arabs: The Semitic Divergence in History," but he spent most of his time discussing the development of Jewish "genius" and "cultural impurity" in a European context. Ostensibly, Mazrui was comparing the impact of Jews on Europe to the impact of Arabs on Africa. However, he was more interested in why "Arabs lagged behind Jews in manifest genius." After admitting he knew little about Arab history and even less about Jews, Mazrui proceeded to spend his allotted time talking about the history of both peoples. Mazrui did not flinch in asking rhetorical such questions such as "What aspects of Marxism are taken from Judaism?" He made the nuanced argument that since Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, he clearly made "the Chosen People [into] the proletariat." Mazrui's lecture was also peppered with statements like "Jews have been at their best when they were Europeanized...almost as if you needed a mixture of Jewishness and Europeanness [for Jewish genius]." He also claimed that Jews as a people are insular and racist. "Arabs are far less race-conscious and ethnic-conscious than Jews are," he said. "Acceptance of race mixture was more developed in Arab culture than in Jewish culture." In case anyone thought he was referring to ancient history, Mazrui made it clear that his observation applied to the modern period. He told his audience that Kuwait formerly had a black prime minister, which was not widely reported in the media, but if Israel had one, "that definitely would make world news." He neglected to mention that Kuwait's Prime Minister is not elected, so the fact that a Kuwaiti Prime Minister was black tells us little about Kuwaiti society. Israel, on the other hand, is a multi-ethnic democracy with Arabs and Jews of every color serving in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Abu El-Haj took the stage after Mazrui and attempted to give the conference a more academic tone. She spoke articulately about Mazrui's research and largely succeeded in obfuscating the issue of Mazrui's flirtation with race science. Abu El-Haj brings plenty of baggage to the debate: She has drawn criticism for working on a book claiming Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically related to the ancient Israelites, although she is not a geneticist and there is definitive scientific evidence to the contrary. Her controversial book, Facts on the Ground, argues that Israeli archaeologists have distorted the country's material record in the service of nation-building. It was subjected to harsh reviews. Yet even Abu El-Haj was taken aback by Mazrui's research: "I don't fully understand what you're doing [in the section of his paper discussing 'Jewish Genius']," she exclaimed. Mazrui clarified that Jews had "a certain kind of impurity" that led them to be "like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," but now they have "landed with Mr. Hyde's evil identity." This statement was too much even for Mamdani, a vociferous critic of the Jewish state, who said, "I'm not comfortable with the direction this conversation is going in." Abu El-Haj then made the astute observation that the conversation had "racial-genetic undertones" and that "it's dangerous to talk about the biology of any group." Mazrui was offended, apparently unaware that he had said anything that could be construed as racist. He clarified that he was talking about "cultural," not "racial," "impurity." He then went off on a political tangent. This digression led him to the above statement about the "control" exercised by "three percent of the population" over the "highest gentile in the land," determining American ties with Israel. Mazrui must have missed the fact that Americans support Israel over its adversaries at a ratio of over four to one, making the 2.2 percent of the U.S. population that is Jewish relatively trivial in the president's calculations of Middle Eastern policy. Mazrui continued with this theme anyway, saying toward the end of his speech that "[the Nobel Committee] gave [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat the Nobel Peace Prize for being a good boy toward the Jews." The conference ended at the completion of Mazrui's diatribe. It was a surreal experience to bear witness to a professor of Mazrui's professional stature dispensing with the usual fig leaf of "anti-Zionism" to espouse classic anti-Semitism. Academia ostensibly supports a world without prejudice, but professors like Mazrui now provide a legitimate façade for Jewish racial stereotypes. This is rank hypocrisy, and it's time we call it what it is.
The original article appeared May 23, 2010 in American Thinker
|
|
TERROR, LIES AND SLANDER — THE MAIN TOOLS OF THE LEFTIST-ISLAMIST ALLIANCE AGAINST THE JEWISH STATE.
Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, June 7, 2010. |
|
The blurring of terrorist-activists and civilians that characterizes 21st century warfare took on a new dimension in the violent confrontation between the "Free Gaza Flotilla" and the Israeli Navy last week. Ostensibly, the hundreds of passengers on a ship carrying a large Turkish flag were "peace activists" on a "humanitarian" mission to bring aid to Palestinians "trapped behind the Israeli blockade." But this moral façade hid a strategy of engaging Israel in a bloody confrontation to exploit the "halo effect" (automatically granted to groups claiming moral missions) and to reinforce the image of Israelis as "war criminals." Despite all the misreporting, Gaza is not starving as Israel allows tons of food, drugs and humanitarian aid to reach Gaza every day. The entirely legal naval blockade is designed to prevent arms, primarily from Iran, from reaching the terrorists in Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005. The flotilla's aim was not to feed ordinary Palestinians, but to help Hamas break the embargo so that it can bring in weapons. The "Free Gaza" group is a potent example of how the new alliance between radical-left Western groups and Jihadists is waging this new war. In 2001, 1,500 organizations, both Islamic and Western, participated in the NGO Forum of the United Nations Durban Conference on Racism. They declared Israel to be "a racist, apartheid state" and "a crime against humanity," while calling on the "international community to impose a policy of complete and total isolation." To advance this hate agenda, Israel's enemies would use terror attacks to provoke an inevitable response, and then strip away the context to highlight allegations of "war crimes." The approach was implemented in the 2002 Jenin massacre myth, when Palestinian lies alleging Israeli atrocities were reported by the mainstream media and NGOs as facts. This strategy was further perfected in the 2006 Lebanon and 2009 Gaza wars, when Hezbollah and Hamas respectively attacked Israeli civilians while hiding behind their own civilian populations. Israel was then held responsible for the unavoidable death of civilians in the cause of its legitimate self-defense. In each case, false allegations of "war crimes" were published by NGOs and then adopted by U.N. inquiries, such as the deeply flawed Goldstone report. The "Free Gaza" round of provocation and condemnation marks a major escalation. The Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation) reportedly purchased the boats and provided the crew, as well as the paramilitary forces that attacked the Israeli boarding party. As the videos from the ship's own security cameras and the IDF show (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk), the soldiers acted in legitimate self-defense as they were assaulted by a lynch mob armed with slingshots, steel bars, broken glass bottles, chairs, chains, and knives. Prior to the flotilla launch, activists chanted Islamic battle cries "[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" Khaibar was the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad's army in 628. The battle marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. One participant told Al Jazeera, "Either the Israelis let us reach Gaza, or they can stop us . ... We can also die as martyrs and never return, which is okay with us." For the IHH, as in the case of other Islamist charities, the "humanitarian relief" dimension is a cover, or at best, a side show. IHH is a prominent member of the "Union of the Good," which was designated by the U.S. government as "an organization created by the Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization." In 1997, before the Islamist AKP came to power in Turkey, a police raid on an IHH building in Istanbul found weapons, explosives, and instructions for making improvised explosive devices widely used by insurgents and terror groups. At a 2001 U.S. Federal trial emanating from the Millenium plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the leading French counter-terrorism investigating magistrate, gave evidence on the IHH's "important role" in obtaining weapons, documents and dispatching fighters in various al-Qaida operations. A 2006 report published by the Danish Institute for International Studies quotes from Mr. Bruguiere's legal depositions, including revelations that Turkish authorities had uncovered IHH links to Al-Qaeda in Milan and to Algerian terrorists in Europe, as well as having had a major role in recruiting militants sent to Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. Thus, the IHH was a logical vehicle for the Islamist-led Turkish government, headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to turn against its former ally Israel. While embracing Syria and Iran, Mr. Erdogan is fueling anti-Israel hatred in his country and throughout the region. The second partner in this violent "humanitarian" confrontation was the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) which promotes Palestinian "resistance" and fuels the violence. On April 30, 2003, a suicide terrorist blew himself up at the entrance to Mike's Place, a popular bar on the Tel Aviv beach promenade. Three Israelis were murdered, and over 50 wounded. Just a few days before the attack, the terrorists (British citizens) had spent time with a group of ISM members. Indeed, ISM declares on its own website that its mission is to "support and strengthen the Palestinian popular resistance" through direct confrontation with the IDF. In 2002, ISM co-founder Adam Shapiro and his Palestinian-born wife promoted both "non-violent and violent" tactics in support of the Palestinian resistance. "Yes, people will get killed and injured," but these deaths are "no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation" and "would be considered shaheed," using the Arabic word for "martyr," usually applied to suicide bombers. The ISM's Caoimhe Butterly — a prominent Irish participant in the Free Gaza campaign — has had many run-ins with the IDF. In April 2002, following a series of Palestinian terror bombings that led to the IDF's operation "Defensive Shield," she spent 16 days as a "human shield" in Yasser Arafat's compound. The hysteria, extreme hatred for the West, and for Israel, in particular, is a trademark of many ISM members. According to ISM media coordinator Flo Rosovski, "'Israel' is an illegal entity that should not exist." For the ISM, like IHH, labels like "peace activists" and "humanitarian aid workers" are convenient masks for this hatred. In addition, this Leftist-Islamist alliance is supported and legitimized by mainstream NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Notwithstanding embarrassing exposes on how, in May 2009, HRW solicited funds from the Saudis by touting the need to counter Jewish and "pro-Israel pressure groups," and the documentation of its systematic anti-Israeli bias, this organization immediately joined in the condemnations of Israel. These once-respected watchdogs have become an integral part of the efforts to criminalize legitimate responses to terror through false allegations of human rights violations. For the "peace activists" aboard the Free Gaza Flotilla, the deaths and the images of violence from their excursion are viewed as a great success. As an IHH official in Istanbul declared, "We are very thankful to the Israeli authorities." Once again, Israel is on the front lines of this strategy, but NATO and the West are next in line in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. Mr. Steinberg teaches political science at Bar Ilan University and heads NGO Monitor. |
|
BARAK'S THEATRE OF THE ABSURD
Posted by Moshe Dann, June 6, 2010. |
|
Here is the lowdown on the Defense Minister. The right has been saying it all along, and the left has now joined the anti Barak calls for its own reasons. Obama likes him.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak's handling of the flotilla trying to enter
Gaza is yet another example of his ineptitude and irresponsibility.
(for news article on leftist demonstration calling for his
resignation, goto
Stopping the large Gaza-bound ship could have been carried out below the water-line, or by an assault on the bridge, using smoke bombs and tear gas to take control. Dropping individual soldiers into a mob of hostile people lacks reason, even if it had worked before. Each situation is different. The confrontation could have been handled, to use an Israeli expression that rhymes, with "moach (brains) rather than koach (brute strength). But that's not Barak's way. His history of misusing power and lack of leadership goes back to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, at least. In 1973 Barak botched a rescue operation at the "Chinese Farm" battle near the Suez Canal and failed to rescue soldiers under the command of Gen Yitzhak Mordechai. In 1982, during Operation Peace For Galilee, in which Israel attacked PLO and terrorist groups in Lebanon, Barak commanded the IDF in the eastern region of South Lebanon. He ordered an attack at Sultan Yakub, in which Israeli soldiers were ambushed by Syrian Army commandos and PLO guerilla units. Over-powered and with heavy losses, the IDF unit repeatedly begged for help to rescue them. Barak failed to respond. In that battle, 23 IDF soldiers were killed and three were captured: Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz. Missing in action, their fate is still unknown. In 1984, the Mossad had located two ships in a North African port that intended to carry out terrorist attacks from the sea. "The navy proposed sinking them while was still at anchor, for once on the high seas it would be difficult to locate them. The director of MI at the time, Ehud Barak, was one of those who were against the idea." It took 30 months to find one ship again, and sink it. The second ship was later apprehended with 8 terrorists on board and it too was sunk. Five years later, when the "first Intifada" broke out Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin assigned Ehud Barak Amiram Mitzna and Dan Shomron — whose political views trumped military necessity — to quell the rebellion. They failed miserably. This not only encouraged Palestinian terrorists, especially Fatah and Hamas, but led to the PLO's rehabilitation and the disastrous Oslo Accords in 1993, which COS Barak implemented. in 1984, the Mossad had located two ships in a North African port that intended to carry out terrorist attacks from the sea. "The navy proposed sinking it while it was still at anchor, for once on the high seas it would be difficult to locate. The director of MI at the time, Ehud Barak, was one of those who were against the idea." It took 30 months to find the ship again, and sink it. The second ship was later apprehended with 8 terrorists on board and it too was sunk. According to Reuven Pedatzur, writing in the Hebrew Haaretz, November 5, 2000, "On the eve of the Gulf War [1990], a decision to scuttle the project [to purchase submarines] was taken at the IDF General Staff: that is, to leave the navy without any submarines at all. Only the stricken conscience of Helmut Kohl, the German chancellor, after the extent of German aid to the Iraqis became known, led to the decision to fund the submarines. Thus, it was German money that saved the submarine project..." In 1992, during a training exercise at the Tze'elim base, a missile hit a unit by mistake, killing 5 soldiers and seriously wounding 6 more. Watching this tragedy, COS Barak did nothing to help, and refused to allow his helicopter to be used in the rescue operation. He was severely criticized for his behavior. As Prime Minister in 1999, Barak gave away the entire gas and oil fields off the Gaza coast to the PA — for nothing, and without conditions; he never explained his decision. In May, 2000, PM Barak ordered a retreat from South Lebanon. Although the action was debatable, it was felt that he capitulated to the "Four Mothers" group, that wanted their soldier sons out of danger. The chaotic manner in which it was carried out, and the abandonment of the SLA, has been widely condemned. Barak's action gave the Hizbullah its first, encouraging victory. At Camp David and Taba in 2000, he offered Yassir Arafat nearly all of the area conquered in the 1967 Six Day War, including most of eastern Jerusalem, without understanding that Arafat was planning a major terrorist insurgency. Barak not only failed to anticipate the Second Intifada in 2000 when it broke out, but failed to put it down decisively. In October, 2000, at the outbreak of the Second Intifada War, Arabs attacked Joseph's Tomb, in Shechem (Nablus). An IDF soldier, Madkat Yusuf, was trapped inside and critically wounded and the unit was under fire. Prime Minister Barak and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz refused rescue the soldiers and Yusuf bled to death. After resigning in 2001, Barak went into business, using his name and contacts to amass a small fortune. According to a report in Haaretz (May 25, 2007) by Gidi Weitz and Uri Blau, in 2002, Barak formed a company, "Ehud Barak, Ltd," which quickly made (up to that time) almost NIS 30 million, as reported in the Israeli press. "As prime minister and former chief of staff, Barak receives more than MIS 400,000. In addition the state funded his bureau at a cost of NIS 3.2 million in 2004 and NIS 1.8 in 2005." They estimated Barak's total annual income at NIS 10 million. Barak was involved in a number of companies and hedge funds. His business interests today are held by members of his family. Barak was an enthusiastic supporter of the Disengagement from Gaza and Northern Shomron in 2005, which displaced 9,000 Israelis and led to Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip. In October, 2009, Globes carried a major expose of Barak's financial connections. That year, Barak spent a million NIS of Defense Ministry funds on a Paris-weekend for himself, his wife and staff. In January, 2009, as Defense Minister, he was directly responsible for the Cast Lead Operation in Gaza, which was carried out in the shadow of the failures of the Second Lebanon War and looming elections. While the action to stop terrorists was necessary, it resulted in the Goldstone Report and international condemnation, Hamas remained in power, more smuggling tunnels were built, and Gilad Shalit is still in captivity. At the Herzliya Conference in 2010, he offered unilateral withdrawal and begged the PA to assume power in Judea and Samaria. Otherwise, he warned, "Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid nation." This ignores serious security issues, denies reality, and substitutes nightmares instead of critical thinking. Barak's defeatism and arrogance, his political agenda and his poor military judgment are simply not in Israel's interests. PM Netanyahu may need the Labor Party for his coalition, may think including the Labor Party makes him more palatable to the world, but why does it have to include Ehud Barak as Defense Minister? Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il |
|
GAZA BLOCKADE FOOTNOTES
Posted by Tsvi November, June 6, 2010. |
|
1. It turns out that Abdullah Anas and his 19 year old son Muhammad were on board the Mavi Marmari, the Turkish ship that attempted to run Israel's Gaza port blockade. Muhammad is the grandson of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam who was both an inspiration to and collaborator with Sheikh Osama bin-Ladin in setting up al-Qaeda in Peshawar, Pakistan. Abdullah Azzam, a "Palestinian" is a highly revered advocate of jihad who is famous throughout the Moslem world. He was killed in 1989 by a powerful car bomb in Peshawar. No one has taken "credit" for the murder but bin-Ladin's forth son, Omar (in a memoir entitled Growing Up bin-Ladin by Jean Sasson, 2009) thinks that Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin-Ladin's second in command is responsible for Azzam's liquidation because Azzam wanted to advance jihad around the world while al-Zawahiri prefers to concentrate on undermining so-called moderate Moslem regimes that cooperate with the US and the West. 2. Hamas, notorious for blowing up buses and firing rockets at civilian populations in Israel, is a religious organization. It adamantly objects to any compromise with Zionism and is dedicated to Israel's destruction as a religious obligation. Hamas received about 80% of the vote in Gaza during the 2006 Palestinian Authority elections that were monitored by Jimmy Carter who found only a few minor irregularities. 3. Gaza, since biblical times has been an integral part of the Land of Israel (or, if you prefer, Palestine). As Gaza and its Hamas Islamic government are not recognized by anybody as an independent country, the Gaza coast belongs to Israel which has a right to protect its citizens by patrolling this area so as to prevent the delivery of arms to Hamas which is actively waging war against Israel. 4. Universal male military conscription is mandatory in Turkey. We can safely assume, therefore, that the "peace" activists, armed with knives and bats have had military training. Over the past eight years, since Erdogan and his AKP radical Islamic party came to power; there has been a great increase of Jew-hating in Turkey. Both Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion libel are best sellers. A popular TV movie engenders more hate by depicting fictitious atrocities by Israeli soldiers. Synagogues have been attacked and bombed. The fact that Israel instantly sent substantial aid to the 1999 Turkish earthquake victims is forgotten. Turkey is now completing a 30 billion dollar multiple dam project to divert about 60% of the waters that feed both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and thereby destroy a large portion of Syria and Iraq's agricultural sector. Turkey suppresses its Kurdish minority. Laws ban the use of the Kurdish language. At one point, the Kurdish political party was outlawed. Turkish armed forces have carried out massacres in Kurdish villages when they searched for Kurdish militants; PKK fighters being the most extreme. Turkey illegally occupies half of Cyprus. The once sizable Greek community is now very small because the Turks have made life difficult for the Greeks. P.S. One and a half million Arabs live in Gaza's 372 square kilometers. If Turkey, Sweden and eight other countries really wanted to solve the humanitarian problem called 'Gaza', then each country would take in and rehabilitate a mere 150,000 people and thereby bring the Middle East a lot closer to peace. Contact Tsvi November at tsvinov@gmail.com To read a short description of ISRAEL in REALITY go to: www.trafford.com/08-0128 |
|
POWER VERSUS WEAKNESS: HIDDEN MEANINGS OF THE GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Louis Rene Beres, June 6, 2010. |
|
After the Israeli Gaza Flotilla interdiction, it is difficult to understand the real difference between power and weakness. On the surface, at least in tangible military terms, Israel would appear to have had a determinative upper hand. In fact, the alleged plight of the flotilla passengers, however contrived, created an extended public relations nightmare for Jerusalem. This seemingly improbable result bestowed upon Hamas and its multiple Islamist allies (including al-Qaeda, which surely didn't advertise its geo-strategic links to the flotilla), a substantial measure of power. Back on land, Gaza itself best illustrates the core issues and ironies. It is easy to feel sorry for the "struggling Palestinians" on this still-barren place. It is easy, after all, to forget that this is still a medieval society constructed solely upon violence and hatred. Endless television and print images of unrelieved misery suggest Israeli cruelty as cause. Nowhere is it suggested that Israel's reluctant resort to the use of blockades and armed force is unavoidable. Virtually nowhere can anyone discover that if there were no incessant and unprovoked Palestinian rocket attacks upon Israel, there would be no Israeli blockade. From the beginning, Hamas has made regular use of Arab civilians as human shields. By deliberately placing their women and children in harm's way, especially in those areas from which terrorist rockets are launched into Israel, it is the Palestinian leaders who violate the Law of War, also known formally as the Law of Armed Conflict. Sadly, in so doing, their "weakness" is transformed into power. The insidious practice of human shields, the same tactic first perfected in Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon, represents much more than cowardice. It also represents a very specific and codified crime under international law. This crime is called "perfidy." Several Jihadist terror groups, including both Hamas, and its U.S. trained rival, Fatah, are now actively planning for mega-terror operations against Israel. These unprecedented attacks, very likely undertaken in close cooperation with Gaza-based elements of al-Qaeda, would involve chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction. Over time, especially if Iran should begin to transfer assorted portions of its own growing inventory of nuclear materials to terror groups, Israel could have to face Palestinian-directed nuclear terrorism. Indeed, now that Gaza is no longer "occupied" by Israel, and is "governed" by Hamas, these preparations are well underway. What decent government would sit back passively, and wittingly render its population vulnerable to mass-slaughter? Would we, in the United States, sit quietly by as rockets rained down upon American cities daily from terrorist sanctuaries somewhere on our borders? Would we ever allow such carnage to continue with impunity? Would capitulation and surrender be the proper or excusable reaction of any sovereign state sworn to protect its civilian populations? Remarkably, although generally unrecognized, Israel has always been willing to keep its essential counterterrorism operations in Gaza fully consistent with the established standards of humanitarian international law. The same is true for Israel's blockade-based boarding of the "Freedom Flotilla" ship. Shortly after the event, several Turkish passengers indicated an express wish to die as "martyrs." They wished to be granted the rights of Shahada. In no way, therefore, was the intended and non-violent Israeli boarding operation remotely commensurate with the actual mega-terrorist threat from the Turkish Aid and Human Rights Organization (IHH), a transparent "cover group" for relentless Palestinian and al-Qaeda fighters. In all world politics, terrorism is much more serious than mere bad behavior. It is a distinct crime under international law. In those cases (1) where terrorists represent populations that enthusiastically support such illegal attacks, the case, certainly, among the Gaza Palestinian community; and (2) where these terrorists are able to find an easy refuge among hospitable populations, also obviously the case in Gaza, full responsibility for any ensuing counterterrorist harms must lie with the Jihadist criminals. International law is not a suicide pact. Rather, it offers a reasonable and authoritative body of rules that plainly permits states (not terrorists) to express their "inherent right of self-defense." When terrorist organizations celebrate the explosive "martyrdom" of their adherents, and when terrorist leaders unashamedly seek religious redemption through the mass-murder of "infidels," the terrorists have no legal right to demand sanctuary. This is true on the High Seas ("international waters"), or anywhere else. Under international law, terrorists are always hostes humani generis, "Common enemies of humankind." In law, such murderers and their accomplices must be punished wherever they are found. For their arrest and prosecution, jurisdiction is incontestably "universal." Palestinian terrorism, even during its occasional "slow" periods (times when contending Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah are too busy murdering each other), has become all-too familiar. Typically using bombs filled with nails, razor blades and screws dipped in rat poison, the goaded killers proceed to maim and burn Israeli civilians with loud cheers, and with ample blessings from the local Islamic clergy. As for those heroic "commanders" who control the suicide-bombers' mayhem from a safe distance, they cower silently in the Palestinian towns and cities. Sometimes, of course, they also issue a desperate call for their wives, mothers and daughters to stand between themselves, and the Israelis. Although almost never mentioned by reporters and foreign correspondents, specially trained IDF counter-terrorism units always attempt to identify and target only the terrorist leaders, and to minimize collateral harms. But there are times when such harms simply can't be avoided. Even the IDF, which follows its exemplary code of "Purity of Arms" stringently, is unable to undo the unique cruelties of Palestinian perfidy. Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but The Hague Regulations unambiguously forbid placement of military assets or personnel in heavily populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found at Protocol I of 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law. Perfidy represents an egregious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a "grave breach" at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. The critical legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for inadvertent counterterrorist harms done to Arab civilians. Even if Hamas and Fatah and their "sister" terror groups did not deliberately engage in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would always give Israel full legal justification for defensive military action. This includes the right of blockade. International law is not a suicide pact. All combatants, including Palestinian fighters, are bound by the Law of War of international law. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for "self-determination," the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters, American-trained Fatah as well as Hamas. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law. The terms "fighter" and "irregular" are generous in describing Palestinian terrorists, often aspiring Shahids who "normally" target only defenseless civilians, and whose characteristic mode of "battle" is not military engagement, but ritualistic deception (perfidy) and primal religious sacrifice (terrorism). Israel has both the universal right and obligation under international law to protect its citizens. Should it ever decide to yield to Palestinian perfidy in its indispensable war against escalating terror violence, Israel would inexcusably surrender this important right, and undermine this fundamental obligation. The clear effect of any such capitulation would be to make potential victims of us all. Louis René Beres is Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. Contact him by email at lberes@purdue.edu |
|
GREAT-GRANDPA AND I
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 6, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
HELEN THE LEBANESER MUCKS-OUT
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 6, 2010. |
|
Thanks-a-lot, Helen. Now we know the true color of your fur. Helen Thomas, born of Lebanese parents (Helen Antinious before she changed her name to "Thomas") made a cur of herself by flinging herself onto the media dog-pile that is barking against Israel for defending its people against the armed and crazy Turkish armada; an armada spoiling for death and bloodshed. Helen the Lebaneser should be made to tell us how the San Remo Resolution (and the treaties that followed) established the boundaries of Israel — and how these boundaries encompass the entire region (and Jerusalem) between the ocean and the sea — including the lands the arab invaders hope to steal from tiny Israel — and include most of the Golan Heights, Gaza, the entire Temple Mount as well as the region the British illegally gave to the Hashemite "royals" (now known as Jordan.) The nomenclature for the region long known as Judah and Samaria is not the "West Bank" — that is a fiction created to con the ignorant Jews and the supposedly gullible US State Department. Judah and Samaria is part of the Jewish Homeland and as such legally and rightfully belongs only to Israel according to historical records and international law. And this is so no matter how many dogs pile on Israel, no matter how many $ millions the Saudis and the UAE gift to our X-POTUS' (beginning with Jimmy Carter) and no matter how many millions the arab oil magnates gave or loaned to certain US State Dept. bureaucrats — and no matter how weak or ignorant or malleable the Jewish leadership might be or have been. A handful of weak Jewish leaders, pressured by Saudi-beholden State Dept. bureaucrats, are still trying to use Judah and Samaria as a bargaining chip to trade in exchange for more air-kisses from Israel's weirdly morbid antagonists. These Jewish leaders, whoever they are, are clearly operating outside the law and should be prosecuted because Israel cannot trade or give away its land. No more so than the US can trade Texas in exchange for Mexico's promise to put an end to illegal immigration and its drug business. No, it isn't good enough for Helen to be forced to read international law — she should be forced to chew it, so get her a fresh copy of Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law." Bon apetit, Helen. Chow it down. To borrow a few choice words from her own lips, Helen gave everyone the green light to tell her to "get the hell out of our country." O, that's right ... that's not nice. Ooopsy. So sorry, world. We apologize. (Please understand that we are just as sincere as Helen "Antinious' Thomas when it comes to apologizing for our trash talk.) Viva Israel from the SC4Z Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
NEW LEVELS OF LOW:
OBAMA'S "ADVICE" TO ISRAEL ON HOW TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AN EXTRAORDINARY INSULT
Posted by Anne Bayefsky, June 6, 2010. |
|
In a first from a US president, Barack Obama has now lectured Israel how it must conduct an investigation into actions taken by the IDF to defend the Jewish state. In response to a question from CNN's Larry King on June 3 about the blockade-busting endeavor by Turkish-backed extremists, Obama said: "We are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened. I think the Israelis are going to agree to that — an investigation of international standards — because they recognize that this can't be good for Israel's long-term security." The statement marks a new low in the president's moves impairing US-Israel relations. Israel is a fully-free democratic society with an unparalleled, independent and accessible judicial system fully governed by the rule of law. The idea that it needs to be told by the president how to conduct an investigation into military operations taken in self-defense is an extraordinary insult. How dare the president suggest that its standards are not good enough? The Israeli Supreme Court makes generous use — far more than the US Supreme Court — of decisions of national courts of other states, regional human rights courts, as well as international human rights treaties. The independent judiciary, to the frequent consternation of many political actors, is far more involved in oversight of the government and the military than is the judiciary in the US, where the political questions doctrine and other barriers frequently preclude judicial oversight. Furthermore, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made clear, defending the maritime blockade of Hamas-run Gaza and preventing the creation of an Iranian Mediterranean port are good for Israel's long-term security. They are also good for American security, given that Israel is seeking to defeat the same rejectionist Islamic forces that threaten America and democracy more generally. The president's attempt at gross interference in Israeli sovereignty started with his rush to judgment last Monday, when he permitted a unanimous UN Security Council presidential statement calling for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards." Predictably, within 24 hours that call was duly translated by the UN Human Rights Council into a call for an international investigation of what it had already condemned as "the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces." The HRC is now engaged, in other words, in an effort to mimic the libelous Goldstone Report. Though the US finally voted against the HRC resolution (after first suggesting it was open to a decision reproducing the Security Council statement), by that point the damage done by the president leaping on the Security Council bandwagon had been done. Moreover, since the Obama administration decided to join the HRC and to pay for it, American taxpayers will cover 22 percent of the $530,000 estimated costs of the HRC-sponsored investigation. The president's assault on the credibility of the Israeli democratic system is coming from all sides of his administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated on June 1 that international participants might be necessary to bolster the legitimacy of an Israeli probe. Israelis won't do. In her words, the US wants "a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation... We are open to different ways of assuring a credible investigation, including international participation..." Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley made the insult even more grotesque — the goal wasn't a credible probe in objective terms, it was credible in the eyes of the UN mob. On June 2 he said that Israel must produce "an investigation that is broadly viewed as credible by the international community." Just a week ago, the Obama administration made another move to undermine Israel's stature by way of international intervention. It undertook in writing at the conclusion of the Nuclear Nonproliferation conference to co-sponsor a 2012 international meeting having the goal of removing Israel's nuclear deterrence capacity without concomitant security guarantees having been realized. This increasingly brazen intimidation is not going to evaporate if Israel decides to subject itself to any kind of international oversight of its military forces, political decision-makers or judicial authorities. Nor, of course, would anything satisfy UN players short of a UN team which was handpicked to assure a predetermined outcome finding Israel guilty on all counts. Israel should, therefore, strongly reject President Obama's latest endeavor to erode its sovereignty and well-being. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post. Anne Bayefsky is with EYE on the UN, which monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies. |
|
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE SPONSOR UNMASKED AS FREE GAZA DONOR
Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, June 6, 2010. |
|
The Muslim cleric behind the proposed giant mosque near Ground Zero is none other than a major donor to the pro-Hamas Free Gaza movement, the New York Post reported. The cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf also is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization. The Free Gaza group has been behind several attempts to break the Israeli sea embargo on Hamas. The latest attempt, under the guise of sending humanitarian aid, was foiled Saturday when the Israeli Navy intercepted the "Rachel Corrie" ship before it could approach the Gaza Coast. The Perdena organization has donated $366,000 to Free Gaza, which has organized several attempts to break the Israeli sea embargo on Hamas-controlled Gaza. Earlier in the week, the Mavi Marmara ship's terrorist "activists" opened fire and brutally beat Navy commandos, despite Free Gaza promises that there would be no violence. Free Gaza spokeswoman Greta Berlin has charged that the IDF edited and falsified videos clearly showing that the passengers on the ship initially assaulted commandos before they reached the decks. "We have two Imam Raufs," Deborah Burlingame, the sister of the American Airlines pilot whose hijacked plane struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, told the New York Post. "We have the anti-Israel, anti-democratic imam, and we have the smiling, soft-spoken moderate Muslim who says, 'Why can't we all get along?' " The proposed 13-story mosque and community center, to cost $100 million, has been met with outrage in New York, despite Rauf's focusing on peace. "We must fight those who are against us with peace and our assurance that we have peace in our hearts," he recently told Muslims at a Friday prayer service. Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams called the project a monument to 9/11 attackers, and the "9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America" calls the proposed project "a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day.'' However, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg supports it, and zoning officials have approved the plan. (IsraelNationalNews.com)
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu writes for Arutz-7
where this article appeared today
|
|
POWER VERSUS WEAKNESS: HIDDEN MEANINGS OF THE GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Professor Louis Rene Beres, June 6, 2010. |
|
After the Israeli Gaza Flotilla interdiction, it is difficult to understand the real difference between power and weakness. On the surface, at least in tangible military terms, Israel would appear to have had a determinative upper hand. In fact, the alleged plight of the flotilla passengers, however contrived, created an extended public relations nightmare for Jerusalem. This seemingly improbable result bestowed upon Hamas and its multiple Islamist allies (including al-Qaeda, which surely didn't advertise its geo-strategic links to the flotilla), a substantial measure of power. Back on land, Gaza itself best illustrates the core issues and ironies. It is easy to feel sorry for the "struggling Palestinians" on this still-barren place. It is easy, after all, to forget that this is still a medieval society constructed solely upon violence and hatred. Endless television and print images of unrelieved misery suggest Israeli cruelty as cause. Nowhere is it suggested that Israel's reluctant resort to the use of blockades and armed force is unavoidable. Virtually nowhere can anyone discover that if there were no incessant and unprovoked Palestinian rocket attacks upon Israel, there would be no Israeli blockade. From the beginning, Hamas has made regular use of Arab civilians as human shields. By deliberately placing their women and children in harm's way, especially in those areas from which terrorist rockets are launched into Israel, it is the Palestinian leaders who violate the Law of War, also known formally as the Law of Armed Conflict. Sadly, in so doing, their "weakness" is transformed into power. The insidious practice of human shields, the same tactic first perfected in Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon, represents much more than cowardice. It also represents a very specific and codified crime under international law. This crime is called "perfidy." Several Jihadist terror groups, including both Hamas, and its U.S. trained rival, Fatah, are now actively planning for mega-terror operations against Israel. These unprecedented attacks, very likely undertaken in close cooperation with Gaza-based elements of al-Qaeda, would involve chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction. Over time, especially if Iran should begin to transfer assorted portions of its own growing inventory of nuclear materials to terror groups, Israel could have to face Palestinian-directed nuclear terrorism. Indeed, now that Gaza is no longer "occupied" by Israel, and is "governed" by Hamas, these preparations are well underway. What decent government would sit back passively, and wittingly render its population vulnerable to mass-slaughter? Would we, in the United States, sit quietly by as rockets rained down upon American cities daily from terrorist sanctuaries somewhere on our borders? Would we ever allow such carnage to continue with impunity? Would capitulation and surrender be the proper or excusable reaction of any sovereign state sworn to protect its civilian populations? Remarkably, although generally unrecognized, Israel has always been willing to keep its essential counterterrorism operations in Gaza fully consistent with the established standards of humanitarian international law. The same is true for Israel's blockade-based boarding of the "Freedom Flotilla" ship. Shortly after the event, several Turkish passengers indicated an express wish to die as "martyrs." They wished to be granted the rights of Shahada. In no way, therefore, was the intended and non-violent Israeli boarding operation remotely commensurate with the actual mega-terrorist threat from the Turkish Aid and Human Rights Organization (IHH), a transparent "cover group" for relentless Palestinian and al-Qaeda fighters. In all world politics, terrorism is much more serious than mere bad behavior. It is a distinct crime under international law. In those cases (1) where terrorists represent populations that enthusiastically support such illegal attacks, the case, certainly, among the Gaza Palestinian community; and (2) where these terrorists are able to find an easy refuge among hospitable populations, also obviously the case in Gaza, full responsibility for any ensuing counterterrorist harms must lie with the Jihadist criminals. International law is not a suicide pact. Rather, it offers a reasonable and authoritative body of rules that plainly permits states ( not terrorists) to express their "inherent right of self-defense." When terrorist organizations celebrate the explosive "martyrdom" of their adherents, and when terrorist leaders unashamedly seek religious redemption through the mass-murder of "infidels," the terrorists have no legal right to demand sanctuary. This is true on the High Seas ("international waters"), or anywhere else. Under international law, terrorists are always hostes humani generis, "Common enemies of humankind." In law, such murderers and their accomplices must be punished wherever they are found. For their arrest and prosecution, jurisdiction is incontestably "universal." Palestinian terrorism, even during its occasional "slow" periods (times when contending Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah are too busy murdering each other), has become all-too familiar. Typically using bombs filled with nails, razor blades and screws dipped in rat poison, the goaded killers proceed to maim and burn Israeli civilians with loud cheers, and with ample blessings from the local Islamic clergy. As for those heroic "commanders" who control the suicide-bombers' mayhem from a safe distance, they cower silently in the Palestinian towns and cities. Sometimes, of course, they also issue a desperate call for their wives, mothers and daughters to stand between themselves, and the Israelis. Although almost never mentioned by reporters and foreign correspondents, specially trained IDF counter-terrorism units always attempt to identify and target only the terrorist leaders, and to minimize collateral harms. But there are times when such harms simply can't be avoided. Even the IDF, which follows its exemplary code of "Purity of Arms" stringently, is unable to undo the unique cruelties of Palestinian perfidy. Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but The Hague Regulations unambiguously forbid placement of military assets or personnel in heavily populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found at Protocol I of 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law. Perfidy represents an egregious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a "grave breach" at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. The critical legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for inadvertent counterterrorist harms done to Arab civilians. Even if Hamas and Fatah and their "sister" terror groups did not deliberately engage in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would always give Israel full legal justification for defensive military action. This includes the right of blockade. International law is not a suicide pact. All combatants, including Palestinian fighters, are bound by the Law of War of international law. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for "self-determination," the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters, American-trained Fatah as well as Hamas. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law. The terms "fighter" and "irregular" are generous in describing Palestinian terrorists, often aspiring Shahids who "normally" target only defenseless civilians, and whose characteristic mode of "battle" is not military engagement, but ritualistic deception (perfidy) and primal religious sacrifice (terrorism). Israel has both the universal right and obligation under international law to protect its citizens. Should it ever decide to yield to Palestinian perfidy in its indispensable war against escalating terror violence, Israel would inexcusably surrender this important right, and undermine this fundamental obligation. The clear effect of any such capitulation would be to make potential victims of us all.
Louis René Beres is Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. |
|
YEMEN'S BLOCKADE ENTERS THIRD WEEK...
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 6, 2010. |
|
This comes from the Islamo-nazism website
|
|
As Yemen's blockade on southern Yemen enters its third week, stocks of food, medicine and oil have dwindled to dangerous levels. Prices have skyrocketed and already malnourished children bear the brunt of the military action. The blockade began 17 days ago when the Western Armored Division established new checkpoints on roads and at city entrances preventing the flow of persons and commerce including food, medicine, oil and water. The blockade has cut off Radfan, Yafea, al Dhala, al Melah, al Habeelan, al Shaib, Gahaf, Lazarik, and parts of Shabwah. The main road between Aden and al Dahlie is closed. Al Habaleen, Lahj was indiscriminately shelled three days ago after two soldiers were killed in an ambush. Another ambush in al Melah killed one soldier, and authorities have accused renegade elements of the southern independence movement with the attacks. Nearly one thousand have fled Radfan, al Habaleen and al Bilah seeking safety. Like the 250,000 internally displaced by the Sa'ada War, these are mostly women and children. On May 24, a pregnant woman en route to a hospital in Aden was stopped at a military checkpoint and later died in childbirth. Reports indicate a heavy military mobilization including tanks and armored personnel carriers. As during the Saada war, a total media blackout is in place, often accomplished by the arrest of southern journalists. An American journalist was expelled from Yemen last week after visiting Yafee, a center of southern resistance. On May 22, the 20th anniversary of Yemeni unity, President Saleh announced the pardon of southern journalists and other political prisoners. Several high profile journalists were released, but others remain imprisoned and hundreds of others arrested during protests remain jailed. Baggash Al Aghbari has been in prison since his arrest in 1994, despite several amnesties for southerners announced over the following decade. Al Aghbari was never charged or tried but was thought to be among the activists that triggered the civil war. The southern independence movement began as a call for equal rights in 2007. As the state imprisoned thousands and police killed hundreds during peaceful demonstrations, the movement gained supporters and its goals evolved to calls for independence. The northern Yemeni Arab Republic and the southern Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen unified in 1990 and fought a brief civil war in 1994. Southerners claim unity was imposed by force in violation of the UN resolutions. Northern hegemony brought institutionalized discrimination more akin to occupation than unity that reached into areas of employment, education and development. However, the massive corruption of the Saleh regime means that all citizens outside the circle of elite power are subject to retribution by the state including the judiciary, police and civil service. All Yemenis suffer from the near absence of basic services arising from chronic mismanagement and insider infighting and embezzlement. With a peace deal concluded in February ending the northern Sa'ada War, President Ali Abdullah Saleh heightened the military presence in the south. Yemen's conduct of the Saada war generated 250,000 internal refugees with arbitrary aerial bombing of civilian areas and a strict blockade of food, medicine and international aid. Human Rights Watch has called for an investigation into war crimes committed during the Saada war. Yemen's previous violations of international law related the southern protests include mass arbitrary arrests and the murder of hundreds of peaceful protesters, rights organizations charged. As tensions mounted over the last year, some northern merchants and travelers were targets of violence in southern areas. But Yemen, of course, was quick to condem the Gaza blockade. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
TAKING BACK "TIKKUN OLAM"
Posted by Michael Freund, June 6, 2010. |
|
Speaking recently to a group of American Jews at the White House, President Barack Obama invoked the principle of "Tikkun Olam" — or repairing the world — to justify everything from his economic policies to his desire to establish a Palestinian state. This distortion of "Tikkun Olam" exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish theology, and it is an insult to Jewish history and destiny. As I suggest in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, experience demonstrates that when we embrace universalism at the expense of particularism, and reduce Judaism to nothing more than a hodge-podge of liberal causes, we do both ourselves and the world a great disservice. This, after all, is the road which leads directly to assimilation and to ruin. It is precisely by caring for our own, and putting Jewish concerns first, such as Israel and Jewish education, that we can continue to have a lasting and profound impact on the cosmos as proud and knowledgeable Jews. Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly. This was in the Jerusalem Post June 4, 2010
thanks,
|
|
Congratulations are in order for Barack Obama. The former community activist and senator, known to friends and foes alike as both a great orator and accomplished author, is apparently striving to add yet another lofty title to his already remarkable resume. Not content with merely being the President of the United States, Obama evidently wishes to assume the role of Chief Rabbi as well. That, at least, is the impression one gets from the remarks he delivered last week in the East Room of the White House to mark Jewish American Heritage Month. Speaking to a cluster of prominent invitees, the Commander-in-Chief suddenly morphed into the Interpreter-in-Chief, as he expounded on a theme taken straight from Jewish belief. Invoking the principle of "Tikkun Olam", or repairing the world, Obama chose to twist this age-old idea almost entirely beyond recognition, suggesting that it encompasses everything from "rebuilding our economy" to "strengthening old alliances and forging new ones". And then, taking this dubious line of thinking a step further, he even linked it to his efforts to create a Palestinian state. Needless to say, it is quite common for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag, or in this case a prayer shawl, in an effort to cloak their positions with a semblance of authenticity and legitimacy. But this time, Obama has gone too far. His distortion of the concept of "Tikkun Olam" is so breathtaking in its arrogance, and offensive in its ignorance, that it cannot be overlooked. Not only does it exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish theology, but it is also an insult to Jewish history and destiny. To be sure, the term "Tikkun Olam" has taken a beating in recent decades, primarily thanks to various liberal groups which have misappropriated the expression to further their social-action and political agendas. Often concerned more with saving trees in a South American rainforest than with assisting their fellow Jews in need, they slap the label of "Tikkun Olam" on to their activities with utter disregard for the origins and meaning of the phrase. The term "Tikkun Olam" first appears in the Talmud, where it is used primarily in connection with rabbinical enactments concerning, of all things, divorce. But the phrase is perhaps most well-known because of a reference to it in the Aleinu prayer, which is recited thrice daily at the end of services. And that is what makes this all so deliciously ironic, because if Obama, or for that matter, many of his Jewish supporters who bandy about the term, would bother to take a look at its context, they might not rush to employ it as frequently as they do. "Therefore we place our hope in you O L-rd our G-d," begins the second paragraph of Aleinu, "that we shall soon see the glory of your power, the elimination of abominations from the earth, the idols felled, and the repair of the world ("Le-Taken Olam") through the kingdom of G-d." That hardly sounds like the platform of the Democratic party, don't you think? Indeed, it is evident that the ultimate "Tikkun Olam", the one which Jews enunciate three times a day every day, has nothing to do with multiculturalism, pluralism, or even global warming. It represents a yearning for the day when the entire world will acknowledge the G-d of Israel as Creator of the Universe. Somehow I doubt that is what Obama has in mind for the rest of his term of office. But the irony gets even better. For according to tradition, the first paragraph of Aleinu was authored by Joshua, who led the Israelites in conquering the very same Land of Israel that Obama now wishes to divide as part of his ambitious plan to "repair the world". And the second section was said to have been composed by a Biblical figure named Achan, who took part in the capture of Jericho. Thus, if one were to insist on applying "Tikkun Olam" to modern-day political agendas, it clearly would resonate more profoundly with those who wish to settle the Land of Israel, rather than carve it up. But that has not stopped Obama and others from seeking to redefine this religious term, misrepresent it and then exploit it in order to score a few political points. And that has got to stop. It is time that we take back the term "Tikkun Olam", which has often become a cover for some Jews to dilute Judaism and transform it into little more than fighting oil spills or salvaging endangered species of birds. Now don't get me wrong. I am of course all in favor of Jews playing an active part in public life and contributing to the betterment of society and mankind. Looking beyond ourselves and helping others is surely something to be encouraged and fostered. But experience demonstrates that when we embrace universalism at the expense of particularism, and reduce Judaism to nothing more than a hodge-podge of liberal causes, we do both ourselves and the world a great disservice. This, after all, is the road which leads directly to assimilation and to ruin. It is precisely by caring for our own, and putting Jewish concerns first, such as Israel and Jewish education, that we can continue to have a lasting and profound impact on the cosmos as proud and knowledgeable Jews. The fact is that we do not need to make the world a better place in order to keep Judaism strong. The opposite is true. By strengthening our practice and our faith, we can then contribute the most, both to ourselves and to others. So by all means, if you care about the fate of toads in Wyoming or salmon in Oregon, go ahead and do something about it. But in the process, don't overlook Torah study, or the campaign to free Gilad Shalit, or the need to help Ethiopian Jews build a better life in Israel. The surest path to repairing the world starts right here at home. And if we don't start worrying a little more about ourselves, you can rest assured that no one else will do it for us. Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term. |
|
ISRAELI JEWS: JEWS AND ARABS IN JUDEA-SAMARIA; EGYPT TO STRIP CITIZENSHIP IN CASE OF MARRIAGE TO ISRAELI
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 6, 2010. |
|
JEWS IN ISRAEL ON JEWS AND ARABS IN JUDEA-SAMARIA A poll was taken of Jews in the State of Israel on what they think about Palestinian Jews and Arabs in Judea-Samaria. To summarize a host of questions and the variety of answers, most respondents replied that: 1. The Arabs do not want, and will not make, peace. 2. Jewish development in the Territories is proper, legal Zionism. 3. It neither causes the conflict nor obstructs peace. 4. It serves as the State's security belt, and is no waste of money. 5. Therefore, a settlement freeze does not serve Israel's interests (IMRA,
6/4/10).
NEW YORK VIEWS OF TURKEY: 2. NEW YORK TIMES "Turkey is understandably furious about Israel's disastrous attack on the Turkish-flagged aid ship that tried to run the Gaza blockade." Since Turkey and Israel have benefited greatly by trade, Turkish government rhetoric has gone too far. "As a moderate, secular democracy and NATO member, Turkey has a strong interest in a stable Middle East." Praise Mr. Erdogan for attempting to mediate peace between Syria and Israel. Call him "disturbingly naïve" for brokering that nuclear proposal with Iran. Turkey should work diplomatically to end the blockade. Israel needs to repair relations with Turkey. Therefore, it should "support a credible, independent, international investigation" (6/5/10, Ed.). For the New York Times to still imagine Turkey, now a radicalizing ally of the Islamist/extremist regimes of Iran, Syria, and Hamas, as if back in its secular phase and amenable to restoring relations with Israel, seems "disturbingly naïve." Those are the regimes destabilizing the Mideast! The editors seem naive, until one remembers the newspaper's traditional anti-Zionism and custom of giving dictatorships the benefit of the doubt (Soviets, Nazis, Cuba, Sandinistas, and Arabs). Turkey's fury is easier to understand when one knows the irrational state of its media and can see that the flotilla was a set-up. Erdogan is demagogically orchestrating the irrational rhetoric. Ending the blockade is backward. First address the cause of the blockade: Hamas' intolerant, aggressive, war. Reform that, and there would be no blockade. Remove the blockade prematurely, and imply condoning of Hamas intolerant, aggressive, terrorism. Offering to broker peace does not prove interest in peace. The offer gains credit, good P.R.. It also gives interested parties an opportunity to slant the results. A "credible, independent, international investigation" sounds nice. Pipe dream! The world is too polarized, ignorant, and unfair. Any investigation that outsiders run is likely to be like the UN investigation that my dozens of articles showed to be fixed. Any investigation by Israel would be denounced by the usual suspects, regardless of what it finds and how. An earlier article showed that Israel let people go and may have forfeited most of the forensic evidence. That would leave a "he said, she said" argument, which an hysterical world would evaluate according to its bias.
ARE ISRAELI JEWS LEFTISTS OR RIGHTISTS? Israeli Jews were asked: What do you consider yourself
Only one in seven is leftist, and only one in 100 is very leftist. That 1% controls most of the media, justice system, academia (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/4/10) and the arts.
HAMAS STILL NOT LETTING IN FLOTILLA GOODS Five days after Israel had loaded trucks with the flotilla cargo, and they were ready to roll into Gaza, Hamas still barred them (IMRA, 6/5/10). Is Hamas trying to bring about a humanitarian crisis?
EGYPT TO STRIP CITIZENSHIP IN CASE OF MARRIAGE TO ISRAELIS The Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt issued a binding ruling for Egyptian men who married Israeli women. Plaintiff estimates that 90% of the approximately 30,000 women are not Arabs. The judge ruled that the government must strip the women and their children of citizenship. He said their loyalty cannot be trusted and the children must not be allowed to serve in the Egyptian military. The government had opposed the ruling (IMRA, 6/5/10). When I find comments that insult religiously or personally, are irrelevant, or simply repeat without justification something I've shown to be false, I delete it as beneath our standard and not contributing anything. A persistent commenter, who I can see writes under multiple names, urges readers to comment like that, in order to keep me busy deleting, so I do not have time to write. A whole day's worth of comments take under a minute to delete, so he is attempting to waste your time more than mine. Meanwhile, unable to debate the issues, he changes the subject and insults everyone with whom he disagrees. His attempt to sabotage my column belies his claim to believe in freedom of thought, just as his nastiness belies his claim to believe in decency, just as his false personal accusations as about being a paid agent belie his claim to believe in the truth, just as his ignoring Arab oppression of Arabs belie his claim to champion Arabs. His latest false statement is that pro-Israel writers do not admit to any faults by Israel. Like the Arabs, he accuses Israel of what the Arabs do wrong. As David Pryce-Jones' books show, the Arabs have a shame-honor complex that make it particularly difficult for them to admit error. By contrast, many Jews admit to more errors than Israel makes. I find plenty of fault with Israel, but I do not find it mistreating the Arabs. I explain and document that, but this reader can't disagree without calling one a liar. He is most disagreeable. 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 EXCELLENT AND UNIQUE WORK BY ROBERT R. REILLY
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, June 5, 2010. |
| This was posted on 06/04/10 by Alex Adrianson. |
|
Four Questions: Robert Reilly on the Closing of the Muslim Mind Robert Reilly has written a book called The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis, recently published by ISI Books [w.w.w.isibooks.org] In it, he traces the roots of modern Islamism to medieval intellectual debates within Islam over the relationship between God and reason. We asked a Reilly, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, four questions about his book. InsiderOnline: In your book, you argue that the antecedent to the Islamism we know today lies in the 11th century victory of the Ash'arites over the Mu'tazalites, which arrested efforts to assimilate Greek ideas about reason into Muslim thinking. How does understanding that intellectual wrong turn help us understand Islamism's violent hostility toward the West? Robert Reilly: The West is the bastion of reason — or, at least, it used to be. The West was thoroughly Hellenized, to the extent that Nietzsche could quip that Christianity was Plato for the masses. When Sunni Islam decisively rejected philosophy, it perforce rejected the West. This did not happen overnight, but by the time of the burning of Avicenna's books in the public square of Cordoba in 1196 AD it was a done deal. Where did this leave Islam? Benedict XVI said in Regensburg that not only is violence in spreading faith unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason or above reason leads to that very violence. That which is unreasonable is against God only if God himself is reason or logos. The majority Sunni theological school denied that God is reason or is any way limited by reason. God can therefore act unreasonably, as can his vice-regent on earth — the caliph or ruler — and this is perfectly consistent with this view. Reason is not an adjudicator or even a guide in life. Muslim man is thrown back exclusively upon revelation, which, thanks to the denigration of reason, he has few tools to interpret with. This deformed theology gave this form of Islam an ingrained propensity to violence. It also created an ingrained antipathy to political orders that are based upon reason. The widely shared principle of Islamic jurisprudence is that "reason is not a legislator." If this is so, why have legislatures? Legislatures, where people come together to reason about how they should be ruled, are a presumptuous affront to God's exclusive rule, according to this theology. Therefore, Islamists declare that the greatest danger to their faith is democracy. Of course, there is also the divine mission that Islam understands itself to be on to bring the entire world into submission to Allah. Historically, force was the principal means for doing this. It was through armed conquest that Islam came close on several occasions to bringing all of Europe into subjugation. The hostility to Christianity and Judaism exists doctrinally, and the denigration of reason gives that hostility violent scope. IO: What are the most important consequences for Muslim societies themselves of this — as your title puts it — closing of the Muslim mind? RR: These societies are profoundly dysfunctional because their access to reality has been cut off. Fouad Ajami exclaimed, "Wherever I go in the Islamic world, it is the same problem: cause and effect, cause and effect." He was witnessing the effects of the denial of causality in the natural world that this theology asserts to protect its notion of God as radically transcendent and omnipotent. In its terms, God can only be omnipotent if no one else is so much as potent. This means that there are no secondary causes, as in natural laws — like gravity or fire burning cotton — just the first and only cause, God. He does everything directly. (The explicit denial of causality helps to explain the demise of science in the Islamic world. If there are no natural laws to discover, why go searching for them?) This, of course, also leaves man without any power over his own actions. As ibn Taymiyya said, "Creatures have no impact on God since it is God Himself who creates their acts." What kind of political order do you suppose emanates from that view of things? Where is man's free will? IO: Do you see any parallels between Islamism and other totalitarian movements? RR: It is not a matter of whether I see any parallels; the Islamists themselves call attention to how close their conception of an Islamist state is to Western totalitarianism. As Maulana Maududi wrote, "In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals." Sayyid Qutb described Islam as an "emancipatory movement" and "an active revolutionary creed." Hassan al-Banna regarded the Soviet Union under Stalin as a model of a successful one-party system. In a line worthy of Robespierre, Qutb said that a "just dictatorship" would "grant political liberties to the virtuous alone." Islamism is inevitably on the march, proclaims Sudan's Hasan al-Turabi, because, much as communism used to be, "it's a wave of history." In fact, Qutb said all liberation movements were welcome to his revolution: "[t]he Islamic doctrine adopts all struggles of liberation in the world and supports them in every place." This is familiar rhetoric. Ineluctably, if will and power are the primary constituents of reality — as they are in this theology — one will, in a series of deductive steps, conclude to a totalitarian regime. There is no other way out of it. The curious thing is that it does not matter whether one's view of reality as pure will has its origin in a deformed theology or in a totally secular ideology, such as Hegel's or Hobbes's; the political consequences are the same. As Fr. James Schall has shown, the notion of pure will as the basis of reality results in tyrannical rule. IO: Are there currently any reform movements that offer the hope that there may be a "Muslim Enlightenment" in the future? RR: There were and are such lights, but many have been extinguished or forced to shine outside of Islam in exile. Islam has a rich past in rational theology and philosophy. However, this tradition has lost its traction within the Muslim world. There are those who are struggling to restore it. It is to these courageous people that my book is dedicated. They are, unfortunately, not a "movement." As one Islamist said, "liberal Islam has no cadres." And illiberal Islam has many. The question is: Is there a constituency within the Muslim world that can elaborate a theology that allows for the restoration of reason, a rehellenization of Islam with Allah as logos? Can Islam answer the call from Samir Khalil Samir for "an Enlightenment, in other words, a revolution in thought that affirms the value of worldly reality in and of itself, detached from religion, though not in opposition to it"? It is idle to pretend that it would take less than a sea change for this to happen. If it does not, it is hard to envisage upon what basis Muslims could modernize or upon what grounds a dialogue with Islam could take place. There are many Muslims who want to enter the modern world — with its modern science and modern political institutions — and also keep their faith. The past glories of Islamic civilization show that it was once able to progress. That progress was based upon a different set of ideas, antithetical to those of the Islamists. Unfortunately, the ideas gaining traction today are theirs — the Islamists'. That is the crisis. The answer that is sweeping the Islamic world today comes the al-Qaedists, neo-Kharijites, and Hanbalites. This is basically a theological problem, and it requires a theological solution. What Islam desperately needs today is its own Thomas Aquinas. Prof. Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
GET REAL
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 5, 2010. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelbert,
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
|
|
"We will con the world" was a brilliant video, and we all need a good laugh. However, while its producers deserve praise, let's get real. Let's bear in mind that wars are not won by means of satire. Nor are they won by "hasbara" or information campaigns. We've had such campaigns year after year for decades with no discernible effect — and it won't do to say they were flawed. While "hasbara" may enlighten the ignorant, they may also obscure the simple fact that against Islamism, as was the case against Nazism, overwhelming military force is the decisive factor, which of course seems to be beyond the wherewithal of the miniscule State of Israel. However, since Israel is repeatedly condemned for defending itself — whether in the case of Jenin, Gaza, Lebanon, and now for killing some terrorists in the Islamic Flotilla, why shouldn't the IDF, by means of covert and overt operations, emasculate one terrorist haven after another right here in the Land of Israel? When I looked at the face of Israel's prime minister and listened to his words defending Israel's actions vis-à-vis Islam's terrorist flotilla, I was dismayed. Perhaps I am mistaken, but he appeared as a tired if not broken man unequal to the challenge confronting Israel. If he was merely putting on a diplomatic or PR face on a horrific situation, was this the right PR? Instead of defensive remarks, couldn't he have gone on the OFFENSIVE — to begin with, but only to begin with — by exposing the axis of evil confronting Israel of which the Jihadist flotilla was merely a flea? Why must Israel always appear on the defensive against its genocidal enemies and their spineless supporters in the media and capitals of the democratic world? Since Israel get's a bad press no matter what it does, why not deserve it! Which means: make sure Israel's enemies get what they deserve! Can't Israel's Military and Intelligence echelons figure this out? And if the political echelon is not cooperative, I suggest that a few generals, who are responsible for the lives of our soldiers, have a private meeting with the prime minister and put the fear of God in him. |
|
ISRAEL VERSUS THEE CRUISE SHIP TERRORISTS: THE WORLD LIKES THE TERRORISTS
Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, June 5, 2010. |
|
"The inexcusable remarks of Helen Thomas, doyenne of bigotry and miscomprehension" Here is the letter/note I wrote re Helen Thomas to Hearst: Ms. Thomas long ago passed her point of journalistic utility for this company [Hearst] and the country. She may once have been sane and balanced, but no longer. Her remarks of late prove she must be retired asap. She is frightfully out of touch, a sort of lame harridan of horror, and says things that cannot be erased by a radically insincere, inadequate stab at apology. She does not know her history, past or present, and has become an embarrassment whenever she speaks. She cannot continue to compromise the position of 'reporter' in the important White House seat she has occupied for overlong. Fire her. Marion DS Dreyfus
This below was written by Madeline Brooks and it appeared yesterday in Canada Free Press Madeline Brooks is Chapter Head of ACTforAmerica.org in Manhattan. |
|
So far, the latest set-up against Israel has gone as planned. World opinion gives an easy win to the Islamists with this one. On May 31, 2010 a phony 'peace flotilla' set sail from Turkey for Gaza. The idea was to defy the maritime blockade that Israel had set up — something sanctioned by the U.S. and international law — so that terrorists could bring deadly weapons into the hands of Gaza terrorists. Israel has previous experience of seemingly innocuous ships that were heavily stocked with armaments, and it was appropriately suspicious of this convoy. The ruse was that Gaza was suffering — starving even — from a dire shortage of humanitarian supplies. What a joke! Many YouTube videos show Gaza markets bursting with fresh produce, meat, candy, clothing and other consumer goods. There is even at least one luxury restaurant, The Roots. Reportedly, there are more Mercedes in Gaza than in Israel. And why not? Israel already supplies many of the basic needs of Gazans, like kids getting an allowance from their parents, leaving them free to focus on doing what they love: making jihad against Israel. Gaza pays no taxes, and gets free water and electricity, all thanks to the Israeli tax-payers who must foot the bill In just the past eighteen months, over one million tons of humanitarian supplies were delivered to the people of Gaza — by Israel. The reason every Gazan is not bursting at the seams from all that largesse, which comes to nearly one ton of aid for every man, woman and child, is that Hamas takes control of the goods. In addition, Gaza pays no taxes, and gets free water and electricity, all thanks to the Israeli tax-payers who must foot the bill to keep the dependants happy. Free medical care and medicine are included too. The medical care is donated even to terrorists, strictly on a needs basis. That means that if a terrorist is close to dying and the Israeli he wounded is not as severely threatened, the terrorist is treated first and the Israeli (who pays for all this with his taxes) must wait. Israeli medicine donated to Gazans is always fresh and usable. However, the phony flotilla 'aid' to Gaza included expired medicine and old, outdated medical equipment, which made them worthless, according to IDF sources who examined the supplies. What else was the flotilla carrying? Terrorists determined to be martyrs. On the largest vessel, a former cruise ship, one participant declared, "Right now we face one of two happy endings: either martyrdom or reaching Gaza," according to the Turkish media. Even before they set out, the 'peaceful' shahids chanted an Islamic battle cry "(Remember) Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" The Khaibar war cry refers to the Jewish village defeated by Muhammad's army in 628, marking the elimination of any Jewish presence in Arabia. Clearly the 'peaceniks' were itching for a fight and were even willing to die. Between fifty and one hundred of these men may have been linked to al Qaida, according to the IDF. They were fully equipped for battle, with long knives, axes, metal poles, stun grenades and Molotov cocktails, as well as protective gear, bulletproof vests, masks, and night vision goggles. None of them carried any form of identification, and most of them had thousands of dollars in their pockets. They were a well organized attack unit operating under orders to violently attack the IDF soldiers expected to board, which they did. Al Jezeera was on board, and filmed these assaults. The videos clearly show the terrorists viciously attacking the IDF commandos first, although the Islamist media denies it. So what was the real purpose of the ships sailing for Gaza? For one thing, to launch another round of propaganda assaults against Israel, goading her to look like an out of control bully. An additional goal was to breach the Israeli naval blockade both by degrading Israel's legitimacy and by setting a precedent of pushing through it. According to Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian American co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement and one of the leaders of the group known as Free Gaza, "It is crucial that we continue sending boats to Gaza to challenge Israel's criminal closure of the strip." Earlier, she had urged the Palestinians to incorporate violence in their strategies in a 2002 article. Her intention was echoed by Bulent Yildirim, the chairman of the Turkish group that was the chief financier of the fleet. He admitted the convoy's real goal at an April press conference, "We are embarking on our journey together with over 1,000 people to break the embargo." Beyond that, we can interpret the armada's challenge to Israel as a Turkish bid for a more dominant position in the Islamist world, a position achieved by renouncing friendship with Israel, which had once been its ally. They took the usual route: attacking Israel to appear as a champion of the Palestinians. It looks as if Turkey is itching for war Now we hear that more Turkish boats are expected, and some of them may be military vessels. It looks as if Turkey is itching for war. Turkish flags were flown on three of the six ships in the convoy, and they were packed with Turkish citizens. Yilsirim's Istanbul based group is known as the IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi). It is Turkish and it is supported by the Ankara government, which has gone Islamist. The IHH is tied to Hamas, and even to al Qaeda, according to Israeli officials. Israel banned it in 2008 for being "part of Hamas's fundraising network." A top French intelligence expert, Jean Louis-Bruguiere, states that the IHH played an important role in the Millenium bomb plot, the 1999 al-Qaida plot to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport. Also in 2008, the U.S. designated the IHH's parent group, the Union of Good as a terrorist entity citing its facilitation of the transfer of funds to Hamas. The Union of Good is a collection of ostensible charities run by the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, Yusuf al Qaradawi, who is known for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians and who has also issued fatwas calling for the killing of Jews and Americans. Charming bunch, aren't they? In the meantime, Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weapons into Gaza, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu. These missiles can already reach most of Israel's cities, and worse ones are on their way. This is a grave problem not just for Israel, but for other countries that are in Iran's expansionist cross-hairs. What will the world say to these emerging facts? Will it continue to enjoy its sadistic hate-fest of Israel? Or will it defend the true defender of human rights — the tiny, beleaguered Jewish state? Yes, Jewish. Can you accept that? What is your pleasure, world? The choice you make will determine what sort of a world you will live in because Islamism wants your throat too. Your choice is barbarism and lies vs. decency and truth. Contact Marion DS Dreyfus at mdsdm@rcn.com |
|
YOUR RIGHT TO UNDO YOUR MISTAKES
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 5, 2010. |
|
Israel has an absolute right to undo the mistakes made by its flawed and fickle leadership who gave Israel's land to the arab invaders occupying Gaza. Israel has the right to put things right for itself. Israel has the absolute right to protect its people. Israel as a sovereign state has an obligation to put its national interests first. First lesson: Do not even think about placating your sworn enemies, nor offer or make concessions for to please its supposed friends. Understand that a genuine friend of Western culture and Western values will stand with Israel and help Israel remedy its past mistakes by helping Israel reclaim its lands. Beginning with Gaza. A friend of Israel will not give aid and comfort to the arab invaders who are occupying Gaza. Jerusalem belongs in its entirety to Israel, along with what the arab propagandists call the "West Bank." And the Temple Mount belongs in its entirety to Israel. The Waqf must go. The mosque atop the Temple Mount exists solely due to the excessive good graces of Israel. The Hashemites must be put in their place. Until the Islamics surrender, totally and unconditionally, Israel must fight to win. What are you fighting to win? Your land and your heritage and your dignity — all of which were sullied and diminished by Israel's "concessionaires." Jews who slavishly parrot Islamic propaganda or who lick Abdullah's boots are traitors, especially if they pass themselves off as professors or intellectuals or judges. Concessions can and must be reversed. Concessions are not agreements, nor are they gifts. Gaza is not a gift because the arabs did not accept the gift in good faith, instead, they rejected the gift and flung it back into Israel's face — along with ten thousand missiles. Therefore, if Israel gifted its land to the arab invaders, Israel has a right to retake the gift because the recipients rejected it. Insults must be put down and this means Israel's first step is to use language correctly: Stop referring to the arab invaders as "palestinians." Arab Israelis who are not loyal Israelis are arabs forever and they cannot be what they never were and are not now. International law is on Israel's side. Study Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of israel: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. Israel's boundaries encompass all the land from the ocean to the sea as well as most of the Golan Heights, Gaza, and yes, most of the land that became the new state of Jordan. The Treatise is easy to read. Easy to understand. Easy to connect the dots to ascertain the identities of Israel's traitors. Thanks to Prof. Grief, it is now easier than ever to comprehend the duplicity of the Britz and understand but not condone their desperate need to dodge responsibility for their crimes which they hope to cover up by insulting Jews and scheming to undermine the State of Israel. Viva Israel from the SC4Z. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
JOINING THE JACKALS
Posted by Israel BenAmi, June 5, 2010. |
|
This was written by Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. |
|
At the United Nations, a lynch mob for Israel is always just a moment away. The Islamic countries are a reliable source of venom, led by the Arab bloc; what we used to call the "non-aligned" are all aligned against Israel and happy to join the fun; and the Europeans can be counted on for hand-wringing rather than staunch resistance. Only the United States, and a few brave allies like Canada and Australia, can be counted upon to oppose diplomatic lynchings year after year; and only the United States can stop them in the Security Council. In the American government, it is never the State Department bureaucracy that wishes to brave the endless assaults at the UN. Normally the resistance comes not from the various regional bureaus or from the International Organizations bureau, where Israel is so often viewed as a giant pain, but from the White House and sometimes (example: George Shultz) the Secretary of State. This week the mob formed again, instantly, after the Gaza flotilla disaster, reinforced this time by the leadership of Turkey, whose language at the UN was more vicious than that used by the Arabs. As usual there was really only one question once the mob began to gather. It is the question that arose repeatedly in the Bush years — when the Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were killed by Israel, when Israel acted in Gaza, when Israel put down the intifada in the West Bank, and during the 2006 war in Lebanon and the late 2008 fighting in Gaza: would Israel stand alone, or would the United States stand with her and prevent the lynching? Would the U.S., in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable phrase, "join the jackals?" This week the Obama administration answered the question: Yes we would, and Israel would stand alone. It is simple to block the kind of attack issued as a "President's Statement" on behalf of the Council, for such a statement requires unanimity. The United States can just say "No," and make it clear that orders have come from the White House and will not be changed. Then negotiations begin on a serious statement — or, there can be no statement at all. The killing of dozens of South Korean sailors by North Korea in an action that truly threatens the peace did not evoke the kind of action the Security Council took against Israel, proving that the UN does not always act, or act in the same way, when news flashes hit. Whether Israel is slammed depends on whether the United States is willing to take a stand. On the Gaza flotilla, the Obama administration waffled and straddled. It agreed to a statement in which the United Nations condemned the "acts" that led to loss of life but did not say "We condemn Israel." Presumably White House congratulated itself on this elision, but no one is fooled: the world media keep repeating that the Security Council condemned Israel, and in this case it is hard to argue. Yet it would have been simple to stop the mob had the White House wanted to. The facts were not in yet and indeed are still not in. The videos suggest that dozens of people (all Turks, it appears, but that too is not fully clear) on the boats were armed and dangerous. Reports are circulating here that some of those "peace activists" had gas masks and night vision devices, carried no identification papers, wore bullet-proof vests, and carried large amounts of cash. The background, the Hamas coup in Gaza and more than three thousand rockets into Israel from Gaza, is clear. The fact the Egypt has for three years (until the pressure mounted this week) refused to open its border to Gaza is understood at the UN. So the material was at hand to block the lynch mob and say we would accept only a statement that mourned the loss of life. We did not have to accept the word "condemn" or join in the call for another Goldstone Report. No doubt the administration will claim it avoided a worse result, a Council resolution condemning Israel. To which the answer is, "not good enough." The U.S. has the power to block all anti-Israel moves in the Security Council, not just some of them, and to do so without agreeing to unfair, damaging compromises. So why did we agree to the presidential statement? The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel. Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure. This was evident last week at the NPT conference as well, where a final statement that singled out Israel while ignoring Iran — precisely what the Bush administration blocked in 2005 — was permitted by the United States. From this perspective, it is just as well that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not make it to Washington this week, where a phony love fest would have pictured him in the Obama embrace. The entire purpose of the invitation was to "change the atmosphere" and reverse the damage done during his last visit, where photos of Netanyahu with Obama were not permitted. There were no doubt many rabbis, Jewish leaders, and Democratic party pols prepared to beam and conclude that all the troubles are behind us. But the events at the UN this week showed that they are not, because Obama policy has not changed. This reality is sinking in fast in Jerusalem, where the UN is understood as an excellent barometer of the White House — in any administration. Does the White House accept, indeed relish, the need to defend Israel against all comers — Pakistan, Turkey, the Arabs, weak-kneed Euro-dips, UN bureaucrats? Is this understood as a chance to show what America really stands for in the world? Or is Israel seen by the president as a burden, an albatross, a complication in his grand struggle to re-position the United States as a more "progressive" power? We got the answer, again, this past week, and so did Israelis. In Israel, the press reporting on the Gaza flotilla is straightforward: there were probably intelligence and operational failures; why did we not know how many armed men there were on board, and come prepared; the Ministry of Defense and the IDF must investigate; but the moral equation is clear. This flotilla was an act of solidarity and support for terrorism, and thirty or forty armed men lay in wait for Israeli commandos. Had the commandos not fired to save themselves, this would have been Israel's very own "Blackhawk Down" incident. Israelis see clearly the problems they face when the United States is calling for another international investigation and will not defend Israel. They understand that no one is going to investigate Turkey and its role, nor investigate the pro-terror groups on board those ships — not if the United States fails to insist on it. They realize that, thanks to the Obama policies, it is now open season on Israel in Europe and at the UN. They speak candidly (Israelis of the left, center, and right, not just Likud supporters) in private about all these problems, but they cannot speak openly about them, not when they may have the Obama administration to deal with for six and a half more years. They wonder most about whether their friends see their predicament, and will speak up for them even when they must — to retain a working relationship with the White House — remain silent or speak very carefully. So this crisis is not only a test for Israel, which faces difficult weeks ahead, and for the Obama administration, which in fact has already failed. It is a test for Israel's supporters, facing the combined onslaught of the news media (from BBC coverage to New York Times editorials), scores of governments, UN bureaucrats, and a White House that views excessive solidarity with Israel as a diplomatic inconvenience. The United States abandoned Israel in the United Nations and in the NPT Conference in the course of one week. Israel's friends in the United States should say so, say it was shameful, and gear up for a long fight. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5170 (20100603) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5171 (20100604) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 6516 of my spam emails to date. The Professional version does not have this message. _Certification_.txt No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG — www.avg.com Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2919 — Release Date: 06/05/10 09:25:00 This was written by Elliott Abrams and it appeared in the Weekly Standard |
|
SUPREME COURT UPHELD RELEASING TURKISH
ASSAILANTS; CAIR'S GUIDE TO POLICE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 5, 2010. |
|
EJC ASKS EU TO BAN IHH AS TERRORIST The European Jewish Congress (EJC) asks the EU to ban from its territory activity by IHH, the Turkish charitable "front for terrorism." The EJC cites, among other evidence, a raid on IHH in Istanbul by Turkish police, which found weapons, explosives, instructions for bomb-making, and plans to participate in jihad in Europe (IMRA, 6/3/10). http://www.imra.org.il/ I would not call it a terrorist front. It has done some real charity, along with its aid for terrorism. In its recent flotilla, however, it used charity as a front for jihadist purposes, apparently with the complicity of the government of Turkey. Turkey denies this, but it, itself, is jihadist, know. The government knew that the mission was blockage-breaking in behalf of a terrorist entity. It should have known that jihadists boarded the ship. Its indignation at the blockade-enforcement is play-acting. Oh how much fun a TV skit could have over PM Erdogan's feigned surprise! Such skits don't get performed much any more.
ISRAELI MOOD ON FLOTILLA FIASCO The Left sides with the terrorists, as usual, but there is growing anger against its treason. This time, except for Haaretz, the Israeli media sides with the government. Israelis seem to be as united in supporting blockade enforcement as its critics are in opposing it. Im Tirtzu, the student Zionist organization known for showing that the UN Goldstone investigation mostly copied and failed to check biased reports by NGOs, is becoming Israel's most important grassroots organization. All over Israel, demonstrations are rising in support of blockade enforcement. Thousands of college students join them. We await a poll to measure national unity over this. The people do have a serious complaint about the military operation. They want more force to have been used. They deride the notion of sending soldiers with paintball guns to face armed Islamo-fascists (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/3). Even if the enemy were not armed, an outnumbered enforcement group must be well armed. It has taken a long time to disabuse the Israeli public of the Chimera that peace can be bought by concession to fanatical enemies, and that the "international community" supports peace over aggression. The Nazi-sponsored Holocaust, and the Communist International failed drive that point home to the hopeful, but global jihad, which draws inspiration from the former and instruction from the latter, has. (To get to a couple of dozen articles on the flotilla,
click here )
WHY ISRAELI SUPREME COURT UPHELD RELEASE OF TURKISH ASSAILANTS Who knows why Israel's Supreme Court upheld release of the boarding party's assailants, along with the other flotilla passengers? We do know its rationale. Start with the announcement by Israel's Attorney-General that he would not prosecute the assailants for attacking Israelis and leading to the deaths of nine of the militants. The videos show some of them mobbing commandos, with rods. Now consider the petition against release, submitted by the Israel Law Center. The petition pointed out that some militants were known for ties to Hamas and the Moslem Brotherhood, both terrorist organizations. The petition called release premature, before Israel could confirm detainees' identities, how passengers had been killed, and which suspects were violent. Security forces had not documented confessions nor even interrogated the detainees. They cannot know just what happened. Neither can they plan properly to prevent a recurrence by ships on their way. Rushing the release exposes Israel to accusations of war crimes, without Israel having gained the full evidence for its defense. Israel was shipping out people who could have provided exculpatory evidence, and who are likely to turn up with perjury. The Attorney-General defended his decision as an attempt to mollify foreigners. The Supreme Court found the embargo within international law, justified to block import of weapons for Hamas, and an ambush of the boarding sailors by weapons-wielding men. However, the Court ruled that the decision was up to the Attorney-General, and that law-and-order is not the only consideration. The justices said they could intervene only under exceptional circumstances. In alleging that it considered all aspects of the petition, the Court failed to indicate why it forfeited evidence needed in later war crimes indictments, which also would harm Israeli foreign relations. Were the suspects were fingerprinted, photographed, and tested for gun powder residue, so they could be linked to weapons used? (IMRA, 6/3/10.) Does the Attorney-General work to please foreigners? Actually, both the Supreme Court and the Attorney-Generals have intruded on governmental jurisdiction often, in order to orient policy leftward. As if this case is not a special circumstance, the Court suddenly reverts to a separation of powers doctrine it otherwise is cavalier about. At that time, there already were calls for investigation. How could Israel or anybody else properly and fairly investigate, when Israel let most of the evidence slip away?
ISRAEL'S LACK OF PUBLIC RELATIONS KNOWHOW 
The flotilla incident exposes Israel's lack of P.R.. Although Israel had plenty of time to plan for the embargo-runners, it failed to plan for the media. At the time of confrontation, no government agency could give the media a briefing on the legality of the embargo and its enforcement. It took them days to assemble a brief. Ship delays had given Israel ample time to prepare. The media needed videos of action and briefs of legality, etc., swiftly and often. There was no team to edit and package for distribution video and audio transmission immediately. A dispute between the Defense Ministry and Foreign Ministry kept Israeli videos offline for hours. The Defense Ministry had a point that releasing videos showing its troops being beaten would hurt morale. Eventually it was overruled. However, the time lost let the other side's message get out first and count most. That requires investigation (IMRA, 6/3/10). The other side was enabled to form an international lynch mood. Bringing up rational considerations after the mob has formed is ineffective. Israel's amateurish P.R., or even lack of P.R., shows a disconnect between reality and the anti-Zionist claim of a "Zionist propaganda machine." Israel usually manages to win its battles, sometimes barely so, but loses the wars. The main reason besides U.S. interference and Israeli leftist defeatism is poor public relations. Think of the P.R fiasco that the prior article implies is coming, when the released thugs, instead of confessing, turn up accusing! Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA,
has warned Israeli leaders that they fail to think of how events will unfold.
jihadists are more clever and skilled in this. They delayed one of the next ships, in order to outfit it with more modern broadcast facilities.
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS GUIDE TO POLICE IN DEALING WITH MUSLIMS The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued "What Law Enforcement Should Know," a 127-page guide for police in dealing with Muslims. Paraphrased or quoted here are some of its statements and, in parentheses, Daniel Pipe's comments 1. Prayer links a Muslim worshiper directly with God. (This contention is not accepted by Sufi Muslims.) 2. Arabic inscriptions found in New Mexico petroglyphs indicate that Muslims may have preceded Columbus. (This contention is an historic fraud.) 3. "Many men tend to react from gut;" "Some may answer before fully comprehending the question"; and "Honor (shame) and pride may complicate straight-forward answers, sometimes only in an attempt to make your stay short" (p. 50). (CAIR's demeaning generalizations about Muslims suggests it holds them in low regard.) [I think those points are valid and useful, and need to be understood by the media, the UN, U.S. diplomats, etc..] 4. A 2004 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Poll: "A plurality of Americans (46%) believes that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers" (p. 72). ("But that's not an anti-Muslim sentiment, it's a countable fact.") 5. The Quran uplifts, not degrades the status of women. (Not true. "Try Koran 4:34 for starters.") 6. Muslim women have the right to initiate divorce. (No, it requires her husband's permission in a pre-nuptial agreement or a judge's consent, both rare.) 7. "There are two types of jihad: The greater/internal jihad is a struggle against one's own bad character and inner impulses to do wrong. The other/external jihad is struggling to redress wrongs one sees in society" (p. 99). ("This is total nonsense that ignores jihad's primary meaning through history, which is to extend Muslim control of territory.") (Most of the document is irrelevant to law enforcement issues of
strip searches, profiling, arrests on material witness charges, and
prison discipline.) (Daniel Pipes,
based on 6/3 radio report.M)
ISRAEL FINDS NATURAL GAS A second, recent exploration has found enough natural gas off the coast of Israel to supply its needs for the next half-century (IMRA, 6/3/10). Egypt has been moving away form supplying Israel, in accordance with Israeli withdrawal from the oil fields it developed in Sinai. The new finds fill the growing gap.
SAUDI ARABIA ROUNDS UP WEBSITE SUPERVISORS Saudi Arabia had rounded up some website supervisors, accused of facilitating terrorism and pornography. The government explained that with freedom comes responsibility (IMRA, 6/3/10). Facilitating terrorism is criminal. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Perhaps we can learn from Saudi Arabia on this. The web radicalizes Muslims here to murder us. The government thinks that pornography undermines public morals. What does it think that its ideology of violent intolerance does to international security?
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:
|
|
I'VE HAD TOO MUCH CHANGE AND I'VE LOST MY HOPE!
Posted by Arlene Peck, June 4, 2010. |
|
There was a time when I considered myself politically savvy. I took pride in the fact that I have never missed an election in these many years that I've been old enough to vote. Aw, but that has all changed, I no longer look forward to doing my civic duty and check out the people that are running for office. I know now, at this point in time, whom I'm voting for in the elections in a few months. I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat at this point. No matter who is on the ballot, I'm voting for the "other one." Everyone knows about Sarah Palin and her Going Rogue, and I am a believer in breaking rank. I have taken pride in breaking rank with those who surround me. The American Jews are the ones that put the Muslim (Obama) into power, and I live in the land of the most liberal enclave in the nation of liberalism. Nowhere is more so than Los Angeles. We are in a war of individual freedom. Yet, we have allowed ourselves to fall into the global socialism within which we are now drowning. Where are the ones who need to know better? Those among us who have cut us to the core in our fight for these freedoms? Why do Jews continue to vote for the Democrats? In decades and generations gone past, the Jewish communities were poor. They were newcomers to the wealth and civil rights. They appreciated the liberty afforded to them. The Democratic Party represented a party with which they could identify and relate. However, over the years, the times and conditions began to change. They reached an element of success and the needs of the previously downtrodden changed. They were no longer on the social economic plateau of the poor and deprived. The quota system always worked against the Jewish community to keep them down. I remember when I was growing up in Atlanta, Georgia, and we had the "quota system." Meaning, although we were less than three percent of the student body at the local universities, the Jewish kid, no matter if he were an "A" student, would be by-passed over in favor of a "WASP" student even if he had a "C" grade point average, if the school already had three percent of Jewish students. Today? Try that with the black students and see how fast Jessie Jackson comes down to organize a protest march! I remember that being the system at Emory, which was predominately a medical and dental school and had a large waiting list of Jewish students waiting to get in. They were allowed because the "quota system" always worked against the Jews. After the astounding Six Day War, there began a new outbreak of anti-Semitism. What was always directed toward the Jewish people was now redirected to resentment of The Jewish State. I find it weird how they look to the new attitude adhering to the platform of liberalism that makes them in some way good Jews. We are no longer oppressed and living in an unjust country. We enjoy a freedom and life to be proud of that was unheard of in past decades. Our social, political and moral system is not the same that once was and the liberals of today refuse to recognize that and are determined to stay blind. Obama ran on a platform to change the face of the United State, and he is accomplishing his goals. He has been a "False Messiah" to the neighbors here that I know supported him. My privileged neighbors in Lala Land are now living through 'Buyers Remorse'. Even though it's not politically correct to admit it. So many of the media out here are Jewish themselves and the cultural trickle down attitude within the entertainment industry has been absorbed into their bloodstream without their apparent knowledge. They are wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. This feeling may finally be sinking in. Although I seriously doubt it. The evening news is filled with pictures under the heading, "Obama weighs outreach to Taliban," walking with and hugging Afghan President Hamid Karzsai and giving press conferences about the mutual respect they have for each other. This, for a man who as recently as last month suggested that he might join the Taliban insurgency rather than yield to foreign pressure to reform his corrupt government. Serves us well! While Obama was bending backwards to "great deference to this man," I was thinking about how when Bibi was in town, and deference was the last thing that he was shown. It was more like disdain. He was treated worse than dictators from a third world country... None of the state dinners, no pomp and no flourishes. That served him well, in fact, for at times staring at the truth is more potent than any false hugs. The evening with the Prime Minister didn't end with a state dinner or press conference but an embarrassing walk out of the back door. To add insult to injury, no photographs were taken. Obama probably didn't want his Muslim brothers to see that he and Bibi were possibly getting along. I'm sick of it! Obama is more concerned with a housing project being built in Jerusalem, than that nutcase in Iran building his bomb! Famous journalists are writing in Israeli papers how the American President is systemically trying to destroy Israel and calling him a sociopath. G-d forbid if I send the paper's articles to any of my liberal friends — of which I have few left; they refuse to speak with me or end up calling me a crackpot ! I've had enough Change and have lost my Hope! In the beginning I wrote a column entitled The Manchurian Candidate Waiting to Happen. My opinion hasn't changed! Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She travels extensively worldwide, reporting to her audience about political events, social happenings (Cannes Film Festival, London event for the Variety Club, etc.) |
|
EVIDENCE THAT SHEIKH RAED SALAH ATTACKED SOLDIERS ON BOAT
Posted by Sanne DeWitt, June 4, 2010. |
|
This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
Maariv Correspondent Avi Ashkenazi reports in the Thursday 3 June edition according to a senior police source "we have definitive evidence regarding 11 of the expellees who participated in the attack on the commandos and among them [Sheikh Raed] Salah [leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel] and another three Israelis. We are talking about not only ID line ups and photos but more than that. But, unfortunately, since we had to release them, we will also be asked to release Salah and the other Israelis." The police source explained that Salah would be able to argue in court, if he is charged, that he is facing "unequal justice" since he is being charged for a crime others involved in have been effectively pardoned for. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found — a kind not used by the naval commandos. ========== Amos Harel
During Israel's takeover of a Turkish ship in the Gaza-bound aid flotilla this week, some passengers tried to take captive three commandos who lost consciousness as a result of the activists' blows, according to early findings of a navy investigation. The three were dragged into one of the passenger halls below deck and were held there for several minutes. After dozens of other commandos began searching the ship, the Mavi Marmara, the three soldiers regained consciousness and managed to join their comrades. Conversations with senior navy officers in the chain of command during the operation present a different view of the events on Monday. In Israel, the raid has been perceived as a failure, while abroad it has been derided as piracy or worse. The navy rejects the claims that it was poorly prepared. Officials have been commending the commandos' performance in a situation in which they were confronted by dozens of activists who attacked them as they rappelled from helicopters. "They were terrorists — hired killers who came to murder soldiers, not to assist the residents of the Gaza Strip," said a navy officer. The operation on the Mavi Marmara began at about 4:30 A.M. on Monday. Because of the presence of hard-core activists including members of the IHH, the Turkish group organizing the aid convoy, most attention went to that ship. Navy chief Eliezer Merom and the head of the naval commandos, Lt. Col. A., were on vessels next to the ship. Lt. Col. A. climbed on the Mavi Marmara during the takeover. As seen on a video documenting the takeover, the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando, K., saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. K. jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the activist holding the gun. This happened 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck. The commanders of the first unit were hit by the mob as they landed. One of the soldiers managed to fix another rope, after there were problems with the original one, for 10 more soldiers to land. The commandos cared for the wounded and took over part of the upper deck of the ship. At this stage, six minutes into the operation, another force landed from a second helicopter, led by a major. At that point they realized that three commandos were missing and they began looking for them. A short while later the naval commando chief landed along with dozens more soldiers, some of whom climbed from boats. Others landed from a third helicopter. The search involved limited shooting, in the bridge and on the lower deck, until the three men were recovered. The head of the naval commandos gave orders by radio to use live fire, two minutes after the incident had begun. Shots had been fired earlier, but Lt. Col. A. later explained that in his orders he wanted to make sure that the troops realized that "the mood of the incident had changed." The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found — a kind not used by the naval commandos. The Israel Defense Forces says that during the operation a number of pistols and an M-4 rifle were taken from soldiers, but they believe that the Turkish activists had other weapons. The captain of the ship told the naval commando chief that the guns were thrown overboard before the ship was completely taken over.The wounded activists were airlifted to Israel for treatment, some seriously hurt whose lives were saved by the evacuation. The IDF did not question the activists extensively because of the decision to release them. In conversations after the takeover, activists said they were surprised by the use of helicopters, even though the navy had used this method before. However, nothing else appears to have surprised them because International law requires sufficient warnings before ships are boarded. Post-operation assessments have the number of hard-core activists involved in the fighting at between 60 and 100. It appears that they were well trained and experienced, especially in view of the arsenal found and code books used to pass on orders from group leaders. Among the rioters, in addition to Turks, were Yemenis, Afghans and one person from Eritrea. All were apparently experienced in hand-to-hand fighting. Some of them did not retreat when shots were fired. The operation involved a month of training, with dummy takeovers of a ship at sea with 50 soldiers performing the role of activists. The navy admits that it trained mostly for "a Bil'in type of opposition, but there was no feeling that this was going to be a walk in the park." He was referring to a village at the separation fence where demonstrations take place. The navy says it needs to look into whether the psychological preparations of the force were sufficient, and whether it had emphasized an easier scenario that did not take place. The navy says it went over "incidents and responses" in preparation; these included opening fire at charging activists with melee weapons. In case of a threat to their lives, the commandos were ordered to shoot to kill even as they were on their way onto the deck. "The main gap between preparations and intelligence was that we did not know we would face dozens of rioters," a senior officer involved in the operation said."This was not a disturbance that went awry. It was a planned ambush." Another officer added that "I still wake up at 3 A.M. and wonder how the hell we did not know more." Another officer said said that "we became a little spoiled, as a society, expecting perfect performances." According to a senior officer, "Under the circumstances, and I do not like the result, I think we did the best we could. We took care of five ships without injuries. On the sixth ship, we faced a harsh attack and killed nine saboteurs. "No real peace activist was injured. No soldier was killed, even though it came pretty close. In the end the ships are docked at Ashdod. It was very complicated and the result is near perfect." Sanne DeWitt distributes the IACEP Newletter. Contact her at skdewitt@comcast.net |
|
GAZA FLOTILLA'S LEADER EXPLAINS: IT WAS A JIHADIST ATTACK NOT A "HUMANITARIAN OPERATION"
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 4, 2010. |
|
Bülent Yildirim, the main organizer of the Gaza Flotilla, explained at a Hamas rally in Gaza that the operation was no humanitarian effort but part of a global Jihad to overthrow governments and install Islamist dictatorships. He made no secret of that fact, as shown in the MEMRI translation and video. [ Watch this.] Keep in mind as you read this that his group originated the project and was the main funder, that his followers controlled the biggest ship, and that they were most of those who attacked the Israeli soldiers. Thus, more than any other individual, Yildirim represents the thinking behind the operation, its direction, and the organization of a militarized group that started the violence in order to achieve the intended result. Notice, too, that he — and thus the organizers of the operation and those who created the violence — are totally indifferent to the loss of life they cause. "My brothers," he begins, "I have brought you the blessings of Saladin and Sultan Abd Al-Hamid. There are 70 million Sultan Abd Al-Hamids in Turkey, and they all support you. We congratulate you on your victory." Saladin, of course, defeated the Crusaders and destroyed their kingdoms, an analogy often drawn about Israel by Jihadists. Sultan Abd al-Hamid was the last of the Ottoman Empire's Islamic-oriented rulers. He thus represents what Yildirim sees as an Islamist Turkish state. He was also a caliph, that is, the leader of the Muslim world as successor to Muhammad. Many Islamists want to reestablish the caliphate, a single Muslim ruler over the whole Muslim-majority world (or even the whole world period). The Turkish Islamists hate Kemal Ataturk for establishing a republic and ending the caliphate (along with the Young Turk secularists). Their goal is not to succor the people of Gaza but to wipe out Israel and kill the Jews as "rightful" (his words, not mine) successors to Muhammad in continuing this task: "Three to four years ago, some claimed that Hamas was a terrorist organization. When the Jews would kill our women and children, they would say: 'Muhammad died and left only daughters.' We are here, in Turkey, in Egypt, Syria, and everywhere, and our daughters and our boys can also defeat you." From this point it is interesting how the Arabic translator misstates what Yildirim actually says: Arabic Translator: "We are here, in Egypt, in Sudan, in Syria, in Turkey, and everywhere. Our women, our children, and our men support you." Remember, Yildirim is explicitly talking only about Turks (though he does mean all Muslims also) but the translator turns it into a more Arab-oriented statement by mentioning three specific Arab countries. It's a subtle sign of how even Arab Islamists don't quite feel comfortable with the non-Arab Turks. Bülent Yildirim: "Allah Akbar. Allah be praised. Allah Akbar. Allah be praised. Allah Akbar. Allah be praised. They have bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, but we have our hearts, we have our courage, and we are not afraid of anyone but Allah." This is the typical Islamist trope: they are stronger but we court martyrdom and we have the deity on our side. Of course, it is always better if the other side is never allowed to use its weapons in self-defense because that is deemed illegitimate and your Jihad is interpreted as a peaceful humanitarian effort by those who don't listen to what you are actually saying. Arabic Translator: "They have used their nuclear and chemical weapons, and all their weapons, but all we have, after Allah, are our courageous hearts and our men." Note the difference. Yildrim only says they have the weapons, but Hamas-in its decidedly non-moderate way-says these weapons have been used. I hesitate to say it but it is by no means impossible that in many places there will soon be claims that the Israeli soldiers used chemical weapons on the ship. Oh, yes, that claim has already surfaced in non-Muslim Portugal. Bülent Yildirim: "Let me tell you that if it were not for the ceasefire, Istanbul, Ankara, Diyarbakir, and all of Turkey would be in Gaza." The ceasefire is that between Hamas and Israel. In other words, if the fighting renews, all Turks would go and fight for Hamas. This is not realistic, of course, but is a sign that Yildirim views the issue as a war of extermination against Israel. And, by the way, if he is advocating war this shows he puts Jihad and battle over the humanitarian well-being of Gazans. How many Gazans would be killed in that war? And what would those casualties be in terms of suffering compared to the delivery of outdated medicines and various other goods in the ships? Yildirim continues by saying that if Allah so wills there will be no more embargo. This would mean, of course, that Hamas could get all the arms and military equipment it wants. Notice he doesn't call for an easing of the embargo just to let in humanitarian needs and consumer goods. But wait! If Hamas spends the money on arms then that will reduce the living standards of Gazans! So Yildirim, like Hamas, tells the people of Gaza: Don't moderate! Don't make peace with your neighbors! Fight the Jihad and be a martyr! Raise your children to be suicide bombers! And if the embargo is reduced and Western countries cozy up to Hamas there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Gazans may get more consumer goods. The bad news is that for the rest of their lives they will be forced to fight an endless war, suffer huge casualties, undergo material deprivations, lose their children to either mindless extremism or death, and live under an oppressive regime that will repress any freedom and turn women into chattel. How humanitarian is that? Then Yildirim threatens to overthrow any government that doesn't support Hamas. Think of how the Egyptians, Saudis, and other governments feel about that: Bülent Yildirim: "From here, I call upon all the leaders of the Islamic world, and upon all the peoples... Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine — his throne will be toppled." Yildirim does not see the Western outpouring of criticism against Israel as increasing humanitarian sentiments but as a step toward Islamist revolution and the takeover of more countries: Bülent Yildirim: "Last night, everything in the world has changed, and everything is progressing towards Islam. All the peoples of the Islamic world would want a leader like Recep Tayyip Erdogan." Here is a direct pledge of allegiance to Turkey's prime minister, the man behind the operation. So if Yildirim is a revolutionary Islamist who wants to destroy Israel, favors Jihad, and threatens moderate Arab regimes does that mean Erdogan, that model of a "moderate" Muslim "democrat" agree? Would he dissociate himself from Yildrim's remarks? Of course not. Bülent Yildirim: "In conclusion, let me tell you, oh my Palestinian brothers, who are guarded by Allah and the angels — I wish we could take you away from here to Istanbul, and bring Istanbul here to be hit by the bombs instead of you." I wonder how the people of Istanbul generally feel about that wish? But if Erdogan continues with his adventurist, pro-Jihadist policies of alliance with Iran and Syria, who knows how much violence, instability, and suffering it will bring to the Turkish people? And that's not a threat, it is a genuine fear for the well-being of a Turkish nation in the grip of such mad men and their patrons. And if you have any doubt left about the nature of these "peace activists" and "humanitarians" just watch this in which the ship tells Israelis to go back to Auschwitz, remember September 11, and the operation's goal is to hurt the United States. [Flotilla Ship to Israeli Navy: "We're Helping Arabs Go Against the US, Don't Forget 9/11 Guys" Watch this.] 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 PHOTO OF THE ARMENIAN MASSACRE
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 4, 2010. |
|
This was written by Dushnik Shraga. |
|
My mother who was born within the walls of the old city of Jerusalem was evacuated to Egypt by the Turks along with the whole family at the outbreak of the First World War. They spent about 5 years in a refugee camp near Alexandria. Her elder brother started work in Alexandria as an apprentice to a photographer of Armenian extraction. He proved to be very talented and within 2 years became an accomplished photographer and was sent by the owner of the business to Brussels, Belgium to open a studio. In time, my uncle Mordechai became court photographer to the King of Belgium. The attached photo has been in our family for many years (the original is quite yellow), and was brought to my mother in Israel by uncle Mordechai who remained in brave contact with the photographer from Alexandria. In the picture we see "proud" Turkish soldiers after the massacre in Armenia. This picture has not seen the light of day since it "made aliya", and I have seen fit to try and publicize it, with your help, in the light of current events and especially in view of the crass statements made by the Turks Thank you for your cooperation. Look at the attached photograph. You will see what the brave Turkish army did to the Armenians. These are the people that are accusing the Israelis of a massacre. 
Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
AMOS OZ: ANOTHER CLUELESS ISRAELI INTELLECTUAL
Posted by Alex Grobman, June 4, 2010. |
|
In a June 1, 2010 editorial in The New York Times titled, "Israeli Force, Adrift on the Sea," Amos Oz, one of Israel's foremost writers, novelists, social critics, and an active member in the Israeli peace movement, concluded that "the only way for Israel to edge out Hamas would be to quickly reach an agreement with the Palestinians on the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as defined by the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel has to sign a peace agreement with President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah government in the West Bank — and by doing so, reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip." What has Abbas and Fatah ever said or done to suggest that this is a solution they truly desire? Anyone who seriously wants to understand why this is a utopian fantasy should regularly be visiting the Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI websites, where they can read what Abbas and Fatah really say to their supporters about advocating the demise of Israel. Tawfiq Tirawi, a security advisor to Abbas, for example said: "Words are ineffective. Action is effective." Fruitless discussions "go on for decades." The only way the Arab refugees will be returned and Jerusalem restored will be through the efforts of "thousands of martyrs."[1] In 1995, Amos Oz, informed readers of The New York Times that followers of Israel's center right Likud party were accomplices of Hamas. After almost 3,000 American citizens were killed on September 11, 2001 by Hamas' kindred spirits, Oz attributed this massacre to "fanaticism," not Islamists or radical Muslim ideology. Inexplicably, he even claimed that "almost all [Muslims] are shocked and aggrieved [by the suicide bombings of America] as the rest of mankind." [2] Evidently he was either oblivious or in denial of the extensive media coverage of Muslims throughout the Arab world celebrating the death of Jews and Americans. Pictures of Muslims dancing, ululating and distributing candy to children were ubiquitous in the press and on television. Amidst this period of mourning and soul-searching, the most urgent need he could think of was to grant the Palestinian Arabs "their natural right to self-determination."[3] When Oz argued that the conflict is a clash "between two rights," he shifted the discussion away from Israel's genuine fears about security and threats to its existence. He wanted to pressure Israel to abandon the settlements in Judea and Samaria and return to the pre-1967 borders, which he claimed would lead to real peace. The Zionists, he said, have the same right to the land as that of "a drowning man who takes hold of the only available raft, even if it means pushing aside the legs of the people who are already sitting on it so as to make room for himself...so long as he only asks them to move up, and does not demand that they get off the raft or drown at sea." [4] A Zionism, he continued, that expects "a part of the land is morally justified; a Zionism which asks the Palestinians to renounce their identity and give up the whole land is not justified." Oz blamed the Palestinian national movement, "one of the most extremist and uncompromising national movements of our times," for its "insensitivity" and "callousness" to Jewish suffering. He was especially critical of the "misery and tragedy" the PLO and its predecessors have caused Israel, and particularly its own people, by assuming "uncompromising" positions, supporting the Nazis throughout the 1930s and 1940s, and trying to destroy Israel from its inception.[5] Why were the Arabs so determined to eliminate Israel? Oz sees this obsession as most probably a misdiagnosis of Zionism. How could Zionism be a form of colonialism, if the thousands of Jews who returned did not migrate to a land that was prosperous or had any natural resources, was not secure or offered any hope of favorable economic and political conditions? If the Zionists expected to exploit the land, then they engaged "in the worst bargain of all times," since they invested "thousands of times" more money than they could ever hope to realize.[6] Zionism was also not a form of racism. As with other national liberation movements, Zionism "has its own ugly, narrow-minded and fanatic components." Yet Oz felt the onus for establishing peace was on the Jews. The conflict persists in part, he said, because of the Zionists who are indifferent to the rights of the Palestinian Arabs, those who have a "sense of exclusion," and who see the world as "us against them" after having been traumatized by the mass influx of Holocaust survivors. Contributing to this impasse are Jews from the Middle East, non-socialists and "anti-socialist" Zionists, the military establishment, and the nation state, which is "bad."[7] He also faulted the Israeli government for not having the fortitude to reach an agreement with the Palestinian Arabs with whom they should sit down and talk to like neighbors. He envisions that one day Israelis and Arabs will be "reasonable next-door neighbors" in their own separate states.[8] This has not yet occurred since Israeli leaders are behaving like a physician who declines to perform a serious operation, even though the patient is ready. In other words, if only Israel would make more concessions like agreeing to a cease fire with Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas would have a better opportunity to arrive at an accord with the Israelis. [9] This is the thinking of some left-wing Israelis who believe that Israel must re-evaluate Zionism's fundamental tenets including: Israel's shared identity, her relationship with the Palestinian Arabs, her connection to Judaism and the Jews in the Diaspora, and the viability of Zionism now that the state has been in existence for some time. A satisfactory answer to these questions would help resolve the Israeli/Arab conflict in an equitable way.[10] That the Arabs have never stopped trying to eliminate Israel and view the land of Israel as their sacred territory does not seem to faze these people. Historian Walid Khalidi notes that though they live in a number of different sovereign states, the Arabs view themselves as part of a single Arab Nation extending 'from the [Atlantic] to the [Arab/Persian] Gulf.' This is not a future objective in pan-Arab canon, but "a present reality.[11] How does Oz think this will change? Footnotes 1. MEMRI Clip no. 2189 (July 23, 2009). 2. Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor, eds. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 35-36; Laurence J. Silberstein, The Post Zionism Debates: Knowledge and Power in Israeli Culture. (New York: Routledge, 1999), 56-57, 91. 3. Ibid. 4. Oz, op.cit. 36, 38-39, 69, 102; Kenneth Levin, The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege. (Hanover, New Hampshire: Smith and Kraus Global, 2005,308. 5. Oz, op.cit.39-40, 110. 6. Ibid. 38,110. 7. Ibid. 12-14, 39, 70,110. 8. Ibid. 12-14, 39, 70. 9. Akiva Eldar, "Amos Oz in Spain says he doubts the government is brave enough for peace," Haaretz (October 28, 2007); Amos Oz, "Don't march into Gaza." Los Angeles Times. (February 15, 2008); Amos Oz. "From muscle to mystery." The Guardian. (January 7, 2006) Oz claimed that Zionism is passé: "Zionism is lived out, and as such is disappointing," Joanna Chen, "The Bitter Taste of Dreams Com e True." Newsweek (February 14, 2008). 10. Silberstein, op.cit. 51-66, 89; Amos Oz, Israel, Palestine and Peace Essays, op.cit.,12-18; Amos Elon, A Blood-Dimmed Tide: Dispatches from the Middle East (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 269; Amos Elon, The Israelis: Founders and Sons (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971),.23-24, 26, 152, 157-158,170-171; Joel Beinin, Was The Red Flag Flying There? Marxist and the Arab-Israel Conflict in Egypt and Israel, 1948-1965 (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1990.) 11. Walid Khalidi, "Thinking the Unthinkable: A Sovereign Palestinian State," Foreign Affairs, 56:4 (July 1978):695-697. Dr. Grobman is president of the Balfour Trust, whose recent book The Palestinian Right To Israel was published in April 2010. This article is archived at http://www.gmsplace.com/?p=4918 |
|
THE GAZA BLOCKADE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Posted by Daily Alert, June 4, 2010. |
|
Eric Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the author of The Perils of Global Legalism (University of Chicago Press, 2009). |
|
Israel's raid on a fleet of activists bound for the Gaza Strip has led to wild accusations of illegality. But the international law applicable to the blockade eludes the grasp of those in search of easy answers. The most serious charge is that by seizing control of the flotilla, Israel violated the freedom of ships to travel on the high seas. The basic law here is that states have jurisdiction over a 12-mile territorial sea and can take enforcement actions in an additional 12-mile contiguous zone, according to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (which Israel has not ratified, but which is generally regarded as reflecting customary international law). Outside that area, foreign ships can sail unmolested. But there are exceptions. Longstanding customary international law permits states to enforce publicly announced blockades on the high seas. The Gaza blockade was known to all, and certainly to those who launched the ships for the very purpose of breaking it. The real question is whether the Israeli blockade is lawful. Blockades certainly are during times of war or armed conflict. The U.S.-led coalition imposed a blockade on Iraq during the first Gulf War. The catch here is the meaning of "armed conflict." Traditionally, armed conflict can take place only between sovereign states. If Gaza were clearly a sovereign state, then Israel would be at war with Gaza and the blockade would be lawful. If, however, Gaza were just a part of Israel, Israel would have the right to control its borders — but not by intercepting foreign ships outside its 12-mile territorial sea or contiguous zone. Gaza is not a sovereign state (although it has its own government, controlled by Hamas) and is not a part of Israel or of any other state. Its status is ambiguous, and so too is the nature of the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas. Thus there is no clear answer to the question whether the blockade is lawful. However, the traditional idea of armed conflict involving only sovereign states has long given way to a looser definition that includes some conflicts between states and nonstate actors. The international rules governing blockades attempt to balance belligerents' interest in security and other countries' economic interests in shipping. During war, security interests prevail. War-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas. And because Israel intercepts only self-identified blockade runners, its actions have little impact on neutral shipping. This balance is reflected in the traditional privilege of states to capture foreign pirates on the high seas. So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection. When the Union navy seized ships trying to run the blockade, their owners argued that a country cannot interfere with shipping on the high seas except during war, and one cannot be at war except with another sovereign state. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the captures in an ambiguous opinion that held that an armed conflict existed, even though one side was not a sovereign state. The opinion suggests a certain latitude for countries to use blockades against internal as well as external enemies. Human Rights Watch argues that a blockade to strike at a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against a civilian population, in violation of Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention. This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanction are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own. Most attention has focused on the question whether Israeli commandos used excessive force while taking control of one of the flotilla ships, which resulted in nine deaths. Human Rights Watch says that Israel's actions violated the 1990 United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. However, that document is not international law; its principles are akin to a set of "best practices" for advising countries with poorly trained police forces. It is also vague and it would not apply to a military operation. Military operations must respect the principle of proportionality, which is a fuzzy, "know-it-when-you-see-it" test. But one thing is clear. Ships that run blockades may be attacked and sunk under international law. If Israel had exercised that right, far more than nine people would have been killed. 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 |
|
FOR THE COMMANDOS, NO FIASCO AND RELATIVELY FEW CASUALTIES
Posted by Daily Alert, June 4, 2010. |
|
This was written by Anshel Pfeffer for Haaretz
|
|
The naval commandos who participated in Monday's raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla have no doubt: They weren't battling "activists" aboard the Mavi Marmara, but terrorists. "Everyone who was there on the ship and saw what they had prepared understands this," said Capt. A., who commanded one boarding party. The commandos are dismayed by the view that the raid was a fiasco. They think the level of casualties on both sides was very low, given the circumstances, and that other army or police units would have killed or wounded far more passengers. First Lt. A. was the 13th commando to board the ship. When he arrived, his comrades were already deep in battle. "The minute I had both feet on the boat, I saw two terrorists beating one of our group with iron bars," he said. "I brought down the first with a blow to the back while protecting my head from the second with my left hand. Then I was hit on the hand with a baton. I took my paintball rifle and fired paintballs at them. In those seconds I got a blow that broke the paintball rifle, so I switched to my pistol." Unlike his comrades, he never actually fired his pistol, he said; he merely used it to deter attackers. But the commandos who boarded before him had a much harder time. Within two minutes nearly half had been wounded, and some had lost their communications devices. "At such moments, you don't start thinking," the lieutenant said. "You act reflexively and react instinctively, based on what you have learned. But after a minute or two, control returns. You begin to hear orders again and switch from a tunnel-vision situation back to seeing the situation of the [whole] force." Despite the impressions of chaos left by the video footage, he added, the commandos actually gained control of the upper deck in about three minutes and began handcuffing the passengers. "But then there was a shout of 'live fire,' and that we had shooting casualties." The commandos said that the guns fired at them included at least one that was apparently thrown overboard afterward as well as two pistols that were seized other commandos. Most of the nine passenger deaths occurred at this point, as the commandos believed their own lives were in danger. Once the situation had stabilized — aided by the arrival of reinforcements — the commandos began to treat the wounded. Lt. A., for instance, said he helped with that even though his left hand had been rendered useless by the baton blow. They then began advancing toward the lower deck and the bridge. "There was fierce resistance," said Capt. A. "There were hundreds of people on the deck. In my estimation, between 50 and 100 of them were terrorists. There was still live fire being aimed on us, but that stopped at an early stage ... They would jump on us from doors and windows with batons and knives. At this stage, we all stood with guns and fired at anyone coming at us with means or intent [to harm]." However, he said, the commandos fired "very selectively," and most of the passengers who were shot at that stage were only wounded. About 10 minutes after leaving the upper deck, they captured the bridge. It was 25 minutes after the boarding began, and the ship was in their hands. Then, doctors and paramedics were brought in to treat the wounded, and the seriously injured were evacuated by helicopter.
Editor's Note: See UCI exposes the IHH/Free Gaza "Ship of Horrors," terrorist-run Mavi Marmara! here. 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 |
|
WE HAD NO CHOICE'
Posted by Daily Alert, June 4, 2010. |
|
This was written by Yaakov Katz 'Mavi Marmara' raid commando: "They had murder in their eyes." They were battling terrorists, not humanitarians or activists. |
|
When St.-Sgt. S. fast-roped down from an air force Black Hawk helicopter onto the Mavi Marmara Turkish passenger ship on Monday morning, he did not expect to be landing in what he called "a battlefield" and facing off against a group of "murderous mercenaries." The 15th and last naval commando from Flotilla 13 (the Shayetet) to rappel down onto the ship from the helicopter, S. said on Thursday that he was immediately attacked by what the IDF has called "the mob of mercenaries" aboard the vessel, just like the soldiers who had boarded just before him. Looking to his side, he saw three of his commanders lying wounded — one with a gunshot wound to the stomach and another with a gunshot wound to the knee. A third was lying unconscious; his skull was fractured by a devastating blow with a metal bar. As the next in the chain of command, S., who has been in the Shayetet for three and a half years, immediately took charge. He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades. The attackers had already seized two pistols from the commandos, and fired repeatedly at them. Facing more than a dozen of the mercenaries, and convinced their lives were in danger, he and his colleagues opened fire, he said. S. singlehandedly killed six men. His colleagues killed another three. On Thursday, S. sat down with The Jerusalem Post at the Shayetet's base in northern Israel for an exclusive interview, during which he described the dramatic events aboard the Mavi Marmara on Monday; he is being considered for a medal of valor. "When I hit the deck, I was immediately attacked by people with bats, metal pipes and axes," S. told the Post. "These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us." S. does not look like a hero. Well-built, like all commandos in the Shayetet, he is also soft-spoken and stingy with words, but his commander Lt.-Col. T. fills in the blanks. "S. did a remarkable job," T. said. "He stabilized the situation and succeeded in hitting six of the terrorists." Based on preliminary results of its investigation into the navy's takeover of the Mavi Marmara, which ended with nine dead passengers and more than 30 wounded, the IDF said on Thursday that the commandos were attacked by a well-trained group of mercenaries, most of whom were found without IDs but with thousands of dollars in their pockets. The group was well trained and was split into a number of squads of about 20 mercenaries each distributed throughout the upper deck, the IDF said. All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests and were armed with either bats, slingshots, metal bars, knives or stun grenades. The IDF's understanding is that the mercenaries mainly chose dual-purpose items of this sort rather than guns, since opening fire would have made it blatantly clear that they were terrorists and not so-called peace activists. Nevertheless, the IDF suspects that the group did have some guns of its own. Israeli forensic experts who examined the ship found casings belonging to a weapon that was not used by the commandos, and the Turkish captain of the ship later told the IDF that the "mercenaries" threw their weapons overboard after the commandos took control of the vessel. T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. "They didn't even flinch," he said. "Regular people would move." Each squad of the "mercenaries" was equipped with a Motorola communication device, the IDF said, so they could pass information to one another. Assessments in the defense establishment are that members of the group were affiliated with international global jihad elements and had undergone training in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. S. on Thursday downplayed his involvement in the operation. "I did what I was trained to do and now I move on," he said. In contrast to earlier reports, the commandos said that they began using their weapons within a minute and a half after boarding the ship, due to the extreme violence they faced. One of the reasons S. pulled out his gun right after landing on the ship was because one of the mercenaries was pointing a pistol, snatched from one of the commandos, at another commando's head. 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 |
|
ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK: TRUTH VERSUS ISLAM!
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, June 4, 2010. |
|
The truth about the "Freedom Flotilla" to Gaza is now being publicized, but only in a superficial way. Entrenched in Gaza is Hamas, a terrorist proxy of Iran, whose President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" — a malediction vividly declared in Hamas's own Covenant. Hamas is waging war against Israel. Hence any nation or group or individual that aids or seeks to aid Hamas becomes, in effect, a belligerent and is or should be subject to the rules of war. Consider the language used to describe the convoy in question. It's called the "Freedom Flotilla." Since the ships of this convoy were more or less outfitted by Turkey, an Islamic regime, and since these ships were manned primarily by Muslims, the convoy's name, "Freedom Flotilla," is nothing but a Big Lie because Islam is the greatest enemy of freedom. Nor is this all. The flotilla to Gaza was paraded as a "humanitarian" mission. As others have remarked, humanitarian missions do not bear and use arms, as did this Islamic convoy. But this, too, is a superficial observation. It's superficial because "Islam" and "humanitarianism" constitute a contradiction in terms! For evidence, consider the following passages from my forthcoming book An American Political Scientist in Israel: In 1985, Raja 'i-Khorassani, the permanent delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, avowed that "the very concept of human rights was 'a Judeo-Christian invention' and inadmissible in Islam.... According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah's 'most despicable sins' was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Juxtapose this horrific statement with a report of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which indicates that, in the pursuit of Islam's global ambitions, Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million people since Muhammad! What underlies this juxtaposition? Alain Bosançon goes to the theological core of the issue: Although Muslims like to enumerate the 99 names of God, missing from the list, but central to the Jewish and Christian concept of God, is "father" — i.e., a personal God capable of a reciprocal and loving relationship with men. The God of the Quran, the God who demands submission, is a distant God; to call him "Father" would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege. The Muslim God is utterly impassive.... If God is not "Father," then it is difficult to imagine the human person as having been "made in the image of God." Without the Biblical conception of man's creation in the image of God, the idea of the human community, hence of "humanitarianism," is logically absurd. From this analysis it's obvious that the so-called Freedom Flotilla was anything but a humanitarian mission. Indeed, this Islamic convoy was a satanic ploy to undermine the one nation that endowed mankind with the concept of man's creation in the image of God, which alone makes the idea of the human community and humanitarianism possible. Prof. Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
ISRAELI DRIVER IS ATTACKED, FIRES BACK
Posted by Maayan Miskin, June 4, 2010. |
|
A group of Palestinian Authority Arab teens got more than they planned for Thursday when they lobbed rocks at an Israeli driver near the town of Carmei Tzur, in southern Gush Etzion. The driver responded with gunfire, wounding two attackers who required hospitalization. Two Israeli citizens were wounded by the PA gang. The two were treated by medics at the scene, and did not require hospital care. The two PA Arabs who were injured were identified by Arab sources as residents of the village of Aroub outside Hevron. Both are sixteen. They were taken to PA hospitals, and their medical situation was not immediately clear. The incident was the second in the past several days in which an Israeli citizen fired back after being attacked with rocks by PA rioters. In late May, a man opened fire on a group of PA Arabs in Samaria after they hurled rocks at his car, wounding his wife. On Wednesday, Jewish motorists reported attacks in two locations. A driver was pelted with rocks on Highway 443 and his car was damaged. Near Kfar Sava, PA Arabs threw three Molotov cocktails at an Israeli driver, but failed to cause injury. Rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown by PA gangs have caused injury and death in recent years. Maayan Miskin is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today. |
|
A TURK'S OPINION
Posted by Esra Gul Canepa, June 4, 2010. |
|
As a Turk,native of Istanbul,i know the fear of terror and the pain of hearing the news on TV about 20-21yrs soldiers death (still same). I don't support Hamas neither, seeing them right but killing is a never solution for both sides. For the last situation :on the one hand ,Israiil is right ,the activist were indeed provocateurs with the excuse of helping but Killing these people just made Israil "the bad one" for the whole World.It could surely stop with no violence by these professionally trained rangers. Its too late for saying "it could be stop" for the death of these people but its still possible to make the whole situation positive before everything get more ugly and in my opinion, Israeli government has to change this violent,aggressive and bossy manner. For Erdogan,Personally i see my identity as a Turk ,nothing else. So i don't support his opinions about Hamas like many idealist Young Turks like myself. Unfortunately we can not show him that we disagree until the next elections. Hope things will get better over there and in whole world.That's what we all need these days. Kind Regards;
|
|
ISRAEL RELEASED ASSAILANTS; TERRORISTS ARE NON-TERRORISTS AND VISA
VERSA? WHEN WILL HAMAS ACCEPT FLOTILLA GOODS?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 4, 2010. |
|
MAJOR MIDEAST MISCONCEPTION 16: ARABS MUST HAVE AT LEAST PART OF JERUSALEM 
A popular opinion is that the Arabs must control at least part of Jerusalem. This notion arises from equating all religious claims, mistaking the nature of Muslim Arab claims, failing to take into account the overall cause of the Arab-Israel conflict, and misunderstanding what control means. The overall cause of the conflict is the Muslim Arab refusal to recognize any Jewish sovereignty in the Mideast as legitimate. To them, even Tel Aviv is an illegal settlement. As Arafat explained, any territory the Palestinian Arabs were to get from Israel, they would use it to help destroy Israel. Therefore, ceding part of Jerusalem would facilitate further Arab aggression. What does control mean to the Muslim Arabs? The Arab Mayor of Hebron threatened to resume prohibition of Jews from their holy site at the Cave of the Patriarchs, if it comes under his jurisdiction. The Palestinian Arabs destroyed Joseph's Tomb, deny Jews access to ancient synagogues in Gaza and Jericho, and even attack Rachel's Tomb. Past Jordanian control over the Old City of Jerusalem denied Jews and most Christians access to holy sites. Therefore, Arab control over the holy sites in those cities means religious discrimination. Does Israel discriminate against other faiths in those areas under its control? Absolutely not. Muslims enjoy full use of the Temple Mount, though even under Israeli rule, Muslim riots have succeeded in keeping Jews from praying on the Temple Mount but also at times restrict younger Muslims' access for security reasons. There is no genuine problem for Muslims with Israeli control of religious sites as to warrant a change in Israel's political control. In contrast to Muslim rule, which practiced exclusive usage, Israel maintains universal access to sacred places. It is interesting to note that Jerusalem never was important to the Arabs when they controlled it. When Jordan controlled the Old City, neither the King nor other Arab leaders visited al-Aqsa mosque. Jordan did not build it up. Rather, Jordan let waste accumulate around the Mount. It was only after Israel liberated the eastern part of the city, that Jerusalem became the focal point of Muslim religious and political significance. There are other reasons for rejecting the Muslim Arab claim, such as the more justified Jewish claims and the terrorism emanating from the Muslim portion of Jerusalem when it was a divided Jerusalem city. The Koran does not mention Jerusalem at all, whereas the Hebrew Bible mentions it almost 800 times. Politically, Jerusalem never was an Arab capital. Many Westerners of good will have accepted Muslim claims, but the claims do not hold up. Jerusalem is a phony issue, conjured up only as a tactic for destroying Israel.
ISRAEL RELEASED ASSAILANTS: 1. JIHADIST ON BOARD Before sailing on the flotilla, a passenger expressed his wish to be a martyr. He means dying for Islam and entering Paradise. He said he had made two earlier attempts, on other ships, but did not succeed. He hoped he would, this time. 6/3/10) from video. I want to be a Shahid Can't be a "martyr" without a battle. This is further proof that a portion of the manifest included jihadists, not only "peace lovers." Jihadists are inclined to incite combat. Unfortunately for Western understanding of what happened, the same word in English, "martyr," describes different actions by Christians from Muslims. The early Christian "martyrs" were non-violent people captured and murdered for their religion. Muslim "martyrs" may be violent people who die attempting to murder innocent people of other faiths. Muslim terrorists have excused their attacks: (a) On fellow Muslims whose Israeli license plates led them to suppose they were Jews; (b) By bomb blasts that kill more Muslim by-standers than enemy personnel (and they call Israeli tactics "disproportionate!"; (c) That kill other Muslims by carelessness and putting Muslim civilians at risk. The excuse is to deem those civilians "martyrs," too. To a viewer of the TV series "Law and Order," the terrorist excusers would be prosecuted for "depraved indifference." Not only have terrorists no remorse for getting many of their own civilians killed, their propagandists capitalize on it, by blaming Israel. This works, because anti-Zionism is antisemitism, a psychosis rather than a rational response to events. The world accepts Islamist propaganda and blames Israel. This gives terrorists an incentive to use its population all the more carelessly as human shields. Being psychotic, anti-Zionists do not utilize the evidence, such as this video, to acknowledge that jihadists were aboard. They ignore or deny evidence contrary to their own view. They are assisted by media bias and Israel's slow reaction to the propaganda war on it. You will be shown some of that media bias other articles in this series. Another confusing word in "English" is victim. My dictionary would classifies anyone slain as "victims." People informally sympathized with victims. Should we sympathize with the Nazi SS divisions that waged aggressive warfare and genocide, but which took heavy casualties? It grates on the tongue to call them 'victims." We need another word for people who instigate violence in the hope of victimizing other people, but become the ultimate cause of their own deaths, when the intended victims defend themselves. Our thinking would be clearer if perpetrators were not called "victims." ISRAEL RELEASED ASSAILANTS: 2. FOUR SLAIN TURKS PRAYED FOR MARTYRDOM Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidad reported that four slain flotilla Turks had craved martyrdom. The four were described as charitable (IMRA, 6/3/10 from Palestinian Media Watch). All nine slain activists were citizens of Turkey, including one who left the U.S. at age 2. All nine belonged to the pro-terrorist organization IHH(Marc champion, Margaret Coker, Wall St. J., 6/4/10, A8). We reported earlier from PMW that passengers were chanting Islamic battle cries beforehand. Since earlier ships were stopped without shooting, including the five smaller ships of the flotilla, it is reasonable to suppose that the bigger ship had radicals thirsting for battle. Remember, the more that radicals battle with Israelis, and especially when civilians are nearby, the more condemned Israel is. The radical combine charity with murder with imperialism with deceit. The other day, I reminded you of the definition of terrorism and the Islamist attempt to redefine it so as to excuse it and impugn defense against it. Not only the Islamists but the Organization of Islamic Conference claims terrorism is only for what then considers the wrong cause. They consider jihad the right cause. Jihad is action to take over the whole world in behalf of Islam, the radicals being the most active in this. If you are not a radical Muslim, what can you think of a cause that wants to kill you or take away your freedom, using all manners of war crimes and deceit? One could characterize the flotilla as an Islamist assault using human shields.
ISRAEL RELEASED ASSAILANTS: 3. TURKEY 
Israel tried "to defuse rising international anger by agreeing to a rapid release of all detainees — including those suspected of attacking its soldiers..." "Hundreds of relatives and well-wishers cheered outside the airport as they landed in Istanbul." Israeli reserve officers petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the release of prisoners eligible for prosecution. In a counter-brief, Israel's Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein based the decision to release on "clear diplomatic interests touching on the state of Israel's foreign relations and national security." As Israel gave the terrorists among the passengers a second chance to fight some day, Israel's Defense Minister Barak said, "We need to always remember that we aren't North America or Western Europe; we live in the Middle east, in a place where there is no mercy for the weak and there aren't second chances for those who don't defend themselves." The releases mostly of Turks seemed an attempt to salvage "dangerously eroding ties with Turkey, Israel's main ally in the Muslim world." However, deputy prime minister declared on TV and in front of a crowd that "'diplomacy had resulted in success for now,' but 'these murders' would be pursued 'within the scope of law.'" To U.S. Secretary of State, however, Turkey's Foreign Minister Davutoglu said it is time to calm down. Turkey is basking in Arab popularity as defenders of Palestinian Arab Muslims, in contrast with images of Israeli soldiers "shooting unarmed civilians." (Michael Slackman, NY Times, 6/3/10, A4). The New York Times article is like a knotted rope that one must untwist to get straight. Anger does not get defused by appeasement. Appeasement rewards it. This creates an incentive to display more anger and make more demands, which the article demonstrates is happening. Releasing terrorists to fight again not only contradicts Defense Min. Barak's statement that Israel must defend itself or be thought weak and get no mercy, it also contradicts Attorney-General Weinstein's claim that the release of the IDF's attackers is needed for both national security and foreign relations. Unlike the traditionally anti-Zionist NY Times, the Wall St. Journal (6/4/10) acknowledges that Turkey already has ended its informal alliance with Israel. The flotilla demonstrates that termination; Israel's reaction did not cause it. Concession to Turkey cannot restore alliance. Turkey now is allied with Iran, Syria, and Hamas. The statement about "images of Israelis shooting unarmed civilians" is ambiguous enough to mean a popular misimpression and also inflammatory enough to cause riots. A later article will explain how the commandos shot in self-defense.
ISRAEL RELEASED ASSAILANTS: 4. BEHIND THE RELEASE, AND TURKEY Turkey's Deputy Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy Selim Yenel told The Jerusalem Post that the U.S. had pressured Israel to release all the passengers and crews. What the pressure comprised and whether it included attackers was not stated. Mr. Yenel claimed that what harmed relations most is that Turkey and Israel were allies, but now Israel has killed Turkish citizens. Despite videos showing commandos immediately being attacked upon landing, he claimed that the passengers acted in self-defense. He said that the release is just a first step. Turkey wants Israel to apologize, submit to an international investigation, not rely on its own, and end the blockade of Gaza, An Israeli explained that Turkey once believed that it could improve relations with the U.S. if it had good relations with Israel. Now that Turkey attempts to mediate the clash of civilizations, it feels it can have good relations with the U.S. without having good relations with Israel. Israeli Foreign Min. Lieberman said that the whole overall responsibility is Turkey's. He said that Israelis [i.e., here, Jews] too readily feel guilty when innocent (IMRA, 6/2/10). It is time for an investigation of U.S. pressure on Israel. An earlier report showed that Turkish society has gone irrational
Conclusions and lessons from Turkey's revolution: (1) The regime's secularist predecessor was foolish to over-indulge in corruption, which allowed the onset of dictatorship that is repressive, bellicose, and will keep the secularists out of power. Let this be a lesson to Arab rulers! (2) Now that Turkey's regime is Islamist, and is subverting Turkish society, Israel should not feel it can restore an alliance or even good relations with Turkey. Turkey may still have some use for Israel, but let Israel beware! The fact that once they were allies is no more significant than that Iran and Israel once were allies. Both countries had revolutions. They are not allies now. To harp on an obsolete relationship only lull's Israel's defenses. Offering false hope not only is dangerous but cruel. (3) Turkey's behavior, including its people's manipulation by an irrational, radical media, should warn Europe not to admit Turkey into the EU. It would cost Europe its freedom and its culture, just as Europeans are starting to react to the Islamist jihad there (not all of which is violent but whose goal is the same). Much of that jihad is pressed by Turkish immigrants and their families. (4) Israeli concessions to fanatical, ideological enemies, whose goal is the destruction of Israel, cannot buy peace with them. It merely encourages more action against Israel and, psychologically, more self-assured antagonism. (5) The mob behavior of the dominant force in Turkey echoes throughout the world, including the White House, and is reflected in Turkey's Under-Secretary, who ignored evidence while calling for investigation and doubting Israeli investigation. Rational people know that Israeli investigations of relations with Muslims are not biased in favor of Israel. I have reported the UN investigations, including Goldstone's, starting out condemning Israel, narrowing and slanting the scope of the investigation, ignoring evidence favoring Israel, accepting unverified claims by Arabs, and making unsupported conclusions. In this lynch atmosphere, international investigations are like star chamber courts. The scope of a proposed international investigation probably would exclude the justification for blockade and the Islamist purpose of the battle ship's owners. Although Israel cites evidence that without an embargo, Hamas would import heavy weapons in huge quantities, leading to worse war and one waged largely against Israeli civilians, the rest of the world does not care. It does not care about war, innocent civilians, or justice, just about getting Israel. All the excuses for criticizing Israeli treatment of Gaza are hypocritical.
ISRAEL RELEASED ASSAILANTS: 6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Egypt, under Arab pressure [but not the same condemnation, mind you], opened its Gaza border, at least temporarily. Egypt is afraid that terrorists will come in to operate in Egypt [again] and to bring in its radical ideology. Israel's PM Netanyahu maintains that the embargo is needed to keep heavy weapons from reaching Hamas. Otherwise, Hamas would threaten Israeli national security even more. Nevertheless, one now hears louder demands that Israel end its blockade of Gaza. Another flotilla is being prepared. "Investigations" are being demanded. UN Secretary-General Ban says that Israeli policy "punishes innocent civilians." Professor Yaacob Bar-Simon-Tov of International Studies at Hebrew University finds Israel's mistake a preoccupation with tactics and not strategy. What strategy does he recommend? "...ultimate settlement with the 'Palestinians.'" He says that Israel must separate from the Palestinian Arabs. That sentiment was echoed by Ron Pundak, director of the Peres Center for Peace (Michael Slackman, NY Times, 6/3/10, A4). Ron Pundak was involved in imposing Oslo upon Israel. Oslo led to wars and the present problem. His failing to realize the failure of his policy of appeasement disqualifies him from advising anyone. The professor is right that Israel does not plan for the future. However, the notion of separating from the Palestinian Arabs, when advanced by leftists, is fraudulent. They would separate Jews from Arabs in the Palestinian Authority and from the Jewish people's holy sites in their own homeland, but would not separate the Arabs in Israel from the Jewish people. That kind of separation is just anti-Jewish. Neither is that kind of separation likely to bring peace. Peace cannot be made with fanatical jihadists whose primary goal is to conquer Israel. They state this outright. They act in support of it. Are Israelis like that professor too unintelligent to grasp the situation? It is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of psychology. Psychosis controls people. Other people should learn to recognize it. 
TERRORISTS ARE NON-TERRORISTS, AND NON-TERRORISTS ARE TERRORISTS? 
Omar Faruq, a director of the IHH organization that owns the ship-of-combat, dismissed reports that IHH provided funds and forgeries for recruiting jihadists in Bosnia and Chechnya. He explained that those reports reflect a Western failure to distinguish between terrorists and those with whom the Westerners disagree, including Hamas (Marc Champion, Wall St. J., 6/2/10, A11). His explanation does not deny the accusation, but, instead, claims that those particular fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya are not terrorists. For decades, terrorists were defined as gunmen who deliberately attack civilians for political purposes. Some were Irish and Basque, but most of the international terrorists were radical Muslims. Then Islamists found that: (1) Dozens of Muslims governments in the UN would support them; (2) These UN members could log-roll further support from trading partners; (3) The Left developed a romantic notion about the Third World; (4) The media and European upper classes already were somewhat anti-Israel; and (5) Most people were poorly educated about historical conflicts. Radical Muslims could distort history and slander enemies, and the world would accept this. For some years now, Muslim governments have been trying to define terrorism so as to exclude jihadists and to include Israelis Defense Forces. Topsy-turvy. The Muslim governments now claim that terrorism depends on the fighter's cause, rather than his methods. They falsely claim that their imperialism just national liberation for Palestinian Arabs (who are not a separate nation). That makes no sense. To a civilized person, deliberate mass-murder of women and children is horrible. Doesn't matter by whom or why. We have Geneva Conventions and other rules of war, to keep war less barbaric. Jihadists approve of barbarism. Then they turn around and falsely accuse Israel of deliberately murdering Arab women and children, and the same bigots who claim that all Jews automatically support Israel cite as support for their slander of the IDF a mixed-up Jew named Goldstone. Inconsistency does not faze them any more than lying. And so the member of the board of directors of IHH, which denies that IHH is a terrorist organization, insists that terrorists are not terrorists, and that non-terrorists are terrorists. Add that topsy-turvy claim to the evidence that IHH is pro-terrorist. Since it has money, and believes it reasonable to murder women and children, one supposes that IHH does indeed help finance terrorism. What an ideology, radical Islam has, valuing murder and deceit to spread its version of a religion, so that more people will value murder and deceit! That won't bring peace. Like Frankenstein, radical Muslims turn on their creators in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Of course, they also pick on Muslims less radical in Iraq and Afghanistan.
FLOTILLA MOTIVE "The supporters of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla had more than humanitarian intentions. The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear" before combat: "A violent response from Israel will breathe new life in to the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade." (New York Times, 6/2/10, Ed..) The editorial then went on to other aspects. Why didn't it make a point, instead of just an implication? After all, what it later stated against Israel was more than implied but pointed. The point should be that the sponsors hoped for violence. They placed violent people aboard. It is not difficult to imagine fanatical hotheads initiating violence. After all, although Hamas initiated violence by means of thousands of rockets, a kidnapping, and attempts to infiltrate in order to murder Israelis, it was Israel that got condemned when it finally fought back with medium firmness.
UN OFFICIAL CRITICIZES U.S. USE OF ARMED DRONES Special UN representative on extra-judicial executions Philip Alston criticizes the U.S. deployment of armed drones outside the battlefield. Mr. Alston warns that the use of drones to kill terrorism suspects sets an example for unrestrained, long-distance killing [by less responsible parties]. He is afraid that the CIA trigger men may develop a computer game mentality. He urges U.S. restraint. He worries about the effect on the right to life. At least let it not be done in secret by the CIA but by the more accountable Defense Dept., he suggests. He wants to know that other strikes than the ones publicly acknowledged, such as another one that took out a #3 Al-Qaeda leader, follow the rules. He wants the U.S. to justify legally its actions and Pakistan to publicize its restrictions. He claimed the U.S. contravened the laws of war by targeting Afghanistan drug lords suspected of giving money to the Taliban. He claimed that targeted killing outside of an armed conflict "is almost never likely to be legal." He said that pre-emptive self-defense is no excuse. It could produce chaos in who is entitled to do what, and would help destroy the UN Charter's prohibition of use of force. He wants combatants to work out rules with the UN. The U.S. has laid out its legal rationale covering the general situation, as contrasted with Alston's wanting each attack's rationale reported. The U.S. military has criticized some unprofessional reporting that cost 23 civilians their lives. In general, the U.S. finds the drones an effective tool against terrorism (Charlie Savage, NY Times, 6/3/10, A10). Most of Mr. Alston's concerns are well taken. His recommendations are more controversial. His notion of battlefields seems quaint. If the law can't keep up with modern developments, revise it. But we have a right to protect ourselves. His logic is that if the U.S. uses a new tactic or weapon, however properly, others will use it improperly, so we should not use it. Willing to use improper methods as our adversaries are, our restraint would not inhibit them. This is the nature of warfare, especially by the like of jihadists. We are the victims of aggression. Alston would remove one of our best defenses. How are we to deal with aggression, organized from distant hideouts we cannot get at? For that, he has no advice. The drones keep Al-Qaida from organizing some additional or bigger attacks on the U.S.. If we were to use them less, we would need more troops in the field (which we do not have). Wouldn't that increase casualties? Some countries would not let us send forces in. Then what? It makes sense to have more accountability for strikes, and to make sure our intelligence is not faulty. We need to be more careful than, for example, when we put some people into Guantanamo, on the unreliable word of informants of impure motive. But let that responsibility be within a U.S. chain of command! The U.S. used to bomb cities to bits, but now, almost as much as the IDF, the U.S. takes care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. The difficulty is that Islamic terrorists move among civilians in order to inhibit us or to get us to kill bystanders, so surviving terrorists can make propaganda against us. They now that anti-Western-minded people automatically believe it. In some respects, Alston's recommendations sound like another UN attempt at a power grab. Unfortunately, the UN is itself a place of evil, in which terrorists can mount a majority. He did not take that into account.
ISRAEL DOES P.R. WITH U.S. JEWS Israel finally did some hasbara, or information/propaganda, with U.S. Jews. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Alon held a conference call on the flotilla with 700 heads of U.S. Jewish communities and community relations groups. Thousands more were interested in being in the audience. They found his explanations useful enough to request regular conference calls. Deputy-Min. Alon said that the flotilla is diverting attention from the much graver problem of Iranian nuclear prowess. He explained that Israel intercepted the flotilla in order to maintain the blockade, which, in turn, protects Israeli security and sovereignty from terrorism. The flotilla attempted to strengthen terrorism and Hamas, which, he asserted, is losing economic and political power. Flotilla sponsor IHH has close links with Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Global Jihad, he explained. Israel holds IHH responsible for the casualties, though Israel regrets the loss of life (IMRA, 6/2/10).
DID HAMAS RECEIVE THE HUMANITARIAN GOODS? As of 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 trucks filled with merchandise from the flotilla, were waiting to enter Gaza, but Hamas refused to let them in. The ship cargo had included expired medication, clothing, blankets, medical equipment, and toys (IMRA, 6/2/10). Perhaps in another day, Hamas will relent. If not, the repercussions would be interesting.
LEGALITY OF ISRAEL'S BLOCKADE OF GAZA People are calling Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal. This supplements prior explanation of the blockade's legality, which quoted laws involved. There is a mistaken, romantic notion about "high seas" being beyond an embargo enforcement zone. The Law of the Sea Convention reflects international custom about maritime law, but Israel did not sign it. The Convention allows intervention 24 miles from shore. International law has exceptions to the usual limits, permitting enforcement of publicly announced blockades on the high seas. Israel announced it; the flotilla announced intent to breach it. Therefore, Israel had the right to intercept the flotilla where it did, a little beyond the usual limit. Was Israel's blockade legal in the first place? It is if there is war or armed conflict between Hamas and Israel. Usually, "armed conflict" refers to conflict by states. If Gaza were part of the state of Israel, Israel could control its borders, but only within its 12-mile territorial waters. The traditional notion of armed conflict between sovereign states has expanded to include non-sovereign entities, security being paramount. Countries traditionally have had the right to capture foreign pirates on the high seas. Certainly war-line conditions exist between Hamas and Israel. There is much precedent for Israeli intervention on the high seas, one being the U.S. Civil War, in which only the Union side had sovereignty. Since Israel intercepted only self-declared blockade runners, it does not affect neutral shipping. Human Rights Watch (HRW) calls the blockade of Gaza a collective punishment of civilians. That would rule out blockades, but international law permits blockades regardless. HRW also accuses Israeli commandos of using excessive force, according to the 1990 UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. That document is not law. It is a set of vague recommendations, and not for military operations. Actually, Israel had the right to sink the blockade-running ship (U. of Chicago Law School Prof. Eric Posner, Wall St. J., 6/4/10, A19). The Oslo Accords acknowledge Israel's overall responsibility for security in the Palestinian Authority, of which Gaza is a part. In any case, people who recklessly accuse Israel of illegality ignore the manifold illegality of Israel's enemies. Their accusations are not genuine but one-sided bullying. I was going to report details of the attacks on the commandos, to show that Israel's response was not proportional. Unfortunately, the article got lost. The crux of it was that the attack on the troops was organized, and the perpetrators took three commandos, whom they had beaten into unconsciousness, below deck, to hold as hostages. To secure the situation, a larger number of commandos was dispatched. They searched for the missing three. The trio rejoined their unit on their own. The idea is that when an initial force is tied down, it may take a larger reserve force to restore order. The number killed and wounded depends on their resistance. Bear in mind that they had wounded six commandos, so it was no tea party.
MAJOR MIDEAST MISCONCEPTION 17: ISRAEL MUST SACRIFICE FOR PEACE What sacrifice for peace could Israel have made when, following a General Assembly recommendation, it declared independence but the Arabs declared war? What sacrifice for peace could Israel have made when Egypt established terrorist bases in Gaza from which Palestinian Arabs raided Israelis? In fact, in 1957, Israel finally rooted out those terrorist bases. What sacrifice for peace could Israel have made in 1967, when Arab states put their armies under a unified command with the declared purpose being a second Holocaust? They mobilized forces at the border of Israel, an act of war. They blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat, another act of war. They barred Israeli shipping from an international waterway, the Suez Canal, a third act of war. Only as a result of that 1967 war, did Israel acquire additional territory that now people suggest Israel sacrifice for peace. But since the Arabs made war when they had that territory, why would an Israeli sacrifice of that territory now bring peace? Obviously, and stated by Palestinian Authority indoctrination, it isn't how much territory Israel holds that moves them to war, it is that Israel holds any territory, because the Arabs claim it all. The existence of this non-Muslim state there offends their religious concepts. Our conclusion about sacrifice is not just theoretical but based on experience. Israel did sacrifice much territory. It withdrew completely from the Sinai, withdrew from Lebanon, withdrew from Gaza, all of which action brought no peace but war. It is hated no less by the Arabs now. Goodwill and peace are not won by appeasement that is irrelevant to the aggressors' motive for war. That is a type of misconception made before, with Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, and with the same disillusionment. Why would Israeli sacrifice of more land for the promise of peace, bring peace? It has become obvious that land-for-peace means land-for-war, as the evacuation of Gaza has unquestionably proved. It is Israel's existence, not this or that territory that offends the Muslim psychology. (To see the start of this series,
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:
|
|
SALAFI JIHADI SHEIKH: GAZA DOES NOT WANT FREEDOM FLOTILLAS WITH BLONDE WOMEN
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 4, 2010. |
|
Salafi Jihadi Sheikh Hussein Bin Mahmud: Gaza Does Not Want Freedom Flotillas with Blonde Women — It Wants Black Islamic Banners of Jihad; Hitler Left Some Jews Alive So the World Could See Why He Killed the Rest; 'Gaza... Is Thirsty and Wants to Drink the Blood of the Sons of Apes and Pigs' This is from MEMRI, Special Dispatch 29971, Palestinians/Jihad and Terrorism Studies Project. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Contact them at P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837 or by phone at (202) 955-9070. |
|
On May 31, 2010, a member of the Al-Falluja jihadist web forum posted an essay about the Gaza flotilla events by Sheikh Hussein bin Mahmud, a pseudonymous cleric who is well respected in the online global jihadist community. Generally speaking, the jihadist forums have not focused much attention on the flotilla issue. Salafi jihadis are generally hostile to both the Turkish and Hamas governments, and are disdainful of Western public opinion and diplomatic activity. Thus, Sheikh Hussein mocks the idea of the flotilla, calling it a hopeless "suicide mission" that will do nothing to end the siege on Gaza; he ridicules Turkey's response to the events, saying that it should have declared jihad to liberate Palestine, or at least carried out naval attacks in retribution; and argues that what Gaza really needs is weaponry and commanders like Osama bin Laden and Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. He concludes his essay by saying that the battle must begin with a fight against the armies of Israel's Arab neighbors, who are preventing the mujahideen from entering Palestine to fight the Jews. Following are excerpts from Hussein bin Mahmud's essay: The complimentary full text of this report is made available from
the MEMRI Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor; for membership
information, visit
"The Jews Have Become Less Rough and Violent than They Used to Be" "Hundreds of troops from the navy of the Jews, with air support, mounted a coordinated assault on the ships in the flotilla, using bullets and gas, and killing several of the unarmed passengers; the rest they brought to Ashdod port in occupied Palestine... "What drew my attention is that the Jews have become less rough and violent than they used to be. There was an aspect of softness and calm in their dealings with these ships. Some might express amazement at these words, but they are the truth... "The Jews betrayed Moses... They killed many of the prophets, and especially Yahya bin Zakariya [i.e. John the Baptist]... They conspired to kill our Prophet Muhammad... They are hard of heart, feeble of mind, and lacking in manners. They are a people of deception, deceit, wickedness, unbelief, heresy, and polytheism." Hitler Left Some Jews Alive So the World Could See Why He Killed the Rest "Everyone who has had contact with them and lived alongside them, in the East and in the West, has spurned them, loathed them, and detested them, to the point where Hitler said: I could kill all the Jews in the world, but I left a few alive so that the entire world will know why I killed the Jews... "Given that these are some of the Jews' characteristics, what were the members of the Freedom Flotilla expecting from them?... "Those people who have condemned the mujahideen's... marytrdom operations, calling them 'suicide operations,' would do well to abandon the idea of flotillas like these, which are truly suicide in the full sense of the term. "The Jews have been laying siege to the Muslims [in Gaza] for the past four years, and the entire world did nothing [about it] — do these [ship passengers] think that their being killed by the Jews will disturb a single fly[?]... "The oddest thing about this flotilla was the Turkish people's stance. We would have expected more from the Turkish people than what we saw. We know that most of the Arab peoples are dead, having been buried by their rulers in the coffins of poverty, desperation, humiliation, and oppression... But the Turkish people still has a shred of honor... and it still has some innate savagery. "We would have expected [the Turks] to storm and burn down the Jewish embassies, chase down and kill all those within them, and kill every Jew in Turkey and threaten the rest of the Jews in the world with Turkish rage, in a manner reminiscent of the awe-inspiring Ottoman state. But none of this happened. Just a few hundred Turks stood in front of the Israeli Embassy chanting slogans and voicing condemnation — as though they were an Arab people, and not a Turkish one!..." "How Does a Person Put His Life in the Hands of His Jewish Enemy When He Is Unarmed?" "How does a person put his life in the hands of his Jewish enemy when he is unarmed? Do they expect mercy from the Jews? The Jews didn't show mercy [even] to the prophets... "Were the Turkish government serious in its response, the least that would have been incumbent on it would have been to act against the Jews according to the principle of retribution in kind: ordering Turkish fleets to attack the ships on the high seas, kill some of their men, imprison the others, and bring the ships into Turkish territory... [But in fact] the shari'a obligation is to declare jihad for the sake of Allah, in order to liberate Palestine from the hands of the Jews and return it to the hands of the Muslims. This is the shari'a obligation that no country that claims to be Muslim can evade... "When has freedom ever been attained without fighting? When has honor ever been available for purchase in the market of betrayal and humiliation? When has glory ever been granted [to someone] apart from on the battlefield?... "Gaza does not need all this media coverage... Gaza needs bombs, bullets, iron, fire, missiles, tanks, mines, and missile launchers held on the shoulders of lions such as [the Arab commanders in Chechnya] Thamir Al-Suweilem ('Khattab') and Abu Al-Walid Al-Ghamdi, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi and Yahya Ayyash... It needs extraordinary leaders such as Osama bin Laden, Mullah Muhammad Omar, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, and Shamil Basayev..." "Gaza... Is Thirsty and Wants to Drink the Blood of the Sons of Apes and Pigs" "Gaza will not agree to a ceasefire with the Jews. On the contrary — it is thirsty and wants to drink the blood of the sons of apes and pigs, and it is hungry and longs to devour the body parts of these cowards. Proud Gaza calls to the Muslims, [saying] that it does not want people to defend it, but rather wants people to set out from it to liberate Palestine and to expel the accursed Jews. "Gaza does not want 'freedom ships' bearing blonde women with Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and atheist men; it wants a naval fleet and a land army [bearing] black Islamic banners that are Khorasani [i.e. Afghan], Syrian, Egyptian, Maghrebi, Yemeni, Turk, and Kurdish, set east of the Jordan River with the Jews to its west, with sparks flying from the eyes of the Muslims... "Our problem is not Gaza, but [all] Palestine. [Our problem is with] those who protect the Jews from outside its borders, and prevent the mujahideen from entering Palestine to wage jihad for the sake of Allah and to liberate our holy lands. Thus, we say to the mujahideen: Those who want to enter Palestine and fight the Jews must start first [by fighting] the border guards [i.e. the Arab regimes], so as to protect their rear — because a wise man does not leave his rear exposed to his enemy. It is not forbidden to kill the Jewish state's border guards, even if they pray and fast..." Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
BOOK REVIEW OF MY HEBRON
Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, June 4, 2010. |
|
This review was written by Derek Cling and it appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). |
|
My Hebron
Ben Zion Tavger, originally from Borisov, White Russia, was a prominent scientist in the field of Solid State Physics. In 1972, he made aliyah to Israel from Novosibirk where he was doing his research at the time, becoming the first scientist from Novosibirsk — and the first of such a status — who succeeded in obtaining permission to leave the Soviet Union. Once he arrived in Israel, Tavger contributed greatly to the Aliyah movement, was a leading professor at Tel Aviv University, led tours in Hebron, and personally supported new immigrants. His focus, however, was on helping to protect and restore the Jewish sites of the holy city of Hebron. Before his death in July 1983 at the age of 53, he wrote the book My Hebron, which is published in Russian and Hebrew, and has recently been translated and republished in English. In the book, Tavger speaks about the significance of Hebron to the Jewish people, and tells readers about his experiences while involved in various activities in attempting to restore the Jewish presence there and protect and restore its Jewish holy sites. Specifically, the book focuses on his struggle in helping the residents of Kiryat Arba in executing their right of return to Hebron, his involvement in the opposition of the desecration of sacred Jewish sites, his work with the excavation of the Avraham Avinu synagogue, and the struggle for the Cave of the Patriarchs. Tavger's wife, Nava Bella Tavger, who helped get the book published, spoke with Israel National Radio's Yishai Fleisher about Tavger's life and the sacrifices he made for the Jewish people ( click here to listen to the interview.) After taking up an offer as a guard for the ancient cemetery of Hebron, Tavger began to busy himself with cleaning up the cemetery, finding broken pieces of the tombstones of the 1929 martyrs, and reconstituting the tombstone of the "Reishit Hochma" (Rabbi Eliyahu Davidash). At the same time, Tavger also initiated the excavation of the remains of the Avraham Avinu synagogue, eventually managing to reconstitute it. "When he began all these things, everyone was against him," relates his wife Nava. "They asked him, 'why don't you ask permission from our Jewish authorities?', and his position was that to ask permission to do real, necessary things is immoral. There was no sign of Jewish life there, so it was a very wrong, shameful situation, and he had to do something about it." During this time, movement restriction orders were issued against Tavger, and he was arrested and brought to trial numerous times. However, throughout his arrests and trials, his position remained that, "we have to do what we can do", Nava explains. "He always said, 'I am not a criminal. I don't do anything that is not good and that is why I have to do it.'" His most publicized trial was in Beersheba and lasted 21 months. The verdict in this case was complete exoneration for Tavger and his partner, Eliezer Broyer. The judgment, in effect, praised their dedication and strength of spirit. Nava relates how Tavger held a little bitterness towards the state of Israel after his trial in Beersheva because, "at the same time he was doing everything for Hebron, he also fought the problems of theoretical physics too. He would have preferred if the situation was different, but he was a scientist. He did not do anything spontaneously. He thought about things, and when he was sure that it was a real, necessary thing, he did it — even if it went against our Jewish government." Tavger published over 45 scientific papers, mostly in the field of Solid State Physics. His last research, which he was unable to complete, was published after his death in June 1986 in one of the world's most prestigious science journals, Physics Letters. Nava speaks about how Tavger used his scientific mind to strengthen his Jewish roots, eventually coming to the conclusion that Torah and science are indivisible. "In Russia, he wasn't religious," she says, "but his parents always kept the Jewish tradition in their home. In a very natural way, he became religious because he saw the logic and methods of thinking of the Torah, seeing that nature and human beings are very close — he thought that the Torah and science were very close." Tavger's book, My Hebron, can be ordered online throughmyhebron@gmail.com. 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. |
|
YOU ARE OUR CHILDREN
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 4, 2010. |
|
People known as 'IDF troops' are our children, the sum of our hopes, dreams |
|
It was my child who was grabbed by his legs and thrown off the upper deck of the ship; who was brutally beaten up; who had a stun grenade hurled at him; who was stabbed in the stomach; who had his arm broken. It was my child who was stunned to discover that the peace activists, the cool youngsters on board the ship — the ones who must be wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and listening to Bob Marley music — are in fact a bunch of wolves posing as little red riding hood. It was my child who was willing to put himself through demanding physical training starting in 10th grade already in order to become a Navy commando; who was as happy as can be when he completed a course that only few manage to survive through. It is my child who arrives home on Fridays just to hug and kiss me because I remembered to make the schnitzel he loves so much. It was my child who found himself attacked with bats and stun grenades, after he was equipped with a paintball gun and was told a thousand times to be gentle with the peace sailors, lest everything get out of control and the whole world will rise up against us. It was my child, the one I gave birth to, educated, and sent to the IDF, who truly felt this is an important national mission, and that he should be doing everything in order not to disappoint his commanders, his friends, his army chief, his defense minister, and his mother. Just like an unexpected slap to the face of a passerby at a dark alley came this recognition. Just like the first rain after a year of drought. These people we got used to referring to as "IDF soldiers" are our children. We gave birth to them in our image, and they're us. They are the sum of all our hopes, aspirations, and dreams. This is exactly what we wanted, this is what we prayed for, and they are the people who made us so proud. So what now? Now we need to hug them and love them and reassure them. We need to tell them we shall always be by their side. We need to remind them that their uniforms and ranks make no impression on us, that we are not intimidated by their hands, which have grown rough because of all the effort, and that we're not excited by the paint spread on their faces before they head out on a mission. We need to explain to them time and again that what's happening in the UN today, in global news channels, and in closed-door cabinet sessions has nothing to do with them whatsoever. We need to look at them and tell them, just like we did when they were four years old and dropped a glass that broke: "No matter what, we love you; you are our children." Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
THE MURDEROUS JIHAD OF MAKING SURE: 'JEWS LOOK BAD'
Posted by American 1627, June 4, 2010. |
|
The Arab-Islamic 'anti-Jewish' hate machine's suicide & homicide missions in damning Israel's image. TOOLS Current Arab-Islamic cult of hatred has a real sophisticated 'Goliath' machine, two of the major tools are: 1) Use of civilians against Israeli civilian or military targets. 2) Causing deaths among its people in propaganda actions masked under "peace" or "humanitarian." Both are one in the same, making sure Israel comes out 'bad,' and condemned. Amazing how passionate anti-Jewish hatred among these Arab-Islamic bigots is, willing to sacrifice one's life and fellow men/women for this sacred cause, called "Jews are bad." You can call it 'creating martyrs' but let's not lose sight of the real inhuman reality of it, its about bringing about deaths of its people — as long as Israelis can be blamed for it. 'MILITARY WING' Iranian backed Hamas & Hezbollah or even "moderate" Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorists are the main 'military' departments of this machine, they will do anything so that Arabs die, preferably Arab kids, be it firing behind a woman's squirt, from a populated area or from a residential home. 'POLITICAL WING' Then there are those fricking violent "peace" activists, that is the 'political wing' of this cult. One gullible woman: Rachel Corrie fell victim to manipulation of Arafat's tricks, and she died, supposedly because of "Israelis." Which is why, for example, at the "flotilla ship" case (where the Muslim "activists" aboard the ship were planning their deaths as "martyrdom") the Arab-Palestinian leaders of Hamas refused aid when Israelis release boats of supplies. It's all about image, nothing about "humanitarian." TIED IN ACTION, IN AIMS Both wings are tied to each other, like the frequent "peace" activists of Palestine "International Solidarity Mission," (ISM) which asides from outbursts, revealing at times their intentions at shouting at gatherings of 'Kill the Jews,' they are known to impede in anti-terror Israeli operations, both wings' aim at cleansing out the Jews have very much the demonization of Israel as an imperative mission, it serves both, satisfying the thirsty shear Arab-Islamic demon-obsessed hatred, and attempts to rationalize its religious or/and racial hatred & violence because, hey: 'You see what the Zionists do?' A DANGEROUS INHUMANE WEAPON CONFRONTING ISRAEL'S HUMANITARIAN ARMY The dangerous message the Islamists are basically saying, offering, rather warning and threatening the Israeli army is this: 'Tomorrow you are going to "kill" a few Muslims.' And: 'You won't even know where it comes from.' And the humanitarian Israeli side — the only side making all efforts, often sacrificing their lives, in order to avoid ANY casualties — is left in the dark, in sonstant fear, wondering as to what vicious tricks, the anti-human Arab-Islamic "activists' or "fighters" will come up this time. WIN, WIN SITUATION — MARTYRDOM Don't get fooled, it's — the orchestrated deaths — very well calculated and meticulously planned, from their account it's always a 'win win situation,' if the Israeli security people get hurt from the bloodthirsty "activist," then the Islamic "peacenick" is a "hero" for "standing up to the Israelis," if the violent "peacenick" dies, he's a martyr-hero anyway, just like in the war field when Hamas, Hezbollah Arabs kill themselves upon innocent Israelis, whether or not, Israelis kill them before the mass-murder, these guys are martyrs, already, whatever the outcome is. why shouldn't they continue in their death factory? AT SOME CIRCLES IN THE WEST, IS IT NAIIVE OR STUPIDITY? The shock is really not from that death cult side at all, but from some Eurabian & some radical lefty in America media that fall dead victims to these campaign, again, and again and again. It's not off topic to remind that Islamic Taquiya (Taqiyya) means just that: 'Fooling the infidel.' Want it seen stopped? Not before the BBC, CNN and others will gather some courage, for once, wake up tomorrow and say: 'We are not playing your game any more!' it's over, from this time and on, all reports, are being diverted from incited-hateful-passion-in-the-Arab-street to fact based truth and pointing the finger at the Islamic culprit. Meantime, I have counted... I actually stopped counting how many times the CNN reporters repeated the fake term "activists." vis-a-vis the 'Flotilla' violent mission. Contact the poster at American1627@yahoo.com |
|
BEATING UP ON ISRAEL
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 3, 2010. |
|
The following article by Daniel Henninger
(henninger@wsj.com)
in today's Wall St. Journal reminds me of the many articles I have written, forecasting the Gathering of the Nations against the Jewish State of Israel. I claim no honor in being first since that prediction was written by G-d in the Biblical Torah during ancient times. Any observant Jew or Christian who has read what is predicted to come in the Biblical text knows that the nations will, indeed, descend upon Israel to take the Land and attempt to eliminate the Jewish people.
The underlying reason can be explained in a simple phrase of a few lines. The Jews have made a Covenant with G-d to be His servant as a "Light Unto The Nations", practicing in plain sight the cosmological laws of G-d's Universe as set forth in the Torah. All pagan gods would be dismissed and mankind could no longer follow the teachings of religious cults to worship and sacrifice humans to their pagan deities. The priest cults hated the restrictions set down in the Torah by G-d and taught their followers to hate the message and the messengers. History is replete with the hideous treatment of the Jews through the centuries that the shriek of agony had to travel deep into the cosmos and certainly to G-d. After Israel was once again allowed to rise out of the ashes from the Holocaust, the pursuers of the Jews caught their collective breath and, once again, ramped up their hatred and started back on the trail after their prey. On a more practical level, I noticed that the Europeans decided they needed a "Rapid Deployment Force" but didn't want to spend their own money to build it so they went to NATO to act for them. Clearly to me, it meant they needed an adversary to practice on and that was designated to be the small nation of Israel. This global act of hostility was to be merely an extension of collective Genocide as practiced by the Church, the Aristocracy and the peasantry during the centuries. So I began writing about what would logically follow with the aggression and the penalties to follow. It was my practical conclusion that many of the seemingly natural calamities would simply follow as "an eye for an eye" punishment. As the nations bonded with subhuman Terrorists, terrible catastrophes began to happen: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, crashing of the world's wealth — sending people into the streets to riot. I recalled the prediction that G-d would "send fire out across the nations". So the "Ring of Fire" began to crack open, starting in Iceland, sending huge ash clouds across Europe as a precursor of what's next to come. I watched America sustain terrible blows as the "eye for an eye" played out as Israel's former protector began to reach out to the plague of Islam. The Gulf oil spill is killing the once pristine fishing grounds just as President Barack Hussein Obama allowed Iran to go Nuclear. I am deeply aware that speaking about G-d, Torah, predictions of the future are generally discarded into the mystic waste basket. On the other hand, since I mostly write about the practical aspects of war, weapons, political and war plans of various nations, it's not a leap of imagination when I observe the Nations Gathering to attack, crush and eliminate the Jewish nation. I see the fall of Europe into chaos. Regrettably, I see America follow as it ramps up its attacks of Israel's defense against primitive enemies. Obama and his hand-picked anti-Semitic advisors linked to the Arab Muslims want Israel eliminated and America is already paying the price. I once thought that the obligation of the Jews was limited to being "A Light Unto The Nations" by merely teaching the laws of humanity. I now see that Israel was created to show the nations how to fight evil which Israel has been doing. Regrettably, the nations were given the choice of following good or evil and, so far, has chosen evil. Israel could lead the world out of despair and lethargy IF the nations would only follow the Light. Will we be surprised to see a 9.2 trembler under Ankara, Turkey? Will we see the Euro disappear, followed by the total collapse of the European Union? Will the spreading oil in the Gulf send a message to Obama, with follow-on Super Hurricanes? So, what is simply nature in turmoil and what is reminiscent of G-d's Plagues that forced Pharaoh to free the Jewish people? Or are they really both the same? |
|
The ease with which the world's governments condemned Israel over the flotilla incident has been something to behold. The Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Toronto Globe and Mail could not help but notice: "The speed and intensity with which governments around the world condemned the Israeli behavior appear unprecedented." Why? For starters, denouncing Israel for something like this is convenient for leaders who have failed repeatedly to do anything about more important and difficult problems such as Iran, North Korea or sovereign debt. Also, lesser nations learn by example: The Obama administration's unrestrained criticism of the Israeli government in March over East Jerusalem settlements lowered the threshold for teeing off on Israel. Still, I can't think of any other nation, no matter how scummy and uncivilized its practices, that produces this response. Or any other event, such as testing a nuclear bomb. Fast out of the gate was France's nimble President Nicolas Sarkozy, who criticized the "disproportionate use of force." But somehow it is only Israel that seems to elicit the disproportionate use of language. Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, called the incident "state terrorism." His foreign minister described it as "piracy," "banditry" and "barbarism." Also invoking "barbarism" were Saudi Arabia ("inhuman"), Syria ("blatant defiance of ... civilized values") and Morocco. Italy's foreign undersecretary, Stefania Craxi: "the massacre of Gaza." Russia, always light on irony, condemned "the use of force against civilians." The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists: "an open attack on civil society" and the "true face of barbarism." U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was "shocked." Denmark, Spain, Greece and Sweden summoned their Israeli ambassadors for an explanation. British Foreign Secretary William Hague extended his sympathy to the families of the victims. The Vatican voiced concern. The president of Bosnia likened the Gaza blockade to the 1992-96 siege of Sarajevo (at least 10,000 dead). The president of the European Parliament drew attention to a breach of the "fourth Geneva Convention." All of this on Monday. Turning on the evening news in New York City, one saw that a pro-Palestinian demonstration of a 1,000 or so had materialized in Times Square. Identical demonstrations mushroomed on the Champs Élysées, and in the streets of Washington, London, Rome, Cyprus, Oslo, Stockholm and Athens. Catherine Ashton, the EU's "high representative" for foreign affairs, demanded "an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening" of the Gaza blockade. This is especially noteworthy. Until High Representative Ashton's demand to end the blockade, the EU had been party to a clear, explicit policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Since 2002, a group known as the Quartet — consisting of the EU, Russia, the U.S. and the U.N., with Tony Blair as its current special envoy — has said that no one could deal with Hamas, the occupier of Gaza, until Hamas fulfilled three conditions: Recognize Israel's right to exist. Renounce violence. Accept agreements already made by previous Palestinian negotiators. Hamas hasn't met any of those conditions. After Ms. Ashton's outburst, it knows it doesn't have to. The world's peoples may pay soon for their leaders' display of such a disproportionate double standard. Recall that the other, recent instance when the world's governments deployed their collective authority and wrath was last June, against Lilliputian Honduras. The conclusion is inescapable: The smaller the problem, the larger the world powers' output of hot air. But if a problem is large or difficult — especially if the problem is nuclear — they blink and deflate, and will do so repeatedly. Example: It emerged this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran is pursuing higher-enriched uranium and "the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." The world yawns. Or hides. In any of the places where men discuss truly monstrous and dangerous plans, in Kim Jong Il's Pyongyang or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Tehran, watching this hyperventilated criticism of Israel for a shoot-out on a boat must strike them as laughable. If one's opponents save their collective status and authority for something like this, then the world is ultimately not serious about who must comply with its rules of behavior. With this unbalanced double standard, the world increases the odds that a truly irresponsible regime will miscalculate. To its credit, the U.S. delegation on duty at the U.N. Monday managed to dilute the language that a somewhat unhinged Turkey demanded from the Security Council. (Amusingly, what the Turks called the U.S.'s "delays" caused the negotiations to slip past midnight into Tuesday morning when, like Cinderella's pumpkin, Lebanon's presidency of the Security Council expired and passed to less invested Mexico.) Germany's Angela Merkel was also circumspect in her remarks. An adult or two is still on duty. Set aside the troubling fact that the Jewish state alone gets this routine treatment. Israel should not be immune from criticism. But if the world's powers unload like this only on relatively small, isolated nations like Israel, then clearly the keepers of the world order find it easier to be blowhards than statesmen. And that means we have a problem. 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 |
|
IS ISRAEL'S NAVAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA LEGAL?
Posted by Susana K-M, June 3, 2010. |
|
This was Reuters. It was written by Jonathan Saul, in London
and was on AlertNet, June 2, 2010
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ LDE6511I7.htm). |
|
Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week. What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA? Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control. "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose. WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS? Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters. There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws. "However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said. The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters. Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say. CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS? Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship. "If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons. Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives. "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said. The use of force may also have other repercussions. "While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments. "However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view." OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY". WAS IT? No, as under international law it was considered a state action. "Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID? None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters. "These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said. For links to the maritime declarations click here and also here. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
U.S. BACKS INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT OF DEMOCRATIC ISRAEL
Posted by Anne Bayefsky, June 3, 2010. |
|
The Obama administration is pushing for an internationalized investigation of Israel's recent effort to preserve its naval blockade of Hamas-run Gaza. In an extraordinary interference with the sovereignty of a democratic society and its right of self-defense, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said Wednesday that the United States wants "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation. ... We are open to different ways of assuring a credible investigation, including international participation ..." Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley elaborated that the administration was demanding Israel produce "an investigation that is broadly viewed as credible by the international community." That would be the same international community which has condemned Israel without the facts, and which has refused to walk back their spontaneous reactions, though the video evidence of armed "civilian" attackers and martyr-seeking "humanitarians" now stares them in the face. Late Monday night President Obama agreed to a unanimous U.N. Security Council presidential statement, which demanded "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards." At the U.N. everyone knew that such language meant a new U.N.-sponsored investigation mirroring the infamous U.N. Goldstone Report on the 2009 Gaza war. That report was produced by four investigators who had all publicly declared Israel guilty before they began, and who operated under a mandate that incorporated a guilty verdict from the outset. Right on cue — and encouraged by the Security Council statement — on Wednesday the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted a resolution deciding "to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance." In other words, once again the U.N. created a fact-finding mission to determine the facts it had already found. Among other things, the resolution states: "the Human Rights Council ... condemns in the strongest terms the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces." While the Obama administration voted against the HRC resolution, it did not use its membership on the council to impede in any way the numerous breaches in procedure which made the debate and the introduction of the resolution to condemn Israel possible in the first place. Never in its history had the council held what was uniquely labeled an "urgent debate" on any human rights issue at all, anywhere. The HRC has specific requirements for holding "special sessions" and decided to ignore them, without American objection. In order to move with lightning speed, the substantive resolution was introduced under an agenda item on procedural issues, again without American objection. Before Wednesday's HRC vote, the U.N. Secretariat was required under U.N. rules to produce a statement of the financial implications of the new "international fact-finding mission." Given the mad scramble to condemn Israel, it could only say this: "owing to the brief duration of the preceding debate, the Secretariat has not benefited from the requisite 48-hour period in which to prepare and present the related statement of financial implications for the draft resolution." So instead they guessed "approximately $530,000." Since the resolution was adopted, barring a move to insist Congress refuse to fund the mission, American taxpayers will pay 22% of the bill. The Obama administration is doing nothing to slow down the extraordinary pace of international condemnation racing forward minus the facts. On the contrary, its support of some form of internationalization of an Israeli investigation — which would obviously occur in this fully democratic society in a manner consistent with the rule of law — is a blatant attempt to pile on the pressure. It also goes to the very heart of Israeli sovereignty. Imagine the response if anyone tried to force the United States military to subject its actions in self-defense to the judgment of an international overseer, just hours after the event. The statements on Iran by Assistant Secretary Crowley at the same news conference at which he was lecturing Israel suggest the nature of the arm-twisting going on between Washington and Jerusalem behind the scenes. Crowley talked about the United States putting forward an Iran resolution at the Security Council in the coming days and expecting full support in the next three weeks. But given the fact that the Russian exemption clauses in the draft resolution have already made it a mockery, its adoption ought not to be enough for Israel to agree to what is undoubtedly a Trojan horse. Israel should not believe for a second that such an internationalization would somehow make the second Goldstone-like report go away. Any investigation conducted by Israel that includes international participants who are not chosen by the U.N. lynch mob — or any inquiry which is not controlled in terms of its mandate and outcome by the same hordes — will fail to silence the hatemongers. At the same time the signal sent of a democracy unable to rely on its own to be truthful and just in matters affecting the very life and security of its citizens would set a very dangerous precedent. It is time for Israel unambiguously to say no to President Obama, who finds it easier to jump on international bandwagons than stand against the rising tide of intolerance threatening the Jewish state. Anne Bayefsky is editor of EYEontheUN, which can be contacted
at info@EYEonthe UN.org
She is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College.
|
|
DON'T SUBMIT TO OUTSIDE PROBE OF RAID'
Posted by Daily Alert, June 3, 2010. |
|
This was written by Ilan Evyatar and Yaakov Katz A former UK commander, he urges Israel to act. |
|
Israel should not agree to an independent international inquiry of the raid on the Gaza flotilla that left at least nine people dead, Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday. "Israel has a democratically elected government and like every other democratically elected government in the world, Israel should carry out its own investigation," said Kemp. "I believe Israel should do it rapidly and comprehensively and should be completely up front if it has made mistakes — mistakes should be admitted by Israel, but I don't think it should be subjected to an independent inquiry any more than other Western countries are. "Look at what appears to have been a very serious military error made by the German army in Northern Afghanistan last year when something like 50-150 civilians were killed in an air strike," he said. "Where was the independent inquiry about that? Where were the calls for an independent inquiry about that? Why is it that Israel is subjected to that kind of call when other democratic countries aren't?" Kemp is in Israel for a conference Wednesday organized by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) on "Israel's Critical Security Needs For a Viable Peace." Kemp spoke at the conference and warned against an Israeli decision to allow NATO to deploy in the West Bank following an IDF withdrawal. As a top commander in Afghanistan, Kemp worked closely with NATO but said he was skeptical that the military alliance would succeed in recruiting the necessary number of forces. Some NATO forces, he said, operate under major restrictions. "Many of the troops are restricted and some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops in danger," he said. Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations and the head of the JCPA, called a future NATO deployment in the West Bank a "disaster." "NATO today is not about blocking Soviet forces in Eastern Europe but has a counter-terror strategy that has not been all that successful," Gold said. While Kemp was critical of Israel's handling of the flotilla raid, in particular its intelligence-gathering prior to the operation, he said the blame for the death toll lay with the "activists" who attacked the soldiers. "I think there were clearly errors made in what the IDF did in boarding that ship," Kemp said. "The main error seems to me to have been a failure of intelligence in having a prior understanding of what they were facing. Arguably, had they known better what kind of resistance they might face, they could have approached the ship in a different way. "The real people responsible for what happened though are those people who attacked the soldiers who came on board. "Intelligence is a notoriously hard thing to get right, but it was a flaw not to have recognized the nature of the people they were confronting. The publicity surrounding those ships, though, was all to do with people in pursuit of peace and aiding the people of Gaza. "It was not unreasonable not to expect them to behave in the way they did, but having said that, a military force that has the reputation and the sophistication of Israel's should not be surprised in that way." Kemp added that in his opinion the planners should have taken into account a worse-case scenario irrespective of intelligence. "From the reports I've heard and seen the Israeli soldiers appeared to be determined to show that they were not coming on board to offer violence and that may have been what led to the situation that occurred," he said. Asked whether once on board and facing those circumstances the commandos had no choice but to shoot to kill or whether they should have responded differently, Kemp replied, "I think one has to wait for more detailed facts to come out, but the rules of engagement, the laws of armed conflict, to an extent apply in that situation the same as they would apply anywhere. "The Israeli soldiers were under obligation to use minimum force, but we've all seen the footage that's been released of what happened and they appear to have been subject to a very vicious and violent attack. "When you're in that situation — by the look of it outnumbered by a group of people wielding iron bars and, according to Israeli reports, knives and possibly having taken weapons from soldiers — it's very hard when you're facing a situation which is effectively close combat to decide, unless you were actually there, what the rights and wrongs were. But for a soldier to be put in that situation is regrettable." 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 |
|
DUBAI, THE LAND REGIME, AND MAYANOT CULTURE IN ISRAEL
Posted by Seth J. Franzman, June 3, 2010. |
|
TERRA INCOGNITA: SEX, THE CITY AND THE TRUTH ABOUT DUBAI
The movie's decision to use the Emirates as a background betrays the degree to which Westerners turn a blind eye to human rights violations in the region. The brilliant people behind the Sex and the City franchise decided to expand the habitat of their show beyond the confines of New York for its movie sequel, which has just been released. In the first Sex and the City movie, they briefly sent the women to Mexico. For the second, the idea was to send the cast to the exotic playground of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Alas, this was all too much for the Dubai authorities, who banned the film. This didn't make the producers flinch one bit, and they set off for Dubai's high-flying neighbor, Abu Dhabi. When they ran into issues there as well, they settled for filming in Morocco, the scene of such desire-ridden Orientalist films as Hideous Kinky and Under the Sheltering Sky. But the trailer to Sex and the City 2 still plays up the Abu Dhabi plot line. Few commentators following the film through the Middle East quagmire have spoken about a more important question: Isn't it time the West stopped glorifying the United Arab Emirates? To her credit one film critic, Debbie Schlussel, did comment on the irony that Sex and the City was rewarding the Emirates at a time when it was busy arresting and sentencing Western couples for sins such as kissing in public. Sex and the City's decision to use the Emirates as a background betrays the degree to which Westerners turn a blind eye to human rights violations in the region. While many Europeans wear badges of honor from protest marches in Gaza and the West Bank, they feel no compunction about going to the Arabian Gulf for vacation. Are they ignorant of what is going on there?
THE UNITED Arab Emirates in the past 10 years has turned itself into a vacationers' and expat paradise for Europeans and others. Whether it was indoor ski resorts or fake islands, the Emirates pulled out all the stops to create a sort of Cancun-Caribbean-Las Vegas all in one. And it was rewarded with mass media coverage. National Geographic gave it a cover, and the Economist lauded it. But like some line from the cult film Wizards, "then stories began coming back." A February 2009 article in The New York Times revealed that foreigners were abandoning thousands of cars at Dubai International Airport as they fled the country. Sofia, a French woman, noted that she feared being jailed for having run up a debt after purchasing an apartment and a car when times were good. The Times revealed that "jobless people here lose their work visas, and then must leave the country within a month." Salacious stories about Westerners being prosecuted for crimes of morality, such as kissing, made news at the BBC and elsewhere. But few people discussed the other side of what was happening in the Emirates. The tragedies were not confined to a few kissing Britons or French women abandoning apartments and cars. The real evil being done in the Emirates was the one done to the foreign workers imported over the past few decades to build the famous skyline; the indoor ski arenas and skyscrapers that made the place a playground. In an article entitled "Dark Side of the Dubai Dream" in an April edition of BBC-Panorama, author Lila Allen shed light on what many had feared to speak about. Allen noted that "it is a place in the sun for over a million of us who holiday there." Using a hidden camera, reporters infiltrated one of the work camps where foreign workers are housed. According to estimates, the population of Dubai is 90 percent foreigners, with local Arabs being the only group allowed citizenship. Abu Dhabi is similar, although the other four less-populated emirates that constitute the UAE have higher numbers of citizen locals. The foreign workers pay as much as $2,500 to recruitment agents in South Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to get to the UAE. Once in the Emirates, their passports are sometimes confiscated by their employers, and they are herded into work camps hidden in the desert. They live a dozen to a room, sleeping in barracks-like environments and subsisting on potatoes and lentils. Allen's BBC story noted that they don't receive the wages they were promised, and often live in unsanitary conditions. If they are lucky enough to be paid, they receive around $200 a month for a six-day work week. In Dubai, the government prosecutes those who portray the country as anything other than a paradise. In a recent case, 17 Indians were sentenced to death after having confessions tortured from them, allegedly with electric shocks. Anecdotal stories from friends who resided there tell of local Emiratis attempting to hit foreign workers with their cars, attending sex clubs where women forced into prostitution are tortured and of terrible abuse meted out to Filipina maids. Dubai appears to be little better than a modern slave state built on a tsunami of misery.
YET DESPITE these facts, Westerners continue to coddle this cesspool. Sex and the City never once reconsidered its desire to shoot in the Gulf, and Western cultural institutions such as the Louvre have established museums there. Western educational institutions have followed suit. Sex and the City 2 has been accused of being anti-Muslim because the ladies "embarrass Muslim men with their provocative attire and sexual innuendo." They dress immodestly, and one of the characters spills condoms on the ground at the market and simulates sex in front of Muslim men. The UAE is a fleshpot of prostitutes imported from Eastern Europe, and Muslim men routinely date non-Muslim women from places like Ukraine. The "provocative" way the Sex in the City characters act is what the UAE is used to. The tragedy is that the movie perpetuates the lie that Muslim men are sexually repressed, and if only they saw more porn and half-nude Western women, they would become open-minded. In fact, throwing sex at men does not make them open-minded, it merely reinforces their view of women as chattel. The UAE is a land of chattel, from the Muslim women to the foreign workers, and the only way to combat this is to boycott the country, not give it free advertising in Sex and the City.
TERRA INCOGNITA: A QUESTION OF LAND
The government, despite excellent management of national parks, has disastrously mismanaged the Negev, turning it over de facto to the Beduin while restricting the ability of Jews to build on it. When Jews lived under the yoke of others, they were often prevented from owning land. Researchers into Jewish history and anti-Semitism tend to forget this fact when examining the way anti-Jewish laws were startlingly similar in the Muslim world, and the Christian world. What is slightly more shocking is the fact that the Zionist dream of turning Jews into tillers of the soil has been partially frustrated by the fact that they have little access to land ownership. This unacknowledged tragedy also sheds light on an interesting reason for the settlement project in the territories acquired in 1967. It is a widely known fact that about 93 percent of the land inside the Green Line is owned by the state. This is due to historical factors. For instance the Negev, which makes up half of the land, was all state land before 1948 and passed into the hands of the government after the end of the British Mandate. All the lands held by the Jewish National Fund and other pre-state Jewish purchasing organizations such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association came under the control of the Israel Lands Administration by 1960. Another 12% of the land came under government control through the Absentee Property Law after 1948. The government doesn't actively control all the land in its hands, in fact large amounts of it are leased to individuals or institutions with long-term leases that make it appear the individuals actually own the land. The government mismanages its land, especially in the Negev, allowing it to be invaded by people who illegally build on it.
HOWEVER, ONE legacy of the government control of land has been an addiction to planning that has parallels only in the planning monstrosities common in the former Soviet bloc. Israelis were reminded of this in the recent decision by Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat to push for the development of apartments for young couples rather than luxury homes in Kiryat Hayovel, rather than letting the market decide. It is the same across the country. Rarely can one see something being built that has not already been "approved" by various bureaucrats and planning regimes that adhere to "master plans." The refrain is always "there isn't enough land in this country, so the government must plan everything and people need to live close together in developments." Of course, what would happen if people were allowed to buy land privately and develop it themselves with their own tastes? The tragedy of the planning addiction has been that Jews arriving since the foundation of the state have found themselves stuffed into apartments and dispatched to places that are ready to "absorb" them. The excuse for the tent cities-cum-ugly apartment towers where immigrants have been housed since the 1950s has always been the same: "not enough land." There is a problem with this excuse. There are people here who were allowed to develop land the way they pleased and there are people who do own private land. These two groups consist of pre-state Jewish settlers of the kibbutzim and moshavim and Arabs. The 7% of land that is privately held is almost all owned by Arabs. Recent data released from the Central Bureau of Statistics shows the affect this has on home ownership. In Nazareth, 82% of people are homeowners. In the rest of the country, 66% are homeowners. The tragedy that has befallen Jews in terms of access to land and home ownership can be seen in places like Beersheba, home to some 186,000 Jews, many crammed into tenements and ugly buildings. By contrast the 76,000 Beduin in unrecognized villages around Beersheba have unfettered access to some 600,000 dunams of land. The supposed plight of these Beduin, which is championed by such "human rights" organizations as Bimkom, Sikkuy, Adva center and Shatil, most of which are supported by the EU and the New Israel Fund, twists around the facts to make it appear it is the Beduin who suffer. Habitat International, for instance, claims that the unrecognized Beduin villages represent 14% of the citizens of the Negev but only control 1.3% of the land (i.e. of 13 million dunams). In fact the Beduin control much more land than the Jewish population and each Beduin has a disproportionate amount of access to land. The only Jews in the Negev who control more land than the Beduin are the kibbutzim. It should be said there is nothing wrong with the fact that some own more than others, but there is something wrong when only certain groups have access and others do not.
THE SAME is true across the country. A Jew arriving in 1950 and moving to a development town next to an Arab village, where he and his Arab neighbor lived in squalor (as many did in the 1950s), would today find that while he owns a dank apartment and most of his children rent in Tel Aviv, his Arab neighbors have dozens of free-standing homes. Jews attempting to escape this malaise by moving to the West Bank find themselves accused of being "illegal settlers." According to international law that may well be true, but beyond ideology it is also the strangling feeling of not being able to live where one wants that drove Jews outside the Green Line. Before 1967, immigrants saw that kibbutz members were given control over vast stretches of land and allowed to erect fences around it and deny others the ability to live with them, while they were confined to development towns that, after 1967, provided them with the incentive to search for a home and an acre to call their own. It is no surprise that supporters of the free-market Herut (later Likud) and General Zionist parties were overwhelmingly urban dwelling Jews who yearned for economic freedom in the landscape. The supposed reason for denying Jews the right to own land is that they might then sell it to foreigners. This paternalism is similar to the money for the Holocaust survivors held "in trust" and routed to the Claims Conference which had the best interests of "the people" at heart. The government, despite excellent management of national parks, has disastrously mismanaged the Negev, turning it over de facto to Beduin while restricting the ability of Jews to build on it. The peace camp, which is dominated by descendants of pre-state Jewish immigrants who live in kibbutzim or in nice homes, has a new political motto declaring themselves "Zionists not settlers." But what happened to the Zionist goal of providing all Jews with freedom, freedom to build their own homes and acquire their own land? There are illegal settlements, in the West Bank and in the Negev, and if one is to be demolished for "peace" it would be a betrayal if the Jews were not at the very least given the right to settle in the other on their own terms.
Terra Incognita: 'Mayanot' nation
Over the past two decades, an interesting subculture around springs has grown here and has been primarily developed by religious Zionist youth. One of the most interesting subcultures within Israeli society consists of people who spend their free time hiking to, discovering, cleaning up and relaxing at the hundreds of springs (mayanot) scattered throughout the countryside. This mayanot culture consists of people of all ages and backgrounds, but is primarily made up of young men and women from a national-religious (those modern Orthodox Jews who wear the crocheted kippot) persuasion. One Facebook group devoted to mayanot has more than 18,000 members. Strictly speaking, a spring is anywhere that water flows to the surface of the earth from below. In the land of Israel, springs have historically been connected to settlement, especially in places where water is scarce, such as the Negev. It is not a surprise that they appear in the Bible. Isaac met Rebecca by a spring. God promised the people of Israel a land "of springs and underground water coming forth in the valley and mountain." David wrote in Psalms of the Lord who "turned the hard rocks into springs of water." The New Testament records that John the Baptist was born in the village of Ein Kerem, named after the spring there. During the British Mandate, famous springs were a subject of newspaper articles. The Palestine Post included numerous discussions of the beauty of Wadi Kelt east of Jerusalem, and descriptions of the "the secret of Ein es-Shifa" — the only spring to exist inside the Old City walls.
HOWEVER THE subculture that has grown over the past 20 years around mayanot, especially in the hilly central part of the country, has primarily been developed by religious Zionist youth. It has led to the rediscovery and renovation of dozens of springs by environmentally conscious people who enjoy finding obscure untrammeled spaces where they can make a cup of coffee on their gazia and meet new friends. It has also spurred the publication of several books for those who want to see as many springs as possible (Azriel Yehezkel's Mayanot Bahar and Moshe Kosta's El Hamayan). The culture has also appeared in the hit TV series Srugim. Springs are ubiquitous, but are most common in the central highlands. They are rare in the Negev, but the ones that do exist are quite large. In the area around Jerusalem, there are more than 57 well-known springs. Most have been altered in some way by man over the years, such as Ein Kubi, Ein Hemed and Ein Meta, which had buildings built over or near them during the Roman or Crusader periods. A series of mayanot near the Arab Christian village of Aboud, over which Muslims and Christians have some sort of dispute, has been turned into swimming pools and admission is charged. Over the years many springs have disappeared due to development or changes in underground water flows, and some have been rediscovered and renovated, such as Ein Kef near Khirbet Al Luz.
BUT THE mayanot subculture has not been without its controversies, conflicts and politicizations. When Raja Shehadeh, scion of a Christian Arab Jaffa (now Ramallah based) family, published Palestinian Walks in 2007, he was attempting to reclaim a "vanished landscape" for Palestinians. His book prompted rave reviews in the Guardian and the Economist, the latter of which wrote angrily: "It is something of an irony that a land whose timeless beauty has survived basically unchanged since biblical times is being transformed by a people who base their claim to it on biblical history." However, Shehadeh's narrative admits to numerous peaceful encounters with "settlers" at springs, no matter how much he wants the reader to believe otherwise. Upon witnessing a Jewish woman praying at a mayan he writes: "It was a flattering sight: Here was someone who appreciated my land so much." This coexistence story at a spring reminds one of the coexistence meetings that take place at Ein Hania near the Jerusalem railroad along the Green Line. In 2005 Gili Sofer, a journalist, claimed that Wadi Kelt, whose nature reserve receives more than 60,000 visitors a year, was going to be "physically destroyed" by the building of the security barrier — a claim that turned out to be untrue. Politics hasn't only intruded at Wadi Kelt. At Nabi Saleh a weekly demonstration has begun against the supposed "annexation" of a spring by Jews from Halamish. Around four months ago Israeli anti-Israel activists and "internationals" from Europe showed up in the Arab village of Nabi Saleh and began agitating. It is not clear what sparked the controversy. According to someone familiar with the situation, the spring had often been shared by local Jews and Arabs until outsiders arrived and began protesting. Another strange story concerns the spring of Ein al-Habis, located inside the gates of the St. John in the Desert Monastery near Jerusalem. Gil Zohar, writing in the Toronto Times, claimed this "most serene holy place" was ruined when "fanatic" Jews began to invade the monastery grounds, women bathed "immodestly" in bikinis and men wearing kippot went on a "mini-pogrom" and vandalized the site. The improbable story is apparently exaggerated, or the writer got the details confused. The springs themselves are not free from overregulation by the government. Rumors abound that the middle section of Wadi Kelt will soon have an entrance fee attached (the upper portion already does). At Ein Avdat National Park in the Negev, swimming is forbidden. The logic behind the restriction is that a pool exists containing an ecosystem that might be harmed by human "chemicals." That seems like nonsense considering it is people who erected a small dam in front of the spring in the first place to create the pool. Despite some controversy here and there, the mayanot subculture is one of Israel's finest modern expressions of man's communing with the landscape. It represents a continuation of the Jewish return to the land, and it is a culture that attracts not only fine individuals but also the best sort of behavior, such as respect for the environment, cleaning up after oneself and meeting strangers who share a similar interest.
Seth Frantzman is a PhD researcher at Hebrew University and a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.
|
|
KIDNAP SAUDI ROYALS AND CHRISTIANS, URGES AL-QAEDA
Posted by Susana K-M, June 3, 2010. |
|
This is from AFP, The Australian. |
|
AL-QAEDA has urged its supporters in Saudi Arabia to kidnap Christians and Saudi princes to press for the release of a female militant the group says was nabbed north of Riyadh. "Form cells to kidnap Christians and princes from the Saud family and their top officials of ministers and officers," Saeed al-Shihri, a prominent Saudi leader of Al-Qaeda franchise in Yemen, said in an audio message released yesterday. He said "preacher" Heila al-Qsayer, a widow of a Saudi al-Qaeda militant killed six years ago by the Saudi authorities, was arrested in Qassim, north of the capital, but did not specify when. "We tell our soldiers: You have to kidnap in order to release the prisoners," he said. The Dubai based Al-Arabiya news channel described Qsayer as "the most dangerous woman" in al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Shihri, who is purportedly number two in the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted families of prisoners held in Saudi Arabia should take up arms to secure their release instead of grovelling to officials. "Stop knocking at the doors of the tyrants and their deviant ulemas," he said. "If you want your relatives to be released from prison, they will only be out by the same way they were taken in." Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia had launched a deadly wave of attacks against Westerners and government installations in 2003, but have been dealt severe blows by the authorities, forcing them eventually to regroup in Yemen. Saudi and Yemeni militants announced merging their factions in Yemen in January last year, as intelligence reports have warned Yemen has become a regrouping haven for al-Qaeda veterans. Authorities in the state have launched a fierce military campaign against AQAP, which has claimed responsibility for the botched attempt to blow up a US airliner over Detroit. Yemen is the ancestral homeland of the Saudi-born al-Qaeda chief, Osama bin Laden, who has been stripped of his Saudi nationality. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
N THE GREAT FLOTILLA DEBATE, THE FACTS ARE ON ISRAEL'S SIDE
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 3, 2010. |
|
This was written by Mary Peretz and it appeared http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
|
Look, I wish the Israeli raid on the so-called "Freedom Flotilla" had ended differently. Why, I ask, didn't Israel's navy disable the engine of the Mavi Marmara and drag the ship into port? Who knows? The engines of the other boats were apparently disabled — or so reliable sources say. But, frankly, when some 800 men and women, distributed over six boats after weeks and weeks of preparation, are headed towards Gaza on the wings of slogan and hysteria, you don't take that many chances. Somebody has trouble in mind. The first five vessels were steered quietly to the Israeli port city of Ashdod, which means that neither their passengers nor the Israeli commandos were especially provocative. The sixth ship, which had 600 activist Turkish voyeurs on board, is an entirely different story. Sponsored by an organization labeled the Humanitarian Relief Fund (I.H.H.), it is said to have ties to Al Qaeda. Which would be logical since Al Qaeda is an ally of Hamas. An intriguing tripartite liaison. But I.H.H. is also a satrap of the ever-more-Islamist government in Istanbul, which seems, in turn, to have volunteered itself as a front for jihadism everywhere, most especially in dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions. There is hardly a Muslim cause that the Erdogan regime in Ankara has not taken to heart and under its belt. (Recall that Turkey kept U.S. forces from traversing Turkish soil in 2003.) Turkey was also once an important ally of Israel, which protected it from Syrian ambitions and gave it a non-Arab friend in a sea of Arabism. Israeli commerce and Israeli military cooperation — that is, modernizing Turkish armaments and units — will not continue much longer with this still-backward country. The Israelis will be sad to lose this friend, but, in fact, they have lost it already. And this is a reciprocal loss. It wasn't so long ago that Turkey — Erdogan's Turkey — aspired to membership in the European Union. They can kiss that goodbye. The Turks may now be heroes on the Arab street, but they certainly aren't heroes in Europe's chancelleries, which prefer controversies on paper. And, much as some E.U. states have huffed and puffed about Israel, the Union is not anxious to add nearly 80 million Muslims to what would no longer be Europe. It rings symbolically true that the two European countries first in line to bash Israel were the continent's prime basket cases: Greece, whose fakeries and troubles have no end; and Spain, saddled with hundreds of thousands of non-working Muslim immigrants and two ongoing separatist movements, one of which (Catalonia) has much justice on its side. Both Greece and Spain are, of course, "progressive," which is to say socialist (and unbelievably corrupt). In Massachusetts, where I live, one young man — an Irish-American dual national who took part in the flotilla — has become a hero. His father is Joseph Bangert, a Cape Cod resident who, according to The Boston Globe, is a retired Marine and Vietnam veteran. Under a photograph of his son, a strapping reddish-haired youth of 28, is the Globe's caption: Bangert "said he had not spoken with his son, Fiachra O'Luain, directly and has had to rely on news reports, information on Facebook, and a YouTube video." What was his seed doing in the eastern Mediterranean? This was not, after all, the Easter Rebellion. He was either a fighter, in which case he might have anticipated getting hurt in the excitement. Or he was a voyeur — an idealistic voyeur, to be sure — in which case, whatever ... The propaganda for the flotilla has been in the works for months. Most of it was simply false. The poverty in Gaza is not qualitatively greater than that of your average Arab city. (Take Cairo. Or Amman, for that matter.) The markets are full of fruit and vegetables ... and flowers. Persistent pockets of deprivation exist in the historic refugee concentrations, which the Palestinian political class maintains as evidence of the ancient wrong. And, no, nobody is building big houses ... except again the elites, to the extent that they can smuggle materiel through the hundreds of tunnels which are perhaps less corrupt than the ordinary channels of commerce. Who is behind this overhyped mission of mercy? And who is its beneficiary? It is none other than Hamas, the Gazan outpost of the global jihad, cousin of the Taliban, second cousin once-removed of Hezbollah. Wishing Hamas well, laboring for its success, is actually a crime against the Palestinians themselves. Of course, the new realists, so-called, will now beat the drums for a "pragmatic" opening to Hamas. It is an old trope for Robert Malley and his ilk. So, over the last two days, they have returned with the same message: Hamas is the future. Soon we will hear from James Baker, James Wolfensohn, even Paul Volcker, who knows a lot about some things but absolutely zero about the Middle East. But Hamas is the past, the ugly past of ignorance. That does not mean it has no future. Hamas is the Palestinian counterpart of the movements of dread that now course throughout the world of Islam, and against which the West and moderate Muslims are struggling. The backward Muslims were Lost in the Sacred, as Dan Diner put it in his dazzling book-long essay, subtitled Why the Muslim World Stood Still. Pascal Bruckner depicts their Western sympathizers in The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism. Read these two books and you'll understand the desperate and comradely pity educated men and women have for pitilessness. Sympathy for Hamas is an odd reality in the Western world, and Israel needs to puzzle over how it has lost so much ground in its struggle against Arab and Muslim barbarism. I understand that the revival of a certain chic anti-Semitism has paved the way for the grosser anti-Semites and for the Muslim phantasts who deal in torment and salvation. Among these were the voyagers on the ship of fools who, a clip from Al Jazeera demonstrates, awaited the shores of Gaza ... or martyrdom. The front page of the Financial Times reads "Israel faces global backlash." Turkey, it says, "calls flotilla attack 'inhuman.' " This is Turkey, mind you, which can't admit to the Armenian genocide of nearly a century ago and won't relent on the Kurds today. As it happens, the Security Council, meeting way into Tuesday morning, passed a balanced, even judicious, resolution that was, in true meaning, at least as much a rebuke to the Turks as it was a criticism of Israel. Neither Russia nor China stood in the way — at least not in the end — of fairness to Israel. And they did not try to exculpate Hamas or the macabre joy riders, including young Fiachra O'Luain.
And I must admit that this marks a turning point in the Obama administration's attitude to Israel. Although it made some de rigeur criticisms, it was not about to make Jerusalem a sacrificial lamb for a faltering foreign policy. Susan Rice, with whom you know I have many problems, made all the appropriate visits and phone calls — bravely, conscientiously, and wisely. Maybe it was at least as much for the Palestinian Authority as it was for the Jewish state. Or for ultimate peace, unlikely as it is. But it was. Neither did anyone walk out of the "proximity talks," non-talks as these are. And, for this, I assume the president is responsible. Mazel tov. In fact, many people are having second thoughts ... or are freeing their initial thoughts from the tiresome orthodoxies in smart parlors. There were several smart pieces yesterday about the flotilla fallout. One was written by Michael Sean Winters in the lefty National Catholic Reporter. It is called Judging Israel. And it judges the Jewish state fairly. But perhaps the most important take on the episode appeared in The Daily Beast. The piece ("Israel Was Right") was written by Leslie H. Gelb, a senior ideas man in the American foreign policy establishment, a former New York Times columnist, and the longtime president (now president emeritus) of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writes Gelb: Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods. [...] On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality (http://www.vilp.de/Enpdf/e025.pdf): 5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion. The law is on Israel's side. Ethics and history are on Israel's side. Those who are on the side of Hamas are actually enemies of civilization. |
|
ISRAEL: IT WAS NOT A PEACE FLOTILLA; PREMEDITATED ARAB COMBAT; TURKEY DENOUNCES 'MASSACRE'
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 3, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL: NOT A PEACE FLOTILLA PM Netanyahu visited his wounded men. They related to him their experience of dropping down onto a deck lined with men wielding clubs and knives. Netanyahu told his Cabinet it was "no peace flotilla." The armed and violent reception was premeditated, at least for the one ship. The second commando to land on the ship told Netanyahu that he was shot at and set upon by about eight fighters, who attacked him with a knife and knocked him unconscious with metal bars. One showed his Prime Minister the stomach wound entry and exit holes. Another was thrown onto a lower deck and his recover from a sever concussion is deemed near miraculous. The commandos said they came to talk, but the activists had come to fight. The commandos were not prepared with the arms needed for combat. More details of the battle demonstrate this, such as being fired continuously at from some hatch. Netanyahu explained that Israel must search ships coming to Gaza, because they can carry large quantities of arms, as Israel found on other occasions (IMRA, 6/1, 2/10). Where did the arms come from that Turkey said it did not let aboard, but which belayed the commandos? Could they have been loaded after leaving Turkey? The fact that the flotilla had no arms shipments, that some people cite as evidence of goodwill, is not germane in this test case. Were the embargo lifted, arms would pour in. That the UN pretends not to realize. NEW ISRAELI ACCUSATION OF PREMEDITATED ARAB COMBAT The Israeli Security Cabinet was told that when the Israeli helicopters were spotted, the regular passengers went below. On deck were a few cells of 40 al-Qaeda mercenaries, each of whom had night goggles, bullet-proof vests, arms, and the same, large quantity of cash. They stayed to fight. Nevertheless, Israel released them (IMRA, 6/2/10). Doesn't make sense to release, 2-3 dozen al-Qaeda fighters. Is this another example of Israel caving in to pressure? MORE FLOTILLA FACTS? 
1. "...according to the pro-military newspaper Maariv, one of the failures of the commando operation was that the troops failed to landed simultaneously, as planned. 2. "Israel released no new evidence Tuesday to support its claim that the soldiers' use of deadly force was warranted and proportionate." 3. "The flotilla had been announced weeks in advance as an effort to bring aid to Gaza and draw international attention to the blockade, in which Israel controls goods going into and out of the territory." 4. Hanim Zoabi, an Arab member of Israel's parliament and a passenger on the Mavi Marmara, accused the military of a premeditated attack." 5. Israel released footage "indicating that the shipment didn't include weapons." 6. Israeli planners "...are not thinking of political fallout or diplomatic risk," said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies." (Joshua Mitnick, Margaret Coker, Wall St. J., 6/2, A10.) 1, True. Had that plan been executed properly, there would have been enough troops to face down resistance non-violently. Since the plan was not executed properly, troops landing individually were attacked, and had to fight for their lives. This is common, because of Israeli military doctrine to avoid civilian casualties, the jihadist tactic of invoking and causing civilian casualties, and foreign pressure inhibiting initial Israeli counter-measures. Obviously, Israel did not set out to kill anybody. 2. This statement makes it seem as if the original evidence did not suffice. But it did. The wounded Israeli soldiers are living proof. The term "proportionate" is misused here, as those biased against Israel, including reporters but not editorial writers of the Journal, misuse it. A few soldiers facing an armed mob that already attempted to kill several of them and did wound them, had no alternative. "Proportionate" refers to whether there is a military objective sufficient to warrant harming a great number of civilians. Obviously, as point 1 indicates, the IDF needed a lot more force at the outset 3. Misleading. The cargo was incidental, a pretext for P.R., since the aid could have been sent through regular channels. 4. Being on that ship, that Arab MK shows whose side he is on. Arab MKs regularly consort with the enemy. Israel does not target civilians. Israel is not clever at P.R.. Its humane military doctrine keeps enemy civilian casualties lowest in the world, considering that terrorists place their forces so as to incur civilian casualties. The last thing Israel would do is attack passengers unprovoked. But the terrorists who bought the ship would start attacking the troops. And the terrorists are good at P.R, realizing that this is the time to pile on the Israeli quarterback. Anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists like to ask who benefited, to determine who plotted. It is not reliable logic to determine causes from results in human affairs. However, what possible benefit could Israel gain from attacking passengers on one ship, when it was successfully towing the others to port? 5. The ship owners would have been foolish to load with arms a ship they knew would be inspected by Israel. The flotilla purpose was to break the blockade so other ships would bring in heavy weapons. Hand weapons were found on the one ship's combatants. 6. It would be more accurate to say that Israel did not figure out just what would or could happen, because it did not expect organized resistance. That was its major mistake. In general, most reports on the flotilla mix up the separate subjects of why the embargo (if they mention it at all), what the flotilla really was for, what happened, and how well the IDF devised and implemented its plan. Biased media, including this Wall St. J. report, cast Israel as the villain in general. In accusing it of incompetence in the same breath, they unfairly make incompetence seem a matter of moral villainy too. But it poor execution of a military plan is not a moral failure, and attests to the innocence of Israel in general. Again, had the plan worked, there would have been few or no casualties. Thus the newspaper report contradicts itself.
TURKEY DENOUNCES 'MASSACRE'
Turkey not only denounced what it calls a "massacre," it criticized the U.S. for reacting cautiously (Mark Champion, Wall St. J., 6/2/10, A11).
The U.S. was not very cautious. However, it was not in the howling section of the international P.R. lynch mob. Turkey wants it there. That is what happens when an Islamist government unofficially sponsors a flotilla that carries Islamists. It wants the Israeli victims denounced. It does not denounce the Islamist who stabbed in the stomach the second commando to land on deck. First the Islamists attacked the troops, and then enough troops landed to regain control but had to shoot a few out of the hundreds aboard, to do so.
The U.S. does call for an investigation. Two investigations are needed: (1) Where did the Islamists aboard get their weapons; and (2) Why didn't the IDF anticipate armed resistance, why weren't they able to get simultaneous landing of troops, as intended, and were there other safer means of controlling the ship?
For some years, the media in Turkey, including PM Erdogan's party newspaper has been blaming every global ill on the Americans and Israelis. Examples: (1) Yanks dumped enough bodies into the Euphrates in Iraq, as to contaminate the fish; (2) The U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah; (3) GIs, with the help of Israelis, were harvesting organs of Iraqis for the U.S. market; (4) Israelis assassinated Turkish security personnel in Mosul; (5) The U.S. is starting to occupy Indonesia under guise of humanitarian aid; and (6) The Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by secret U.S. nuclear testing.
Erdogan refused to reject the organ-harvesting calumny. A true statesman would work to defuse tensions (Robert L. Pollack, Wall St. J., 6/3, A17).
Those examples of paranoia illustrate the global hysteria about the U.S. and Israel. There are no facts or logic to them. They just accuse, like some of my critics and, I recall, like the Nazis and Communists. Those critics tend to change the subject and make general accusations without backing, leaving my reports standing.
(For prior article on flotilla,
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:
|
|
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LEADER: ONLY JIHAD CAN RESTORE THE MUSLIM UMMAH TO ITS FORMER GLORY
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 2, 2010. |
|
Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Only Jihad Can Restore the Muslim Ummah to Its Former Glory; 'The Hour is Near when [We will] Rid the Ummah of this Foreign Body [Israel] that has been Malevolently Planted in Its Midst' This appeared in MEMRI. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Contact them at P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837 or by phone at (202) 955-9070. |
|
Since his appointment in mid-January 2010 as the new general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Dr. Muhammad Badi's speeches, sermons, and statements have reflected a pro-jihad stance, which favors resistance as a means to restore the Muslim nation to its former glory and to liberate Arab lands in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and which regards Israel and the Jews as a major enemy. Following are excerpts from several of Badi's statements:[1] "Islam ... Advocates Jihad as the Only Means for Setting the Ummah's Situation Aright" In a sermon, Badi' called upon Muslim leaders to pursue the way of jihad: "In Islam, a leader is granted lofty status due to his important position in the service of his nation... but this is on the condition that he act in justice, responsibility, and good faith toward his people... Do the leaders of the Ummah need to be reminded that Islam obligates them to thoroughly prepare the Ummah to respond to the offensives it faces, one after another without abatement? Do the leaders of the Ummah need to be reminded that its nations are prey to occupation and hegemony [and are pawns] in a disgraceful game, which is part of the American-Zionist plan and which degrades us on all fronts? Do the leaders of the Ummah need help comprehending that it is their duty to stand behind the Al-Aqsa Mosque and to defend the Islamic holy places, before it is too late?... "The leaders of one and a half billion [Muslims] are able to stand against a few million Zionists who abuse our holy places, and to bring about the longed for victory — especially with all our countries' riches at their disposal. It is within the ability of the leaders, armed with their peoples — those proud peoples who have stood and still stand with the truth, and who have risen up against occupation and in resistance of hegemony — to face the Zionists and put them in their place. It is within the ability of the leaders of 'an Ummah designated by Allah for mightiness,' to rescue from the Zionists' jails the female Muslim prisoners who are screaming, crying out for someone to put an end to their humiliation... "Muslim leaders, Islam, to which you belong, advocates jihad as the only means for setting the Ummah's situation aright, as Allah says: 'O you believers! When you are told to go forth in Allah's way, why should you incline heavily to earth? Are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter?' [Koran 9:38] Our revival, majesty, and glory depend on the return to righteousness, which will only be achieved through resistance and the support of [resistance] in every way — with money, arms, information, and self[-sacrifice]..." Revoke the Camp David Accords "It is your obligation to stop the absurd negotiations, whether direct or indirect, and to support all forms of resistance for the sake of liberating every occupied piece of land in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all [other] parts of our Muslim world. The sources of your authority, as all religious scholars have agreed, are the Koran and the Sunna, and not U.N. resolutions or the dictates of the Zionists or Americans. This can be achieved if you declare the Palestine cause and the causes of the [other] occupied Islamic nations your primary concern. You must stand behind your free peoples and their various institutions in their repeated calls for boycotts, an end to normalization, and support for the resistance and its representatives... You must revoke all the agreements of capitulation.... especially the Camp David Accords... which go against the Egyptian constitution and U.N. resolutions, and do not therefore obligate Egyptian senior officials..."[2] In an interview for the Muslim Brotherhood's official website, Badi' said: "The people must fight the [U.S.-Zionist] agenda by joining the resistance; [they must] reject this agenda through public and popular resistance to all forms of Zionist-American hegemony, for the simple reason that the people are the ones who pay the price [of this hegemony]." He added: "We believe that the way to resolve the Palestinian problem is through resistance, and that there can be no [concessions] regarding the Palestinians' rights vis-à-vis Jerusalem, the borders, and the right of return..."[3] In another sermon, Badi' made clear that armed resistance is legitimate: "There is nothing for the Palestinians, the Arabs, or the Muslim Ummah as a whole but resistance by all legitimate means, and this includes armed resistance. This is the most effective way of dealing with the Zionist tyranny that is supported or silently tolerated by the West and the [rest of] the world."[4] "The Prophet Muhammad brought us Tidings that a Decisive War would Break Out Between the Jews and the Muslims, and the Muslims and Islam would Emerge Victorious" In a televised interview,[5] Badi' explained that the Muslim Brotherhood's crest of two swords and a Koran was chosen by the organization's founder, Hassan Al-Bana, as a symbol of jihad against the Zionists in Palestine and the British in Egypt, and that it continued to represent the struggle against anyone who threatened Islam. Badi' stressed that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a violent organization — that its members would not take up arms against other Muslims or against non-combatants, but only against the enemies of Allah, as they did when the movement took part in the defense of Palestine in the 1948 war. He added: "We will continue to raise the banner of jihad — two swords and a Koran — as long as the Zionists raise their flag, with two blue stripes to represent their so-called state [reaching] from the Nile to the Euphrates. And the [Muslim] brotherhood will continue to view the Jews and Zionists as their first and foremost enemies."[6] In one of his weekly sermons, Badi' even called for the abrogation of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel: "Did the wars with the Zionists end, as Sadat said when he declared in the Zionist Knesset, 'Tell your children that the October War was the last war?' Did the peace agreement realize the hopes of the Ummah or was it a foul and counterfeit peace based on concessions? Would revising or even nullifying the agreement be tantamount to declaring war? After all, the Zionist entity violated all of its commitments and never honored a single agreement, yet [nobody has accused it of] declaring war... "Therefore, we must first of all free ourselves from this agreement, since the Zionists violated it with their ongoing war, their rapacious aggression against Gaza, and their assassinations of resistance leaders... Secondly, we must prepare ourselves well for confronting open military threats. Why do they cling to [their vision of] Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates? What is the reason for their annual maneuvers in preparation for the next war? Thirdly, we must be God-fearing and persistent, remain patient and support the resistance... Victory is not impossible so long as the resistance carries on..."[7] In another sermon, Badi' said: "...Fighting for it and defending it is an obligation, and abandoning it is a sin. Gestures of kindness toward the Zionists and their allies, and maintaining relations with them are [tantamount to] a war against Allah, His religion, and the Muslims... Jihad for the restoration of Palestine and Al-Aqsa is an individual duty incumbent upon every Muslim. Everyone is required to defend the holy places — and especially Jerusalem — and to protect them...." The sermon continued: "Despite [the fact] that 'Israel' possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons, despite [the fact] that the U.S. embraces [Israel], and despite the Arab concessions, [Israel] will have no security on our occupied land. It is a transient phenomenon that shall pass. The Prophet Muhammad brought us the tidings that a decisive war would break out between the Jews and the Muslims, and that the Muslims and Islam would emerge victorious. This prophecy is what gives us hope. Thus said the Prophet Muhammad [in a hadith]: 'Before Judgment Day arrives, the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jews hide behind stones and trees. The stones or the trees will say: 'Oh Muslim! Oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him' — except for the Gharqad tree [which will not betray Jews who hide behind it], for it is the tree of the Jews.' Therefore, we say that Israel is bound for perdition, whereas Al-Aqsa will remain as long as the world endures..."[8] "The Hour is Near when [We will] Rid the Ummah of this Foreign Body [Israel] that has been Malevolently Planted in Its Midst" Badi' continued in this vein in another Friday sermon: "The truth of the matter is that the Zionists are too wretched and weak to be an invincible power as they, or the defeatist in spirit among us, are trying to claim. For the honorable Koran described these cowards clearly: 'Ignominy shall be their portion wherever they are found, unless [they grasp] a rope from Allah and a rope from men' [Koran 3:112]... The Zionists' [current] superiority is temporary and an anomaly. Left to themselves, without the 'rope from men,' they would return to the baseness and wretchedness that is part of their nature. They have not defeated our Ummah thanks to any inherent strength of their own, and they would not succeed [at all] were it not for our weakness and laxity... "What has been done, and is still being done to the Zionist enemy by the [spiritual] descendents of [Hassan] Al-Bana [founder of the Muslim Brotherhood] and of [famous Palestinian fighters 'Izz Al-Din] Al-Qassam, [Ahmad] Yassin, and ['Abd Al-'Aziz] Al-Rantisi, and by all the pure and righteous resistance forces, is one of the most important signs that [the Zionists'] superiority is ending, and that the claims about the invincible strength of the Zionist entity are false... "There is no doubt that the dawn of victory is coming, and that the hour is near when [we will] rid the Ummah of this foreign body that has been malevolently planted in its midst... [especially] since [the events in] South Lebanon and Gaza have revealed the Zionist tiger to be a paper tiger. But we must... support the suicide operations of the young jihadists in Palestine, attacks that have cause the Zionists to quake in fear and lose sleep, until their hearts have melted with fright. Behold, the Zionists are retreating, and the truth is pressing on... It is a holy duty to support the citizens of Jerusalem with money, equipment, and in any [other] way, [but] not through normalization with the Zionist enemy or attempts to grovel to it..."[9] Endnotes: [1] It should be noted that Badi's deputy general guide, Dr.
Mahmoud 'Izzat, was recently released after having been arrested on
suspicion of serving as the Muslim Brotherhood's secret chairman. See
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2869, "In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood
Officials Accused of Setting Up Terror Cells," March 22, 2010,
[2] www.ikhwanonline.com, April 1, 2010. [3] www.ikhwanonline.com, March 7, 2010. [4] www.ikwanonline.com, April 22, 2010. [5] For a video clip of the interview, see:
[6] www.ikhwanonline.com, April 15, 2010. [7] www.ikhwanonline.com, April 8, 2010. [8] www.ikhwanonline.com, March 11, 2010. [9] www.ikhwaonline.com, May 20, 2010. Tree imagePlease remember the environment before printing. For assistance, please contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request. MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution. MEMRI Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
EUROIDS DUMBER THAN ISRAELIS
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 2, 2010. |
|
The Israelis were dumb when they obeyed the Olmert/Sharon/Peres diktat that handed off Israel's land to the arab invaders who came from hell-knows-where in order to tunnel into Gaza. The invaders were called 'palestinians' by the even dumber Israelis as well as the deceitful US State Department — already corrupted by Saudi money. But the Euroids are dumber by a factor of 1000 because they support the Turkish invasion of Israel by their crazy proxies (some are Chicago — bred buddies of BHussein O) to illegally enter Israel's waters in their attempt to use Gaza as a Turkish-controlled land-bridge into Israel. Now that the stupid Euroids have aligned with the Turkish invasion they have created a precedent for disemboweling themselves, for who among them can now blame the next wave of proxies to invade Spain, Ireland, or France on behalf of another state? Better off still, thanks to the Euroid primitives, will be the gangsters of any nation who choose to invade Europe on the pretext of delivering aid to those whom they decide are perhaps under-paid or in prison or simply to give aid and synpathy to whomsoever the invaders choose to succor at the expense of the invaded city or state. Just wait until the next araq wave swarms onto the disputed island of Perejil — or when Argentine NGOs decide to enter the Falkland Islands with their claim that they are merely invading to feed the sheep. The Euroids are as disgusting as the US State Dept. both of whom have aided and abetted the arab invaders by sending them (US taxpayer funds) to purchase weapons and bombs aimed not only at Israel but also the Suez Canal. Israel is right to defend against Obama's dear friends who, with Jimmy Carter's blessings, are hellbent on invading Israel and who use every trick and lie to incite the crazy arabs to slaughter innocent women and children. And Reuters goes nutz because the lies and the excitement and the blood puffs up their bottom line. Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the US-based SC4Z. We say: Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea and give the Islamics and the Hashemites a good strong taste of their own poison. Heaven knows the Islamics are asking for it. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
MORE INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT ABOUT THE "GAZA FREEDOM FLOTILLA"
Posted by Ron Mossad, June 2, 2010. |
|
The whole world is against us, nevermind we'll overcome |
|
We all knew this story wasn't going away anytime soon. Well, some new details are emerging about the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" that the Israelis attempted to search on Monday when they were met with knives and metal rods to the face. From the Jerusalem Post: In a statement to reporters at the port on Tuesday, Colonel Moshe Levi, commander of the IDF's Gaza Strip Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA), said that none of the equipment found on board the three cargo ships was in shortage in Gaza. Very important to note is the fact that this is all equipment that Israel regularly allows into Gaza every single day of every single week. There was NO NEED for this confrontation. There was NO NEED for this loss of life. "The cargo ships were loaded haphazardly, with all of the equipment mixed up in the large holds. Ships loaded in this way would not be accepted in any port. We are loading the equipment on the trucks far more carefully than it was loaded on to the ships," he said. Unreal. But wait, there's more. Also from the JPost: According to the defense officials, the IDF has identified about 50 passengers on the ship who could have terrorist connections with global jihad-affiliated groups. Bulletproof vests? Night-vision goggles?! What peaceful purpose are those used for, exactly? And I wonder what Hamas could do with envelopes packed with cash? Let's also keep in mind that Hamas regularly attempts to import weapons by sea and has been caught in the act by Israel in the past. There's a very legitimate reason why Israel needs to inspect everything before it goes in to Gaza. Here's the bottom line. FACT: Israel is currently in a state of war with Hamas which controls Gaza. FACT: The Hamas charter outright calls for the destruction of Israel. FACT: Israel has the capability to flatten all of Gaza and all of Hamas within a span of approximately 2 hours. FACT: Hamas has fired thousands upon thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and has terrorized the Israeli population for over two decades now. FACT: In a state of war, a nation has no legal obligation to allow its enemy to receive goods by sea — especially when those goods are often used to KILL its own citizens! But you know all this already or you wouldn't be reading this right now.
What you may not know is that Israel not only tolerates a hostile entity on its border but ALLOWS international donors to deliver all sorts of materials, food and medicine to this hostile entity on a DAILY basis. Had the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" gone about their business through normal channels and delivered their goods the way thousands of tons are delivered everyday, these 10 knife-wielding "peace activists" would still be alive today. But it should be PAINFULLY clear by now that the goal here was not humanitarian aid, rather it was to provoke Israel into giving people something to yell about. And in case you don't believe me about the aid being delivered, you can follow http://twitter.com/idfspokesperson (note it's spokesPERSON not MAN — Israel is still the only liberal democracy in the Middle East) on Twitter and get updates like this: 99 truckloads (2,129 tons) of humanitarian aid + 300,000 liters of diesel fuel were imported into Gaza yesterday. 9:16 AM May 31st via web Wow! What a crippling blockade! Millions upon millions of tons of aid come in, medical patients come out. That's right kids, the brutal Israeli apartheid regime allows dozens of Palestinians into their hospitals everyday (that they supposedly discriminate against) where they toil endlessly to SAVE THEIR LIVES. They have an entire system whose purpose is to separate their Hamas enemies from the innocent Palestinians that Hamas uses and abuses in order to maintain their ACTUAL apartheid regime. You know what else Hamas does? They hijack these "aid" shipments, steal the medicine, sell it to its own starving population and then USES THE MONEY to buy rockets that they then shoot at Israeli schoolchildren. You understand that? Why should Israel bother expending all this effort to avoid Hamas and help the Palestinian civilians if they're as bad as everyone regularly makes them out to be? Why let anything in at all to a population that democratically elected Hamas, if their goal is to just destroy destroy destroy? Oh and by the way, do you know who DOESN'T put up with Hamas? You know who DOESN'T allow millions of tons of aid into Gaza everyday? The Egyptians — anyone want to start a protest at Egyptian embassies? Free Gaza! End the Egyptian blockade! Ridiculous. I'm not asking these questions just for the sake of asking them. Everywhere around you there are people who don't read past the bloody headlines and make uninformed comments and assumptions based on the propaganda put out by the other side. I want someone from the pro-flotilla brigade to answer these questions. Who's going to step up and explain this to me? I'll debate anyone, anytime on this matter. Anyone, anytime. But more importantly — who among you is going to step up and answer the NONSENSE that's flying all over world about this? I will NOT accept that we have to just concede the media to the other side. I will NOT concede that truth will be defeated by lies...because anyone who condemns Israel over this is LYING to you. You get that? You are being LIED to. It is imperative that we do NOT allow them to control the public opinion, we ALL have to speak up and speak LOUDLY. There was NO NEED for a confrontation. There was NO NEED for violence — which was initiated by the passengers and NOT the Israelis. The ship was NOT delivering humanitarian aid, they were delivering toys, bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles. Anything else they had onboard was being delivered by land the same day with no incident, as it has been every other day for the past several years. The passengers were NOT humanitarians, many of them were terrorists or had ties to terrorist organizations. They held demonstrations on-board that called for violence against Jews, glorified the intifada and warned that the "army of Muhammad" would defeat the Jews. Anyone who tells you any different is LYING to you. Call them out on it EVERY TIME they open their mouths and shut them down. We do not have to sit quietly and play their impossible game anymore. You've got the facts, you've got the videos, it's all right in front of you between this post and the one from Monday. Do NOT let them get away with it.
This appeared at
|
|
PILAR RAHOLA ASKS: WHY?
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 2, 2010. |
|
This below is by Pilar Rahola, who is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left. Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America. Here she addresses that pro-Palestinian demonstrations: |
|
Why don't we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona? Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship? Why aren't there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection? Why aren't there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam? Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan? Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel? Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism? Why don't they defend Israel 's right to exist? Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism? And finally, the million dollar question: Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn't care.
And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: "We want freedom for the people!" Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press. The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don't inform, they propagandize. When reporting about Israel, the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren't any accusations left to level against her. At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel ; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain. And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel w eb site. I quote from the expulsion document: "Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel." In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70's and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel. This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East, he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the L eb anon conflict is no coincidence; it's a symbol. Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. An yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world. And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.
Conclusion: I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews. As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles. Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say, that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty, I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too. The struggle of Israel, even if the world doesn't want to accept it, is the struggle of the world. This article appeared in: http://www.educationnews.org/political/ 78622.html http://israelseen.com/2009/12/30/pilar-rahola- is-a-spanish-politician-journalist-and-activist/ http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/ 25775/%E2%80%98the-struggle-of-the-world% E2%80%99/ |
|
OBAMA TOLD NETANYAHU: GO HOME, DON'T EXPLAIN FROM HERE
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 2, 2010. |
|
In the hubbub surrounding the "battle of the flotilla," Netanyahu's quick reversal of his decision to remain in the United States has been largely ignored. It turns out that Obama told him to leave because he didn't want Netanyahu to use the White House as a stage on which to present Israel's side of the story. The flotilla violence caught Netanyahu in the midst of a diplomatic trip to North America. He was in the Canadian capital of Ottawa at the time, about to leave for Washington for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. The meeting was to have been a way for Obama to make up for the humiliation he dealt Netanyahu on his last visit, when he refused to be seen with the Israeli leader in public. Netanyahu announced immediately after the flotilla news broke that he would remain in North America and would meet with Obama as scheduled. However, within minutes after media reported Netanyahu would continue with his trip as scheduled, he abruptly announced a change of plan and set off immediately for Israel to "deal with the flotilla crisis." Behind the scenes, it was Obama officials who caused the turnabout. The Globe cites sources in both Jerusalem and Washington who say that Obama officials gave a clear message to Netanyahu's people: "Don't come." Officials in both Washington and Jerusalem deny that this was the case. Some sources said that it was precisely the high-profile nature of the visit that scared the Americans. The White House did not wish Obama to be seen sharing the stage with the leader of the country that was under international attack for having "attacked peace activists." Netanyahu, for his part, was looking forward to explaining to the world from Washington that the violent activists on the boat in question were "terror activists" with ties to Hamas and Al-Qaeda, who attempted to lynch the minimally-armed soldiers as they rappelled down down their helicopter. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
ISRAELI ACTION AGAINST SO-CALLED FREEDOM FLOTILLA
Posted by Boris Celser, June 2, 2010. |
|
This was written by B. Raman, who is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, currently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com |
|
According to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the so-called Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza, which was intercepted by the Israeli Navy in international waters on May 31,2010,consisted of three cargo ships and three passenger ships. 2.Most of the casualties were reported on Mavi Marmara, a passenger ferry, one of three ships provided by Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), a Turkish humanitarian organisation,which is also known as the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief — IHH. It is banned in Israel, which accuses it of links to Hamas and Al Qaeda. The other ships were organised by the Free Gaza Movement, an international coalition of activist groups 3.The ships were reportedly carrying supplies including cement, wheelchairs, paper and water purification systems. The flotilla's nearly 700 passengers were mainly Turkish, but also included nationals of the US, the UK, Australia, Greece, Canada, Belgium, Ireland, the Swedish author Henning Mankell, two Australian journalists and three German MPs. 4.According to reports from Pakistan, there were also some Pakistanis on board the IHH ferry. The Pakistani authorities were trying to enquire what happened to them. While the Israeli authorities were prepared to allow the humanitarian supplies to reach the people of Gaza after inspecting them at a port designated by them, the organisers of the flotilla were opposed to any inspection of the cargo by the Israeli authorities. 5.Israeli fears over the passengers on board the ships and over their contents were understandable because of strong suspicions nursed by the intelligence and security authorities of many countries over the background of the IHH, which came into existence in 1992 ostensibly to provide humanitarian assistance to the Muslims of Bosnia. Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, with the connivance of the Bill Clinton Administration then in power in the US, helped the Bosnian Muslims in their fight against the Serbs. 6.Many Bosnian Muslims were brought to Pakistan for being trained in the camps of the Markaz Dawa Al Irshad (MDI) as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET,) was then known and then taken back to Bosnia. There was considerable flow of money and arms and ammunition to the Bosnian separatists. Many Pakistanis from Pakistan itself as well as from the Pakistani diaspora in the UK were trained by the JUD and taken to Bosnia for participating in the jihad against the Serbs. Some Indian-origin Muslims from Saudi Arabia were also taken to Bosnia. 7.All these activities for the provision of volunteers, money and arms and ammunition to the Bosnian separatists were allegedly co-ordinated by the IHH, under the cover of a humanitarian organisation, with the collaboration of the MDI. Amongst the Pakistanis who played an active role in organising assistance for the Bosnians through the IHH and the MDI were Lt.Gen.(retd) Hamid Gul and Lt.Gen (retd).Assad Durrani, former heads of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the then Amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI, and Prof.Hafeez Ahmed Sayeed, who was then the Amir of the MDI. Lt.Gen. Assad Durrani, who was posted as the Pakistani Ambassador to Germany by Mrs.Benazir Bhutto, the then Pakistani Prime Minister, co-ordinated the assistance from the Ummah to the Bosnians. 8.All these Pakistanis frequently used to visit Bosnia. Mrs.Benazir herself made a joint visit to Bosnia along with Mrs.Tansu Ciller, the then Turkish Prime Minister, in February 1994. Among Pakistani volunteers from the diaspora in the UK who allegedly worked for the IHH in Bosnia was Omar Sheikh, who is now in jail in Pakistan after having been sentenced to death for his role in the kidnapping and execution of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist, in Karachi in January-February,2002. He has appealed against the death sentence. 9.All indications from reliable Pakistani and other sources were that the IHH's role in Bosnia was not solely humanitarian. The humanitarian cover was allegedly used for keeping alive the Bosnian jihad and enabling it to succeed against the Serbs. The IHH allegedly played a similar role in Chechnya by helping the local Muslims in their jihad against the Soviet and then Russian troops. It then turned its attention to helping the Kashmiris by funding refugee camps for Kashmiris set up by the MDI and other Pakistani jihadi organisations in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK). These refugee camps also became training centres for training Kashmiri and Pakistani jihadis for fighting against the Indian security forces. 10.The IHH also played an active role, in collaboration with the JUD, in organising humanitarian relief after the devastating earthquake in the POK in 2005. The flow of money and other assistance from the Muslims in other countries for the quake victims was co-ordinated by the IHH. 11.The IHH has also been contributing funds to the International Islamic University in Pakistan, which has been providing ideological motivation to the jihadis fighting in Afghanistan. Amongst other Pakistani organisations with which the IHH has allegedly been collaborating are the Al Rashid Trust, which was designated by the US and the Terrorism Monitoring Committee of the UN Security Council after 9/11 as an organisation allegedly funding terrorism, and the Khubaib Foundation, which reportedly runs a network of orphanages. The Foundation frequently organises visits by IHH delegations to the POK and Gilgit-Baltistan. 12.The Israeli authorities have valid reasons to be concerned over the links of the IHH with the Hamas. One cannot find fault with their decision to stop the Flotilla in order to prevent its cargo from reaching Gaza uninspected. Any intelligence agency worth its salt would be concerned over the dangers of arms and ammunition and weapons of mass destruction material like material for dirty bombs being smuggled into Gaza along with the humanitarian cargo. It would have been the height of irresponsibility to have allowed the cargo to proceed to Gaza without being inspected. 13.It is tragic that there were casualties among the passengers of the ferry hired by the IHH, which was boarded by Israeli commandoes following resistance put up by the passengers of the ferry, but this could not have been helped. Israel exercised its right of self-defence to protect the lives of its citizens from any dangerous cargo carried by the ships. India should refrain from criticising Israel for its action. ( 2-6-10) Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
STOP THE HYPOCRISY ABOUT ISRAEL
Posted by Boris Celser, June 2, 2010. |
|
This below is by David Frum, CNN contributor, and it is
archived at
Story Highlights
|
|
New York (CNN) — Enjoy hypocrisy? This past weekend you could glut the appetite. On Monday, Israeli ships stopped a flotilla carrying materials that could be used for war, including cement that Israel maintained could be used to build bunkers, to Hamas-ruled Gaza. The crew of one boat resisted violently, triggering a firefight in which nine people were killed, most of them Turkish nationals. Turkey is protesting vigorously. But, question: Turkey is a NATO ally, an applicant to the European Union. What is it doing allowing its nationals to smuggle cement that could build bunkers? Especially when those nationals belong to a group, the Turkish IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi) that Israel has designated a terrorist organization? The flotilla departed from Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus. Turkey's occupation of half of Cyprus is deemed illegal by the European Union and the United Nations. If the government of Turkey feels so strongly about ending disputed occupations, why does it not start with the disputed occupation it is operating itself? The flotilla followed a breathtaking Friday at the United Nations. The 189 signatories of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty agreed on a final list of resolutions for a safer world. The nuclear threat from Iran? Unmentioned. Instead, the NPT resolution targeted — what a surprise — Israel. Shamefully, the Friday resolution was joined by the United States. Yes, the Obama administration issued a statement at the same time that "deplores the decision to single out Israel" and also "the failure of the resolution to mention Iran." The administration deplored — but it signed. The Obama administration's signature marks an abrupt departure from previous U.S. policy. Since the 1960s, the United States has accepted Israel's nuclear arsenal on condition that Israel not threaten its neighbors. Israel has more than met that condition. In 1973, Egypt outright invaded Israel, in full confidence that Israel would not go nuclear so long as Egypt stopped short of attacking Israel's cities. It's important to understand that Israel (like India and Pakistan) has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So Israel's nuclear force violates no commitments or pledges: unlike, say, the nuclear programs of Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran, to name just four of the Middle Eastern countries that have been caught violating the NPT. Iran by contrast is violating the NPT. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. And Iranian leaders have threatened to use the nuclear weapons they are seeking to annihilate Israel. On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has accumulated enough nuclear material for two bombs, when fully enriched. And the latest round of U.N. sanctions will do nothing to stop that bomb, because they omit the most crucial measures:
The measures adopted by the Security Council last week are not only toothless, but they even contain a loophole legalizing the sale of Russian air defenses to Iran, the better to protect nuclear facilities from action by the United States or Israel. OK, so maybe it is not news that the U.N. system is hypocritical and useless. What is news is this: The Obama administration has broken with 40 years of precedent and has affixed its signature to a document suggesting that it is Israel's weapons — not Iran's — that ought to be priority No. 1 in the Middle East. And now, post-flotilla, the Obama administration stands in danger of being drawn into the attempt to open Hamas-ruled Gaza to military-capable imports, and to force Israel to engage in some kind of negotiation with Hamas. Former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who is close to Obama administration thinking, outlined in the New York Times Monday the contours of just such a deal: "The administration needs to work on a package deal in which Hamas commits to preventing attacks from, and all smuggling into, Gaza. In return, Israel would drop the blockade and allow trade in and out." It's a pretty thought. Pro-Hamas groups did not go to the trouble of organizing a flotilla of supplies that could be used for war in order to end smuggling of war material into Gaza. Nor are pro-Hamas groups seeking to ship the material into Gaza in order to thwart future attacks on Israel. Rebuilding Hamas' bunkers is not a step toward peace. But as with the Obama administration's joining the anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations on Friday, followed by after-the-fact explanations that Israel had nothing to fear, so the Obama administration is now being drawn into another anti-Israel action, again cushioned by assurances that, "This is for your own good." Monday morning, ABC'S Jake Tapper reported an unnamed administration official promising "no daylight" between the United States and Israel. But the same administration official who promised "no daylight" also told Tapper: "The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure." Meaning: first we soothe you, then we squeeze you? The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
WESTERNERS INCREASINGLY BANNING MUSLIM FEMALE HEADGEAR;
OBAMA TILTS POLICY ON UN AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 2, 2010. |
|
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT CONTROVERSIAL IN ISRAEL Distributed without charge, Israel Hayom has become the Israeli daily with the second biggest circulation. The owner of a rival daily, Yediot Aharonot, found some principle why free newspapers should be banned, and got it to a Knesset vote, where he lost. The new newspaper breaks the mold of leftist uniformity in major Israeli media. Coincidentally, on the day it survived the attempt to ban it, Israel Hayom featured leftist professors in Israel abusing students who dispute their using classrooms for political indoctrination. The main article is based on a new report by the student organization, Im Tirtzu, documenting professors' bias against Zionism, which bias dominates academia. Weizmann Institute Prof. Eli Pollack, among others, testifies in it that Far Leftists control political dialog at Israeli universities, harass non-leftists, and threaten their careers. The paper does quote leftists' defense. For example, Rachel Giora of Tel Aviv University explains that the issues are not a matter of opinion but of facts, and the Far Left always has the facts correct. Two professors notorious for siding with the Arabs against Israel or supporting Holocaust denial, Neve Gordon and Norman Finkelstein, condemn Im Tirtzu as unreliable. Meretz MK Zehava Galon goes further, and claims the threat to freedom of thought comes from Im Tirtzu. Waiting until he retired from Hebrew University, political science Prof. Avraham Diskin agrees that Im Tirtzu is largely correct. He adds that in the Social Science chat list for professors, dozens of smears of non-leftists appeared recently, but replies are censored. My source, Prof. Steven Plaut, once was accused on the list of placing the bomb in front of [Far Leftist] Zev Sternhell, but was blocked from replying in self-defense (Plaut, 5/31/10). So far, the Israeli Left considers that freedom thought means that it may condemn the Right, and try to block its access to newspaper publishing, but if the Right argues back, that is an attempt to repress freedom of thought. The government withholds radio broadcasting rights from right-wingers. Prof. Plaut is referring to the leftist custom of blaming the whole right wing for what one person does, in that cases, not even knowing who did it. This general smear is a major attempt to repress freedom of thought.
IRAN AND U.S. AND ISRAELI SUBS AND RAIDS AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES Iran confirms having sighted a U.S. sub in the Strait of Hormuz, but denies media reports of Israeli subs also being there. Iran warns Israel not to miscalculate, lest Iran devastate it. Iran claims that its nuclear development is just to provide energy for when its oil runs out. It states that there is no proof otherwise. If attacked by either the U.S. or Israel over it, it would retaliate against the U.S. bases in the region and close down oil shipments (IMRA, 5/31/10). affecting many countries. Nuclear or not, Israel would be within its rights to attack Iran, for training, financing, arming terrorists who attack Israel. The U.S. would be within its rights to attack Iran for arming insurgents in Iraq and for doing some of the fighting. The U.S. is not inclined to raid Iran. Obama is not facilitating any Israeli attempt. Obama may be disarming the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Then where would the U.S. be when rogue states violate the treaty and attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons? In any case, suppose Israel does manage to raid Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran would consider that aggression. Wouldn't its retaliation against the U.S. be aggression? Why would it block oil shipments to uninvolved countries? If willing to do that, should anybody take seriously Iran's statements about what is fair and unfair? It makes sense for oil states to develop sources of energy in advance of their running out of it. The U.S. should have. Iran could have done so within the bounds of the treaty it signed. Instead, it violated the treaty and develops nuclear facilities in ways that indicate to any reasonable person that it is developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. A fair jury would bring in a verdict against Iran. Some of Iran's defenders have a specious line of defense. They assert that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. Nobody contests that, so what is the point to that defense? The point must be to divert attention from what people do contest, that Iran is violating the nuclear treaty and doing so in ways that lead to weaponry. The defenders never answer the question, since the treaty allows nuclear development for energy, why does Iran violate the treaty and lie about it for decades? GAZA INFILTRATORS STOPPED DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS Two Palestinian Arab terrorists attempted to infiltrate into Israel. They exchanged fire with an Israeli patrol, and were shot dead (IMRA, 6/1/10). Hamas often calls its gunmen civilians, so Israel would be condemned. Next one supposes they will call for the Security Council to condemn Israeli attacks on "innocent civilians" in Gaza. This is what Israel has to put up with on the ground, while the Palestinian Authority airwaves praise terrorists and their religious leaders promise those who'll fall in jihad a VIP pass to Paradise. Religion in the hands of terrorists is a terrible thing to have wasted. Some readers contend that I espouse hatred. Nonsense. I report the hatred that the jihadist segment is known for, as it preaches hatred all over the word and kills here a Hindu, there a Jew, elsewhere a black Sudanese Muslim, and then a Christian.
WESTERNERS INCREASINGLY BANNING MUSLIM FEMALE HEADGEAR 
Most Muslim women in Western countries do not war the face-covering Burkas and Niqabs, but laws are being passed or introduced banning them. In Quebec, a bill was introduced prohibiting such clothing when giving or receiving a public service of any kind, including attending school. In Belgium, the lower house of Parliament passed unanimously a bill fining the wearing of face-concealing clothing in public. The French Cabinet drafted a bill proposing stiff fines for wearing such clothing as "contrary to the values of the Republic," and criminalizing husbands who compel their wives to wear it. Italy long has had a counter-terrorism law banning headgear that prevents identification. Now some towns are enforcing it. Just a few days ago, a town in Spain banning face-concealing women from public buildings. These legal efforts reflect unrest over the growing power of Islam in the West. They are not always thought out for significance and justification. The Swiss ban on new minarets seems irrelevant. Face-concealing, however, is a security consideration and a sign of apartness. (David J. Rusin, 5/31/10, on Islamist Watch) The U.S. long has had laws banning face-covering, in reaction against the Ku Klux Klan. In recent years, however, people covered their faces against the cold, without repercussion.
MORE GAZA AGGRESSION AGAINST ISRAEL From Gaza, Arab terrorists fired two more rockets into Israel. Israeli forces spotted a crew about to launch more rockets into Israel, but fired at them first. The Israeli rounds exploded the terrorists' rockets (IMRA, 6/1/10). Thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel without a single UN condemnation. Therefore, UN condemnation of Israel, being hypocritical, is suspected of bias and without moral force.
OBAMA TILTS POLICY ON UN AGAINST ISRAEL 
Ignoring the dangerous Iranian nuclear development and the still smoldering Korea ship-sinking that could renew the Korean War but with nuclear missiles, the U.S. not only let pass a hasty UN Security Council resolution against Israel, on the flotilla, it voted for it. [This is while Sec. of State Clinton was asserting that the U.S. won't condemn any parties to the flotilla folly until it is investigated]. The U.S. expressed sympathy for civilian suffering in Gaza. It ignored civilian suffering in Israel, fired upon from Gaza, with the approval of civilians in Gaza. Some Israeli suffering is due to smuggling by sea, which the flotilla was intended to open up to large-scale shipments. The resolution reflected the Muslim bloc scenario that all the passengers were humanitarians, including thugs using metal pipes to set upon Israeli troops. The scenario treats the blockade in isolation. It omits the context of Gaza being run by irredentist terrorists who seek to smuggle in weapons with which to attack Israelis. It does not mention Hamas. Based on that crucial omission, the Council concludes that Israel has no legitimate interest in the ships' cargo. The resolution omitted the legal justification for the blockade. After condemning Israel, the cart-before-the-horse resolution calls for an impartial investigation. UN investigations are not impartial. We saw that with Gaza and other investigations. Incidentally, for those of us who object to apartheid, Judge Goldstone enforced the Union of South Africa's apartheid laws by imposing the death penalty multiple times. He said that was the law. A man of conscience would have resigned. One of his qualifications for the post was his reputation as a jurist. The Human Rights Commission is not impartial, either. It has condemned Israel more than the other 191 members combined. [The Commission can't agree on helping people persecuted all over the world, to it picks on Israel.] The U.S. did not object to proposals that the UN Human Rights Commission violate some of its own rules and began spending whole days on the flotilla issue, aiming for a resolution of its own. The U.S. said it would approve any resolution consistent with the Security Council resolution. That resolution was one-sided. At the Commission, the Organization of Islamic Conference indicated that the real intent of its drive on the embargo is to reduce Israel's ability to defend itself. The right to self-defense guards the right to exist. The Obama administration also approved a nuclear resolution that ignored problems with signatories to the nuclear treaty who issue threats, but singled out non-signatories such as Israel, and yet ignored Israel's security peril. Obama does not seem to be improving relations with Israel (IMRA, 6/1/10 from Anne Bayevsky of UN Watch)
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:
|
|
TURKEY RESPONSIBLE FOR FLOTILLA DEATHS
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 2, 2010. |
|
This was written by David A. Ridenour, V.P., the National Center for Public Policy Research. The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. |
|
The international community should be denouncing Turkey, not Israel, for the loss of life on the so-called "Freedom Flotilla." That's because Turkey, the flag state of the ship, had an obligation to ensure that the ships making up the flotilla adhered to international law. It didn't. Though neither Turkey nor Israel are parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty presumably spells out what the states ratifying the treaty believe to be acceptable rules of behavior. Many of those countries are now, rather hypocritically, denouncing Israel. The Free Gaza Movement announced its intention to breach Israel's barricade of Gaza — requiring it to violate Israel's territorial waters. Article 19 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that "any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal state" or "the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws or regulations of the coastal state" are deemed "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security" of that state. This flotilla — as with ones before it — would have done both if allowed to proceed. While Article 19 only gives the coastal state the authority to act within its territorial waters, the bloodshed may well have been greater had Israel waited until then. If reports are accurate that some activists carried arms, Israeli commandos would have lost the element of surprise. It also appears that Israel may have been within international norms in boarding the ship as all states have an obligation under Articles 109 and 110 of the treaty to stop unauthorized broadcasts (those intended for the general public, but not distress calls), including in international waters. The so-called "Freedom Flotilla" was broadcasting its voyage live. Blood is on Turkey's hands. President Obama should do the right thing and recall the U.S. ambassador. 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 |
|
KEEP IN MIND
Posted by Donny Mason, June 2, 2010. |
|
Please, Israel, keep in mind that Obama's policy and position on Gaza does NOT reflect the views of the majority of Americans. Hang in there! Elections are coming! Contact Donny Mason by email at mildon@hughes.net |
|
THE GAZA CONVOY, LOOKING FOR TROUBLE & GETTING IT
Posted by Susana K-M, June 2, 2010. |
|
This was written by Richard Z. Chesnoff. |
|
In the late 1980s, during what came to be known as the Second Palestinian Intifada, I was out on the road south of Jerusalem one day, on my way to cover the afternoon's rioting. Just outside Bethlehem I noticed a group of Palestinian teenage girls coming out of their school. The girls began hurling angry insults at a nearby unit of Israeli troops and then started throwing stones at them from a carefully prepared ammunition pile. The Israelis responded by revving up their motors and racing their jeeps towards the girls who first ran away, then quickly resumed their torrent of abuse and rocks. Eventually the Israelis opened up with tear gas canisters and one or two IDF boys fired off some rubber bullets. The girls began shrieking in terror. Three of them took refuge alongside my "PRESS" marked car. "See what they do to us," shouted said one of the girls in English! "Tell the world to make them stop!" Perhaps it was naive of me, but I turned to her and said, "maybe if you stop throwing stones at them, they'll stop shooting at you." To no avail. I thought of that 20-plus-year-old incident this morning when I heard about the events off the shores of Gaza aboard the Turkish ferry the Mavi Marmara. No one likes to see needless death and injury. But let's not mistake it. While I'm sure there were some well meaning souls aboard the ship, the so-called "humanitarian flotilla" to Gaza was primarily a deliberate Islamist political provocation aimed at breaking the Israeli-Egyptian security blockade of Gaza and embarrassing Israel — no matter what the cost. Cypriot authorities had wisely refused to allow the flotilla to set sail from its shores. Israeli authorities had clearly warned the flotilla days ago that it would not allow any of its ships to land anywhere in Gaza — which is sealed to make sure that arms do not arrive for the Hamas and other terrorist groups that rule there to use against Israel and its population — something that Gazans have been doing since Israel withdrew from that wretched stretch of land in 2005. In fact the Israelis had announced several times last week that if the convoy of six ships would divert to the Israeli port of Ashdod, Israel would allow it to offload its aid shipments and then after inspection (to insure they didn't include military contraband) would facilitate their direct delivery to Gaza and its people — just as Israel allows 10 to15,000 tons of humanitarian aid to be delivered to Gaza each week. Five of the six ships agreed. But the sixth, the Mavi Marmara, ignored Israeli warnings. it was clearly looking for a fight. Small wonder. Like much of the flotilla, the Turkish ship was controlled by militants of IHH, a Turkish relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. In addition to legitimate philanthropic activities, IHH supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas. It also has had ties to global jihad groups. When Israeli marine and naval units tried to board the Mavi Marmara from helicopters, militants on the ship responded by attacking them violently with poles, iron rods and firebombs, threw some of the Israelis into the sea, tried to lynch one, stole weapons and according to some reports, actually opened fire. The Israelis eventually opened live fire themselves and we know the rest. In the days ahead, we will hear another outburst of enthusiastic outrage against Israel — just as we did when Israel attacked Gaza last December to defend itself against Palestinian rockets. Some of my Huffington Post colleagues have already begun. But please remember who caused this incident and why they caused it. And imagine how U.S. Marines would have reacted had they been attacked by a flotilla of foreign vessels trying to break an American imposed blockade. When will the agony end? When Hamas and other Palestinians renounce their sworn goal of destroying the Jewish state and agree to live in peace and prosperity with their Israeli neighbors. No blockade of Gaza will be needed then. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
LONE JEW FACES PRO-PALESTINIANS OUTSIDE ISRAEL'S CONSULATE IN L.A.
Posted by Hillel Fendel, June 2, 2010. |
|
A loud and angry mob of pro-Arab demonstrators outside the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles on Tuesday became even more enraged when one, lone Jewish high school student with a yarmulke and a large Israeli flag marched fearlessly alongside them. Lone Jew among the marching morons. The young man seemed to be unmoved by the angry curses hurled at him by the American-Arab crowd. Though protected by a line of policemen, it appeared he could be attacked at any moment. Reporters asked him afterwards about his unusual presence, and he explained, "I came out because I want to defend Israel... They [the soldiers attempting to divert the flotilla ships — ed.] were attacked, and they had the right to defend [themselves]. These people [on the boats] were not humanitarians; their ship was armed with knives, batons, and all kinds of things to attack the Israelis with. There is a naval blockade on Gaza, and they [the soldiers] were just doing their job of enforcing it... Hamas is a terrorist organization trying to kill Israelis." Asked if he is affiliated with any group, he said, "Just Judaism and Israel, that's it." Asked how he knows that the ship was filled with arms, he said, "I know from the news; I'm an informed person." This contrasted with the Arab-Americans who appear at the end of the video. One girl said that a Palestinian state alongside Israel would not satisfy her, as "there should not be an Israeli state! The Israeli state does not even exist!" Another Arab-speaking American explained, "The only reason Israel is doing this is because they got kicked out from, uh, the German whatever, whatever happened to them. So they're trying to take out their anger to someone else." Asked about the Bible and the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel since the times of King Solomon, he lowered his voice and said, "I don't know about that."
Editor's Note: This video is also available at Israel Truth Times. Video from Israel Truth Times. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
A FRIGHTENING AND HARROWING WORLD
Posted by Victor Sharpe, June 2, 2010. |
|
Friends: The title of my article appearing today in The Jerusalem Connection — A Frightening and Harrowing World — sums up what Barack Hussein Obama is ushering in by his subservience to the Muslim world and his undoubted hatred for both embattled Israel and for America as it is currently constituted. The outrageous attitude towards Israel as it tries to defend itself from all attempts of rearming and supporting the monstrous Islamic Hamas regime in Gaza has brought about a final understanding of how frightening and harrowing our world may soon become as we begin the second decade of the 21st century, and if we allow Obama and his henchmen to succeed in imposing his agenda. Victor |
|
Barack Hussein Obama, the President of our United States of America, hates Israel and always has. He also hates America as it is presently constituted and he will work to bring down both the reconstituted Jewish state in its ancient and biblical homeland along with this glorious republic that is America. Before and since coming to power, this president has surrounded himself with people like Rashid Khalidi, a one-time spokesman for the Islamist Hamas terror organization and offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood: In other words, those who are Islamic haters of Jews and Christians and whose followers have committed persecutions and slaughters down the ages — and still do. As a mirror image to the Muslim haters of the Jewish people, Obama also has surrounded himself with people like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose perverted form of Christianity, along with elements of Replacement Theology, has also been responsible for anti-Jewish persecutions and slaughters down the ages. As Mark Levin inferred in his Talk Radio program the other day, this Obama regime, the Democrat Party, and the grotesquely compliant Congress has made this world a much more dangerous place. What are we to make, for instance, of our president calling the Turkish Prime Minister and expressing his condolences for the deaths of jihadist and Islamist thugs masquerading as "peace-activists" on board what I describe as "The Flotilla of Lies and Violence?" One word to describe Obama's obeisance to the Turkish prime minister is: "shameful." But no outrage came from this president towards the activities of the Turkish leader who deliberately and cynically connived in sending a convoy of ships full of jihadists and their misguided supporters to aid and abet the murderous Hamas regime; a regime which calls for the genocide of the Jews in Israel and the destruction of the tiny and embattled Jewish state. For those "peace-loving activists" who were on board some of the ships, Lenin had a phrase for them: He called them, "useful idiots." Obama's earlier outreach at Cairo to the Muslim world — a world of some 57 regimes, dictatorships, kingdoms, emirates and tyrannies, all stuck in the 7th century — was warning enough for those of us who still cherish the fundamental freedoms of expression, of the press, of free assembly, of religion and of the rights of women and minorities, that the United States of America has given us and the world. These essential and divinely inspired freedoms do not exist in the Muslim world. Is it any wonder then that they hate us for not submitting to their rigid Islamic and Koranic strictures? Let's look at the Islamic, anti-Western IHH — the chief supporter of the flotilla to Gaza — which poses as a humanitarian relief fund (Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation), while supporting Hamas and several Jihadist organizations in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. IHH was involved with Ahmed Ressam, an Islamic terrorist, who attempted to smuggle 1,320 pounds of explosives and plant them at the Los Angeles International Airport. According to French intelligence, Bulent Yildirim, the president of IHH, recruited "Jihadi warriors" and transferred money, firearms and explosives to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in various countries. He also ran "peace convoys" from Syria into the Fallujah Triangle in Iraq; convoys which carried IEDs and weapons used to kill American soldiers. It would seem inconceivable for President Obama or his State Department not to know this. So now we have the Muslim world predictably calling for Israel to be isolated, to be made into a pariah state for the crime of trying to defend itself. Add to it the nations of that charnel house called Europe, which has spewed upon the world stage Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and before them an endless parade of monsters and despots. Most alarmingly of all, we now have the Obama regime and much of the western media siding more and more with the thugdoms and rogue regimes in this benighted, early 21st century world. So inevitably Israel is being portrayed as brutal and unconcerned for the human rights of the militants on board the flotilla. Hamas and the many other Islamic terror organizations, who relentlessly commit unspeakable atrocities against the human rights of women and non-Muslims, are adept at masterfully playing the Western world, its press and governments, for the suckers they truly are. The pro-Hamas flotilla of lies and violence was concerned not with genuine human rights but with providing the trigger and excuse for a future Arab and Muslim war of genocide against Israel. Just as Hitler's Nazi regime systematically demonized the stateless and defenseless Jews as a precursor to the Holocaust, so the Muslim world and the immoral Europeans, and too many in America, repeat the storyline. The end result is that Israel, as so often, is caught in a "No-Win" situation and must ultimately use force to stop the aggression and depredations of the Hamas terror organization. Whether Hamas and the Islamists unleash incessant rocket fire into Israeli towns and villages, kidnap Israelis, inflict terror attacks, or bring a flotilla of so-called "peace activists" to Gaza, Israel is brought to a position that it must act; to not do so is ultimately to commit national suicide. It is worth repeating: Much of the mainstream press consistently refuses to accept or understand how they are being relentlessly manipulated by Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamists and Jihadists. We are witness today to the radical Left joining in an unholy alliance with the Islamic world and supporting the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria — all Muslim groups and states that will crush the Left if the worldwide Islamic Caliphate ever comes to power: And all joining gleefully in the anti-Israel hate-fest. If any advice can be given to Jewish Americans and others it is to jettison ties with a Democrat party that has lurched so far to the left that it is unrecognizable as the Democrat party of their parents and grandparents time. The same goes for those Catholic and Protestant Americans whose values also are now being betrayed by both this president and the Democrats in the House and Senate. The only hope is for citizens to realize that in America this November the election for House and Senate members is the most crucial that America has perhaps ever faced. Without a massive brake on the power of Obama's agenda — and on those who surround him — we truly face a frightening and harrowing world.
Victor Sharpe is the author of the two volume book, Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.
Contact him at janvic@verizon.net.
This article is archived at
|
|
FLOTILLA OF TERROR
Posted by Asher Eder, June 2, 2010. |
|
Had such type of humanitarians and peace lovers like those of the flotilla been around during World War II, most likely they would have demonstrated on behalf of the "poor German citizens who suffered soooo much from the cruel bombings by the RAF", and would have demanded from Churchill to drop candies and chocolates so as to show the German civilians how much better it would be for them to go along with England (and the USA) ... Even more strange, Hamas which rules Gaza, is officially recognized as a terror organization; and no one has diplomatic relations with them (in contrast to the world-wide "normal" relations then nazi-Germany) — and yet suddenly a majority of the nations charges Israel for defending herself against that murderous Hamas entity. Apparently, contempt for Israel got the upper-hand, perhaps as an outcome of unacknowledged guilt-feelings for abandoning the Jews persecuted by the nazis... Contact Asher Eder by email at avrason@netvision.net.il |
|
COMMENTARY ON PETER BEINERT'S "THE FAILURE OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT"
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, June 2, 2010. |
|
Once again an academic quotes factual material and then manages to re-interpret the facts to promote his own agenda. A fine example of this phenomenon is Peter Beinert's article, The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment. Of course, the title itself is judgmental. By whose standard is something a failure? Steven J. Rosen, former AIPAC foreign policy director, writing in the Middle East Forum May 23, 2010, in response to Beinart, and using his own standard of failure states, Mainstream pro-Israel organizations are in fact booming, thank you. AIPAC's income from donations is now five times what it was in 2000, and sixty times what it was when I joined the organization in 1982. It is growing commensurately in membership (including young people) and influence too. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee are also roaring tigers. Beinert's 4900 word tome appears in The New York Review of Books, ultra liberal supplement to the NY Times. The article presents Beinert's so-called liberal agenda, using as a launching point the fact that in 2003, prominent Jewish philanthropists, tried to find out how to help Jewish students on college campuses. Jewish college students for years have had to deal with well-financed fanatical Arab students armed with professionally orchestrated anti-Semitic agendas and anti-Israel propaganda. The philanthropists hired well known pollster and political analyst Frank Luntz. Luntz's task was to try and figure out what had gone wrong — why the Jewish students seemed unable to defend themselves against the onslaught. In short order, Luntz found that most Jewish college students were simply not involved with Israel. Further inquiry re-enforced this indifference with the students mouthing the usual sophomorish, supposedly high-minded but, in fact, simply uninformed platitudes. The students stated that they: 'Reserve the right to criticize Israel', They 'desperately want peace' (as if the Israelis do not), They empathize with the plight of the downtrodden Palestinians and they have Muslim friends that are good people, etc. etc." Beinert jumped on this, concluding that the college students must be "liberals" Great! How many of us were not "liberals" in college days? It was long before any of us painfully learned that the world is not liberal. Russia, China, Iran. Cuba, Argentina, the Hamas in Gaza, the Hezbullah in Lebanon, the entire Islamic world are not liberals but rather in synch to destroy the power and well-being of this great country and its point man, Israel. Beinart called Luntz's findings a "damning indictment of the organized Jewish Community" because, with or without Luntz's findings, establishment Jewish organizations continue to promote Israel and re-engage Jewish students in their heritage, trying to arm them morally, psychologically and factually with the justice of their cause. And, how did present college kids get so liberal? Is it the fact that all their classes are taught by far left academics like Beinert who have taken hostage the political science and Middle Eastern and Asian departments of virtually all American colleges and do not even allow academics in with opposing opinions? But, all of the above begs the real problem that has created this state of affairs. The Israelis and Diaspora Jewry have allowed the Arabs to get away with gargantuan propaganda lies that Beinart vehemently re-enforces as if it were gospel truth — that the Jews stole Arab land and the Jews had no right to be there. Nothing is more aggravating to me then to hear Israeli leaders genuflecting — asking the Arabs, the world, the UN or whatever minuscule political entity currently in power, to accept Israel's right to exist. Are you kidding me? Israel with over a 3000 year claim to the land 1600 years before Muhammad was even born plus unequivocal declarations by the League of Nations after WWI and the United Nations after WW II authorizing the Jews return to their biblical homeland, need to beg anyone for the right to exist!! The other gross lie that grinds is the repeated claim by destructive Leftists like Peter Beinart that the Arabs in Israel live as a persecuted minority. It so happens that Israeli Arabs have the highest standard of living of any in the entire Arab world. They have the longest life expectancy, the best education, 11 or 12 representatives in the Israel's governing body, the Knesset plus enjoy all the other benefits of the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. By contrast, completely Ignored, is the fact that 99% of Jews living in Arab countries for 2000 years were murdered and driven out. About 600,000 were expelled after Israel was re-born in 1948, penniless, their considerable assets and properties absconded by the Arab state. Historically, despite 2000 years in these Arab countries, Jews and Christians were never allowed full citizenship, let alone seats in some duly elected representative government. Israeli Arabs, by contrast, are encouraged to take full advantage of their new found freedom. They readily do, overwhelming free Israeli hospitals and all their social service agencies. In gratitude, these same Arabs show no loyalty whatever but instead constitute a Fifth Column ready to explode against the Israelis at the first opportunity. Finally, Beinart bemoans the fact that the Orthodox continue to have large families, revel in their Jewish tradition and educate their children with great pride and respect for what the Jewish people have accomplished. It is only within this sort of environment that children understand the dire importance of Israel as a refuge for the Jewish people. Furhermore It inspires them to become willing volunteers for the most dangerous branches of the Israel Defense Forces. Beinart and I do agree, but for different reasons, on his primary declaration — American Jewish establishment organizations are, in many ways, failures. If the members of these organizations had attended synagogues with their children regularly, and enrolled them in Hebrew day schools and summer camps, this would have instilled them with a sense of pride and knowledge of their own people, its glorious culture and the importance of the State of Israel. Incidently, there are tens of millions of our non-Jewish friends who understand and believe in their heart of hearts in the vital importance of the Jewish State to the western world — a message that has somehow escaped many of our own children and the reason American Jewish establishment organizations are now. so belatedly, having to address the problem. Hopefully, the next generation will have learned this uncomplicated lesson. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
SACRé BLEU! FRENCH ARE SHOCKED BY GAZA FLOTILLA INCIDENT
Posted by Nidra Poller, June 1, 2010. |
|
The French reaction to the Gaza Flotilla incident was predictable. President Sarkozy pulled the "disproportionate" card out of his ever ready deck. The loquacious Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner was deeply shocked, horrified really, that such a humanitarian flotilla could be met with such violence and such humanitarian activists could be so brutally killed, leaving their loved ones to mourn and Monsieur Kouchner to grieve and, moreover, to concluded that Israel must abandon the nasty Gaza blockade and put an end to all such provocation. No amount of video footage showing Israeli soldiers bashed, stabbed, firebombed, thrown overboard, or shot could deflect the anger aimed at Israel by Dr. Kouchner — a seasoned humanitarian in his own right. Anything done under the certified "peace activist" label is fit for human consumption and must not be marketed without constraint. Cogent arguments in defense of Israel's restrained response to the brutal surprise attack on the Mavi Marmara will soothe the convinced without quenching the flames of enraged Israel bashers or deflecting the self-righteous reaction of the world's leaders. Every move made by Israel to defend its population and its very existence is preemptively condemned. This isn't a PR problem, it is a form of combat. You can't fight a war by considering each bullet, each skirmish, each encounter as a separate incident. And you can't fight this irrational, unethical, inexcusable condemnation of Israel without looking behind the surface histrionics and into the heart of the darkness from which it comes. The Gaza Flotilla is not a lone wolf. It is a battleship in a warrior fleet that targets Israel, yes, but also Europe, the United States, Japan, the entire free world. The Gaza Flotilla is no more a humanitarian operation than 9/11. They come by land, by sea, and in the air. They brandish grievances and carry big iron rods and will soon be sporting nuclear warheads. Unless something is done to stop them. And that's the first rub: the purpose of this flotilla-poke at Israel's defenses is to test the reaction of...the free world. And the knees jerked! Ambassadors summoned for scoldings, solemn indignation, serious doubts about Israel's version of the incident, sympathetic ears to the tall tales of humanitarian survivors of Israeli brutality and, in the streets, the enraged mobs. Now, apply the lesson to the Iranian nuclear weapons flotilla and you see my point. If the Gaza Flotilla incident could arouse such widespread condemnation imagine what will happen when Israel moves to prevent Iran from acquiring the ultimate weapon. Nothing to do with anti-Semitism? It's all about poor suffering Gaza? But Jews everywhere, including the United States, will be attacked. Today in Strasbourg some 800 "pro-Palestinians" marched on the synagogue and would have burned it down or torn it to pieces with their bare hands if the police hadn't intervened. This time. A day will come when they will not be able to hold off the mob. And there's the second rub. These nations pounced on Israel with hypocritical indignation because they do not protect their own citizens! What happens when a state responds to the domestic version of the Flotilla with exquisite proportionality? Welcome to France. La racaille (the thugs President Sarkozy once promised to rid us of) regularly lure police into an ambush with a seemingly innocent SOS. "Hurry up a car is on fire." The police arrive, like the Israeli commandos lowered onto the Mavi Marmara, and are met with 200 masked men armed with iron rods, baseball bats, knives, machetes and, more and more often, guns. Law enforcement finally decides to crack down on a flourishing banlieue drug trade. Drugs and hundreds of thousands of euros are seized, a few people are arrested, and the neighborhood goes berserk. Cars, schools, community centers, shopping centers, and buses are torched; riot police sent to escort the buses are attacked, the thugs shoot at the police, shoot at the buses, aiming at the driver... and a few days later the story drops out of the news. Forgotten. Any more drug busts? Who knows? French culture is Latin... people feel free to come and go at all hours, stroll in lively streets, sit in cafés, eat in restaurants. Four young people got off a tramway in the center of Grenoble on a Saturday evening at the same time as a bunch of rowdy "youths" who were kicked off the tram. The youths accosted, insulted, egged on the law-abiding citizens, then jumped one of them, a 23 year-old cartographer, knocked him to the ground, kicked him in the head with all their might, bashed him into a coma, stabbed him, perforating his lung, and ran away. There were no video images of that attack (France is under-equipped with surveillance cameras) but it would have looked something like the images we saw this week of "peace activists" ganged up on an isolated Israeli, bashing him with murderous iron rods. It would be a mistake to think that breaking the Gaza blockade is the only kind of grievance that can lead to this kind of violent confrontation. It is a tragic error to disconnect what looks like a humanitarian operation from what looks like common crime. Last month, a French family was waiting in line at the Asterix theme park outside of Paris. Asterix is one of the heroes of the feisty village that defended Gaul against the Romans. Four "youths" from the Essonne banlieue pushed ahead of them. The couple's young adult sons, aged 18 and 19, objected but did not resist. A little later, as the family was picnicking. The youths returned, with dozens of reinforcements. They beat up the sons and knocked around the mother when she tried to protect her boys. These are not isolated incidents, they are everyday life. Schoolteachers are beaten, stabbed, stomped. Doctors and nurses are viciously attacked. The Sheikh Yassin commando kicked the imam of Drancy, Hassen Chalghoumi, out of his mosque and has promised to kill him because he associates with Jews and publicly supports the anti-niqab law. The same commando imam attacked people who came to a debate on the anti-niqab law organized by Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither whores nor doormats, an association created by Muslim French women who want to resist the imposition of sharia). Another sort of commando — but maybe they work together, who knows? — is attacking ATM machines and Brinks trucks. No one seems to be able to stop them. Recently a commando in a panel truck was spotted by the (national) police as they bopped down the highway, apparently en route to a big heist. When the police tried to stop the truck the commando shot at them with AK 47s, injuring several people, some seriously. The thugs drove into Villiers sur Marne and set the truck on fire to destroy the evidence. Municipal police (who are not connected to the national police wavelength and had not been informed), thinking it was a traffic accident, approached the burning truck. The commando shot at them, killing a 26 year-old policewoman. By a stroke of luck the police captured one member of the group. And, contrary to usual procedure, they released his name and photo. Malek Khider is a repeat offender, who had been released from jail in 2005 after serving three years of a ten-year sentence. The police are searching for his 6 accomplices. They say they know the identity of one of them. But don't trust the public to keep an eye out for him. No name, no photo. In 99% of cases, criminals are not identified or in any way described... unless of course they are Serb or 10th generation French. Otherwise, they are youths. It is not rare to read of a "35 year-old adult youth." Journalist Eric Zemmour is under fire and under investigation and about to lose all of his jobs because he said, in the heat of a let it all hang out TV program, that Arabs and Africans are stopped more often than others for ID checks because they are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior, and that is also why they make up the vast majority of the prison population. There is a radical shift in the balance of power in France (and all Western European countries). It is happening on all levels of society — politics, media, academia, the professions, the civil service, the military, and security. This shift is taking place under cover of a variety of legitimate aspirations. Equal opportunity, anti-racism, peaceful resolution of conflict, helping the disadvantaged, respecting other cultures and religions, anti-colonialism, righting wrongs, celebrating diversity... It is taboo to describe and analyze this process as jihad in France and other European countries and now in the United States as well. And many will think it is far-fetched to connect it to the Gaza Flotilla. But then did they ever imagine, when two Israeli reservists were bashed to a pulp and torn limb from limb in Ramallah in October 2000, that their citizens would risk death for taking a walk in a university town like Grenoble? Bombed to smithereens in buses and trains in London and Madrid? Incinerated in the skyscraper ovens of the WTC? If the French Foreign Minister is deeply shocked to see a handful of Israeli soldiers shoot their way out of a murderous ambush on a ship with 500 passengers armed to kill or willing to stand by and let them be lynched it is because he is not shocked to know that the citizens of his own country are defenseless in the face of thousands of little flotillas sailing out from the same heartland. PS: the Defense Department just admitted that the French skipper shot dead last year when special forces stormed his yacht to liberate him and his family from armed Somali pirates, was in fact the hapless victim of a French special forces bullet. C'est la vie. Et la mort. These things happen. Contact Nidra Piler by email at nidrapol@gmail.com. This article appeared in the New English Reviewhttp://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/ frm/65245/sec_id/65245 |
|
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ABANDONS ISRAEL TO UN FEEDING FRENZY
Posted by Eye on the UN, June 1, 2010. |
|
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on Fox News. |
|
In the past twenty-four hours United Nations bodies have engaged in a frenzied attack on Israel over the Turkish-facilitated effort to end the naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. In the process, the Obama administration's Israel policy has been outed. With virtually unprecedented speed and only hours to go before the Lebanese presidency of the UN Security Council expired at midnight on May 31st the Council unanimously agreed on a Presidential Statement — with American approval. And in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) unanimously decided to invent new procedural rules and hold its first-ever "urgent debate", with no objection from the United States. The Obama administration had options. In the past, the United States has avoided efforts to railroad presidential statements or resolutions through the Security Council by allowing only so-called "press statements" made on behalf of just some of its members. It also could have put its toe in the water and waited until 12:01 a.m. when the presidency would have been transferred to Mexico, thereby slowing the campaign for a middle-of-the-night UN grenade lobbed without time for informed consideration. Or the administration might have pointed out that the Council could spend its time dealing with international peace and security items constantly delayed or ignored, like an Iranian bomb or the torpedoing of a South Korean naval ship by North Korea. At the Human Rights Council, the United States could have objected to the invention of the new procedure. After all, it joined the HRC specifically with the promise to end the one-sided fixation of the UN system on Israel. The HRC has carefully-drafted rules allowing it to hold exceptional special sessions. It also has a carefully itemized regular agenda and its fourteenth such session began on May 31st. Today, the HRC was in the midst of agenda item three, the permanent Israel-bashing agenda item being number seven. All these procedures were thrown out the window and the political lynch mob let loose without a peep from the Obama administration. Day two of the HRC's "regular" session, therefore, saw the entire afternoon devoted to the flotilla incident, replete with accusations of massacres and genocide. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) made no effort to cover up the real point, namely, the rejection of Israel's right to exist and the concomitant right to defend itself. Speaking on behalf of the OIC, Pakistan called for relief from "the yoke of Israeli occupation for the last six decades." Another 30 speakers, both states and non-governmental organizations, are scheduled for Wednesday. The OIC, Sudan and "Palestine" have now tabled a resolution for the HRC under an agenda item supposedly about "organizational and procedural matters." A few hours ago the U.S. sent out signals that it will agree to their initiative if it is aligned with the Security Council statement. The vote, breaking more procedural rules, is expected to occur as early as tomorrow. The Security Council Presidential statement paints the loss of life which occurred entirely in the framework designed by its Arab and OIC sponsors. All the civilians who participated in the flotilla are cast as humanitarians — including the armed thugs caught on video-tape brutally attacking Israeli soldiers. Gaza is made out to be a humanitarian problem arising in a vacuum. There is no mention of its government's dedication to Israel's annihilation, no mention of the smuggling of arms into Gaza, and no mention of the use of such arms against Israelis. Consequently, according to the Security Council there appears to be no justification for Israel's interest in the ship's cargo or its legal blockade of an entity with which it is at war. In fact, the Presidential statement does not mention Hamas at all. Instead, the Security Council calls for an "impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards." That's code language for a repeat of the UN-sponsored investigation of the 2009 Gaza war. The investigation in that case produced the widely-discredited, but politically toxic, Goldstone Report. It was headed by the former South African judge, Richard Goldstone, later exposed as an appointee of the apartheid regime who sentenced many black defendants tried under apartheid laws to death. It may turn out that the investigation in this instance is handed off to 9/11 conspiracy enthusiast and current UN special investigator on Israel, Richard Falk, who issued a statement yesterday in support of more "urgent action." The Obama administration chose to join the HRC despite the fact that the HRC's reputation preceded it: the HRC has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 states in the world combined. Having made its bed with the Council, however, the Obama administration is now lying in it. The U.S. statement during today's debate, delivered by American ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, says "the United States remains deeply concerned by the suffering of civilians in Gaza." It expresses no concern about the suffering of Israeli civilians, paying the price for weapons smuggled into Gaza including by sea. The policy shift by the Obama administration away from protecting Israel from UN hordes was also in evidence last Friday at the close of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). With the support of the President, that Conference adopted conclusions singling out Israel though Israel is not a party or subject to the treaty. The agreed NPT document called for an international conference intended to force Israel to give up its (undeclared) nuclear deterrence capabilities without linking it to the realization of the country's national security needs. And the United States promised to facilitate the 2012 meeting. By contrast, the Conference conclusions made no reference to Iran, which is a party to the treaty and in violation of its provisions. In a formal statement delivered at Friday's closing session, Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said: "The Final Document this Conference adopted today advances President Obama's vision." She called it a "forward-looking and balanced action plan" and described negotiations as resulting in "a thorough review and constructive outcome." At the meeting that was to have taken place today between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Netanyahu was reported to have hoped for assurances from the President that he would not advance another UN-driven onslaught against Israel. In view of the administration's willingness to participate in just such events days later, a positive response — and improvement in the Obama administration's relations with Israel — is even more unlikely. EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies. |
|
FORM A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO DETERMINE HOW GAZA STARVATION RUMOR WAS PROMULGATED
Posted by David Bedein, June 1, 2010. |
|
Violence and deaths that occurred on ships en route to Gaza on May 31 represent the result of a systematic campaign of misinformation which conveyed the specious notion that the people of Gaza were starving. Flying to Cyprus in August 2008 to cover the first FREEGAZA.org press launch for the Philadelphia Bulletin, it was there and then that the first FREEGAZA.org boat was launched. Jeff Halper, an Israeli American community organizer, initiator of the FreeGaza.org campaign, opened the FreeGaza.org press conference in Cyprus,stating in a matter of fact comment that "people in Gaza wake up every morning without food or medicine". Halper's remarks were taped on the Bulletin tape recorder for posterity. Over the past two years, Halper coordinated a campaign to spread the rumor of deprivation Gaza with 62 Rabbis, many of who are affiliated with the Rabbis for Human Rights, who then pioneered a new organization and web site, "TANNIT TZEDEK", http://fastforgaza.net/, where they actually hold monthly fasts for the deprived people of Gaza. The founder of Rabbis for Human Rights, Rabbi David Foreman objected to the notion that there was deprivation of food and medical supplies in Gaza. Writing in the Jweekly in California and in the Jerusalem Post last September, 2009, Rabbi Foreman described the web site as "anti-Zionist, bordering on anti-Semitism"., and asked uncomfortable questions, "How well have these rabbis examined the blockade?... Do they think that concern about arms smuggling is completely bogus?...Do they consider that the blockade justifies shooting at Israelis, while Israel's response deserves wholesale condemnation? Rabbi Foreman concluded that their web site implies that "that they care not at all about an objective critique of an Israel that should be "a light unto the nations," but rather care only about painting Israel as an "evil empire," thereby justifying their and others' blatant assault on the very legitimacy of a Jewish state. Rabbi Foreman died on May 3, and was not around to act as a moderating force when ships sailed on their mission on May 30th. Instead, the man who now speaks for the Rabbis for Human Rights, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, wrote a passionate letter on May 28 to Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak to allow the boats to enter Gaza, where Ascherman repeated the mantra of the "humanitarian crisis" facing the population of Gaza. The audio tape of Halper's opening remarks in August 2008 is filed in a good place at the Beit Agron International Press Center, along with statments of those who spread the lie to the world over the past two years that a humanitarian crisis was afoot in Gaza. These files await the formation of a Commission of Inquiry that must be formed to determine how the rumor of starvation in Gaza was systematically and successfully marketed by a few Israeli citizens to the media outlets, NGO's and diplomatic missions of the entire world, sparking the greatest international disgrace for Israel in recent memory. The first step should be for people — lawyers, social workers, medical professionals, media experts — to offer their services to help put together the rudiments of a commission of inquiry. The Center for Near East Policy Research, located at the Beit Agron International Press Center in Jerusalem, would be pleased to host a task force who purpose would be to facilitate the formation such a commission. David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il |
|
THE WORLD CONDEMNS ISRAEL YET AGAIN!
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 1, 2010. |
|
The world, as usual, immediately condemns Israel for a violent confrontation between commandos of the Jewish State and presumed civilians, many of Turkish ethnicity, resulting in deaths and injuries, aboard one ship of a six ship flotilla, attempting to navigate through an Israeli blockade of Gaza with 'humanitarian supplies', including bunker building cement no doubt for the next Hamas incited war with Israel. Israel indeed is the default villain of each and every hostile incident it may be involved in! However, it is interesting to note that Turkey, an erstwhile ally of Israel, concurrently is attempting to put the kabash on any sanctions the United Nations may impose on a more useful friend and trading partner Iran, for its nuclear ambitions. Turkey, out of the goodness of its Muslim heart, has offered to hold nearly half of its brother Muslim neighbor Iran's low-enriched uranium. Hmmm! Is it possible the latest bash-Israel incident was cleverly concocted between two Muslim bedfellows, Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Iran's President Mahmoud AhMADinejad, the guy who threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", in order to deflect the United Nation's attention from Iran to Israel, thereby further reducing the possibility of Iranian sanctions? Could it be that Israel was set up? After all, sending a flotilla of ships to Gaza had to arouse Israel. What if the purported 'humanitarian aid' included weapons, or in this case bunker building cement for Hamas, Israel's mortal enemy, in charge of Gaza? Furthermore, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama in a few days, most likely to attempt to work out their differences. Now that powwow is postponed as Netanyahu must return to Israel immediately to handle the crisis. What indeed will Obama do, knowing the Arab world and Europe are infuriated by the incident; knowing he cannot afford to further antagonize his most reliable Middle East ally Israel as well as Jewish voters; knowing he must not upset Turkey, another strategic ally-so he believes? Might he presciently listen after members of the crew and passengers on the ill-fated ship are inevitably questioned by Israeli fact finders, attempting to discern if those 'aid givers' were given orders to attack Israeli commandos if boarded, not surrender peacefully as was the case on the other ships in the flotilla? Turkey, likely instigator of the 'humanitarian aid' mission, once a secular democracy, once an ally of Israel, has morphed into a Muslim-oriented nation attempting to demonstrate its loyalty to a dysfunctional group of third world Israel/Jew-hating autocracies in lieu of a first world tolerant technologically advanced Jewish Western-oriented democratic state. U.S. President Obama needs to absorb this realistic assessment; comprehend its stark implications to the country he was elected to steward. If he does not soon reverse his foolish mind-set that it is possible to negotiate with perceived moderates within terrorist movements; does not soon comprehend that Turkey has crossed over the line and entered the dark side; does not soon comprehend that strength and weakness are the only terms Hamas, Hizbullah, and kindred spirit Islamic fundamentalist organizations understand; does not soon comprehend that his Administration must always defend with words and deeds his only reliable and most essential ally in the Middle East Israel; all democratic nations including America will eventually pay a heavy price! 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 |
|
TURKISH (BLOOD)BATH
Posted by Boris Celser, June 1, 2010. |
|
This was written by Ralph Peters and it appeared in the
NY Post
|
|
Yesterday's "aid convoy" incident off the coast of Gaza wasn't about bringing humanitarian supplies to the terrorist-ruled territory. It wasn't even about Israel. It was about Turkey's determination to position itself as the leading Muslim state in the Middle East. Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government — led by Islamists these days — sponsored the "aid" operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react — and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated. So-called "peace activists" — more like pro-terrorist savages — attack Israeli commandos with an iron bar, among other weapons, aboard the Gaza "aid" ship. The lead vessel, the Mavi Marmara, just happened to have an al-Jazeera TV crew on board to film Israel's response. Ironically, the early videos would've been counterproductive, had world leaders and journalists not been programmed to blame everything on Israel. Those videos showed Israeli commandos rappelling onto the ship with both hands on the rope (making it rather hard to use a weapon), yet activists claimed the Israelis opened fire as they descended. Purely by coincidence, dozens of "peace activists" waited with sharpened iron bars, clubs, slingshots — and rifles. Of course, the nine dead in the melee were all Israel's victims. The first wave of Israeli commandos reportedly were armed only with paintball rounds for crowd control. Inspect those videos of maddened peaceniks assaulting the soldiers as they landed on deck. You don't see any Israelis pointing rifles — they're fending off blows. But the claims of pro-terrorist "peace advocates" are given instant credence. The US government's initial response was restrained, but Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understandably canceled his meeting with President Obama, scheduled for today. Bibi's got an emergency on his hands back home, as well-organized protests sweep the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Europeans and UN bonzes rage at Israel with unseemly relish, but ignore the luxury lifestyles of Gaza's insider elite and the fact that no Palestinian's going hungry. The Israelis had even offered to transfer the aid aboard those ships to the Palestinians — as long as they could inspect it. But neither the activists nor the Turkish government wanted a negotiated outcome. This was a stunt from the start. Now, as we wait to see if Hamas and Hezbollah up the ante, the world ignores Turkey's decisive role in this fiasco. The US and the European Union cling to the fiction that Turkey's a "westernized Muslim democracy." But Turkey's moving to the east as fast as the Islamist leaders of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) can drag it there. Turkish leaders visit the West and sing, "Democracy, democracy, democracy!" We coo and clap. Then they go east and cry, "Islam, Islam, Islam!" And we insist they don't mean it. Then there's Turkey's unfortunate NATO membership. Since the rise of its Islamists, Turkey has been a Trojan horse, not an ally. What happens now if Ankara provokes a military confrontation? How would we respond, given NATO's mutual-defense agreements? The madcap agenda of Turkey's current rulers is to create a 21st-century version of the Ottoman Empire. Turks even mutter about the caliphate — headed for centuries by the Turkish sultan. This is explosive stuff. And the Turks are playing with matches. But we've obstinately ignored every warning sign. First, our "ally" stabbed us in the back on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, denying our troops their planned routes into Iraq. Then the Turkish media intensified its anti-American fantasies. Headscarves became de rigeur for the wives of top officials in Ankara as the Turks made mischief in Iraq. Emulating the history-obliterating Saudis, the Turks began work on the vast Ilisu Dam — which will permanently submerge pre-Islamic and Kurdish archaeological sites of incalculable value. (The Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban were of comparatively minor interest to researchers.) Then, just last month, the Turks moved to provide the Iranian regime with cover for its nuclear program. And we still didn't get it. The most dramatic transformation in the Middle East since the fall of the shah is playing out before us. And we can't see behind the mask of the "plight of the Palestinians" (a key Obama administration concern). In yesterday's confrontation, Israel behaved clumsily. The peace activists behaved savagely. The Turks behaved cynically. The world reacted predictably. And Washington scratched its head. Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War." |
|
ISRAEL'S ACTIONS: LEGAL AND NECESSARY
Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 1, 2010. |
|
Friends, Many of you, who love Israel, are totally confused by what happened to the terrorist flotilla trying to break Israel's naval blockade of Gaza. Below is the legal background. It is to be noted that the other ships in the flotilla were boarded peacefully by Israeli soldiers, whose plan was to take the ships to the port of Ashdod where the supplies they wished to transfer to Gaza would be inspected and if they contained nothing to aid terrorism, would be transferred to the people of Gaza by Israel. Only one ship,The Mavi Marmara, decided to make war. They got war, and it wasn't pretty, but it was necessary. I hope you will read the information below, provided by Israel's Foreign Ministry, and pass it on. The link to the website is on the bottom. Naomi 1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea. 2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. 3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. 4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade. 5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect. 6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above. 7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels. 8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade. 9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law. 10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade. 11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade. 12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/ Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Gaza_flotilla_ maritime_blockade_Gaza-Legal_background_ 31-May-2010.htm 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: THE CONTINUING STORY
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 1, 2010. |
|
Dear friends, before I begin the news of the day, I must advise you that there is going to be a hiatus in my postings. For good and positive reasons: Family matters. These matters will keep me from my computer for some days. And so I implore you — no further communication to me until I've picked up posting again. Do not be concerned, and please do not inquire after me. No sharing of news you think I must see. I am well and functioning — and will be pleased to pick up again when that is possible. Then there will be time for discussions and sharing. Messages sent to me now will simply clog my mailbox and overwhelm me as I return to my postings. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. ~~~~~~~~~~ And then a correction, with apologies: I wrote yesterday that the ship had been taken to Ashkelon, when in fact, it was taken to the port of Ashdod. Knew that! And yet my hand typed Ashkelon. (With thanks to Ashdod resident Evi A. for the correction.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Israel made at least two mistakes with regard to the operation in taking on the flotilla yesterday. One was an intelligence failure. We were not sufficiently prepared for what hit us. The commandos who were sent in apparently expected a crowd of rowdy demonstrators, who were to be responded to with all possible restraint, rather than a mob of terrorists intent on killing. They were sent in insufficient numbers and with insufficient weapons. They boarded the ship via rope from a helicopter above, and no sooner did they touch down then they were besieged. The attacks on our soldiers were premeditated and ruthless. Only when the word came from commanders did they begin to shoot. Caroline Glick makes it clear in her piece, "Ending Israel's Losing Streak," that there was ample opportunity to figure out what the commandos would be confronting: "...The fact that these pro-Hamas activists intended to commit suicide to discredit Israel on camera was made clear by the fact that the Turkish organizers named the lead ship Rachel Corrie. ~~~~~~~~~~ But the other failure has to do with making our case sufficiently. Glick addresses this in her piece, as well: "And now, in the aftermath of the lethal takeover of the flotilla, Israel's leaders stammer. Rather than demand an apology from the Turkish government for its support for these terrorists, Defense Minister Ehud Barak called his Turkish counterpart to talk over what happened. Rather than demand restitution for the terrorist assault against IDF troops, Israel has defended its troops' training in nonviolent crowd control. I could not agree more. ~~~~~~~~~~ Haifa University professor, Steven Plaut, similarly laments our apparent inability to stand resolute in defending ourselves against public opinion: "The whole world is speaking about the flotilla affair as 'tragic'... ~~~~~~~~~~ But we must not confuse issues: neither of these failings detract one iota from the propriety and necessity of our having taken on the flotilla. The basic story of what happened, I shared yesterday. You can see footage of the attack on our soldiers here:
~~~~~~~~~~ The IDF spokesman has put out information regarding the weapons that were found on the ship: "Once the activists left the ship, security forces began a thorough search and found a supply of weapons, including knives, Molotov cocktails, detonators, wood and metal clubs, slingshots and rocks, large hammers and sharp metal objects. In addition, gas masks were found, pointing to the prior intention of the ship's passengers to use violence against IDF soldiers who would then be forced to use riot dispersal methods." Here you can see very clear footage of the weaponry found:
~~~~~~~~~~ According to Israel National News, an IDF source reports with regard to the "humanitarian" aid taken from the ship and inspected by the IDF, "the poor condition of the supplies renders most of it unusable...Many of the medicines are expired." Clearly, delivering aid is not what this was all about.
~~~~~~~~~~ And then this most important information regarding the legality of our actions. Aaron Lerner has put up on IMRA material from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe this will answer questions addressed by several readers: "Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. (emphasis added) ~~~~~~~~~~ You might also want to see excerpts from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994. It includes this: "67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: "(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;"
~~~~~~~~~~ So that there be no mistake about it: we are at war with Hamas, which indeed is the enemy. We run a blockade of the Gaza coastline to prevent Hamas from securing weapons by sea that would be used against Israeli civilians. Were the flotilla to have broken the blockade it would have enabled a flow of missiles and rockets into Gaza for use by Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ Palestinian Media Watch has now provided additional information on the intentions of those in the flotilla. Two days ago, speaking on Al-Aksa TV (Hamas-controlled), Dr. Abd Al-Fatah Shayyeq Naaman, lecturer in Shari'ah law at a university in Yemen, who is now visiting Gaza, said: "The [Gaza] flotilla commander said yesterday: 'We will not allow the Zionists to get near us and we will use resistance against them.' How will they wage resistance? They will resist with their fingernails. They are people who seek Martyrdom for Allah, as much as they want to reach Gaza, but the first [Martyrdom] is more desirable." This puts the lie rather conclusively to arguments still being advanced that we attacked a group of humanitarian activists intent on bring supplies to suffering Gazans. ~~~~~~~~~~ The bottom line here is our ability to believe in the rightness of our own position, and to stand tall before the world, unafraid of being censured and secure in the knowledge of who we are. And, my friends, one and all — as difficult as it is if you live where the media is now engaged in a frenzy of attacks on Israel — I am hoping that you will find ways to stand tall with us. Our strength is not something to be apologetic about. As Glick commented: "Israel is the frontline of the free world. Its ability to defend itself and deter its foes is the single most important guarantee of international peace and security in the world. A strong Israel is also the most potent and reliable guarantor of the US's continued ability to project its power in the Middle East." ~~~~~~~~~~ There are many commentators echoing these sentiments. The observations of Dr. Mordecai Kedar — fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University — in his piece, "A war for the world's future," should be particularly noted: "It is clear to anyone with eyes in their head that the battle taking place off the Gaza shore is in fact a clash between an Islamist coalition which Turkey attempts to head — and which includes Iran. Hamas, and Hezbollah on one hand — and forces with a liberal Western orientation, represented by Israel, on the other hand. ~~~~~~~~~~ You can see more on the issue of the Turkish role in the Gaza confrontation in a Ralph Peters article in today's New York Post: "Yesterday's 'aid convoy' incident off the coast of Gaza wasn't about bringing humanitarian supplies to the terrorist-ruled territory. It wasn't even about Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ From the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, information on IHH, the Turkish organization connected to the flotilla:
All important to know, as you defend Israel against charges that we attacked humanitarians. ~~~~~~~~~~ I hasten to add that "peace" between Israel and the PA would do nothing to deflect the intentions of Islamists such as Turkey — pronouncements by Obama aside. Here, before closing, I want to single out J-Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami, who put out a statement that said, in part: "J Street is deeply shocked and saddened by reports that at least 10 civilians have been killed..." "Civilians?" Obfuscation to hide the militant/terrorist inclination of those on the ship. And why mourn their deaths instead of expressing outrage at what their intentions were? Continues Ben-Ami: "This shocking outcome of an effort to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza is in part a consequence of the ongoing, counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza..." "An effort to bring humanitarian relief"? He maintains this fiction in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. So we're the bad guys, right? Do not, ever, believe representatives of J-Street when they say they are pro-Israel. Ben-Ami stands exposed.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
A DANISH RESEARCH INSTITUTE EXPOSES THE TURKISH IHH LINKS WITH AL-QAEDA AND GLOBAL JIHAD NETWORKS
Posted by Reuven Erlich, June 1, 2010. |
|
1. In 2006 the Danish Institute for International Studies reported that during the 1990s the Turkish relief organization IHH had links with Al-Qaeda and global jihad networks.2 The well-documented report was prepared by Evan Kohlman,3 an American scholar specializing in Al-Qaeda. The study deals with the involvement of Islamic charitable societies in supporting terrorism. Pages 10-14 are devoted to IHH. 
2. According to the study, the Turkish government began investigating IHH at least as far back as December 1997 following information that senior IHH activists had purchased automatic weapons from extremist Islamic organizations. As a result, the Istanbul offices of the organization were raided and activists were arrested. During the raid the Turkish security services found weapons, explosives, instructions for manufacturing IEDs and a flag bearing a jihadist message. An analysis of the documents taken from the offices indicated that IHH members were planning to participate in jihad activities in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. 3. For the report in its entirety, see
DIIS Working Paper 2006/7
End Notes [1] Follow up of the May 27, 2010 bulletin "IHH, which plays
a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a
Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western
orientation. Besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it
supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and at least in
the past, even global jihad elements" at
[2] The Danish Institute for International Studies is an
independent research institution which deals with interdisciplinary
issues with international implications, especially international
conflicts. It is staffed by dozens of research workers, many of them
with PhDs
[3] Evan Kohlman is American researcher specializing in
terrorism who worked for the FBI and other American government
organizations. He has a law degree and a degree in international
politics and Islamic studies. In the past he interned in Washington
for The Investigative Project, an anti-terrorism think-tank, and is
currently head of NEFA, the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. He
served as an expert witness in the trials of several jihadist
operatives in the United States, the Hague and Denmark, and is a
senior terrorism commentator for NBC. He wrote a book about the jihad
movement in Europe which was published in 2002 by the Oxford
University Press and has published numerous articles about radical
Islamic movements (From:
Dr. Reuven Erlich is Head of the Intelligence
and Terrorism Information Center in Israel. Its website address is
http://www.intelligence.org
Editor's Addendum: 
|
|
THE HOPE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Gloria W. Kohlmann, June 1, 2010. |
|
When I visited the Western Wall in the late 80's (with a prayer team) I was truly overwhelmed and moved to uncontrollable tears. It was quite an event in my personal walk. I am sure that is not uncommon. The other resident ladies at the Wall simply looked over at me with an understanding expression...another precious memory. I am a professional artist and have a 501c3 nonprofit visual arts ministry with an active Christian outreach to both believers and non-believers. Out of the experience being in Israel, I created a series of 7 fine art drawings women of all ages — praying at the Wall. This is the first one — that was the direct result of my initial visit. Blessings and Shalom.
Gloria W. Kohlmann is the director of Morning Glory Inspirations, Inc. Contact her at mgi.inc@integrity.com and visit her website: www.gloryinspirations.com |
|
FROM ARUTZ-SHEVA: THE GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Arutz Sheva, June 1, 2010. |
|
(1). Videos of Flotilla Muslims Clubbing Navy Commandos and o: Close-up footage of Mavi Marmara passengers attacking IDF soldiers are available here. They clearly document brutal attacks with metal clubs by the flotilla's Muslim radicals on Israeli Navy commandos. The video shows that the "peace activists" were trained in terrorism and tried to kill the soldiers before Navy officers issued an "open fire" order.
(2).
"Two More Boats on Their Way to Gaza"
IDF General Staff Operations Commander Col. Itzik Turjeman told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday that two additional ships of the militant left flotilla are on their way to Gaza. He said they will be stopped as well, hinting that electronic means, or others, might be used. Asked why the S.S. Marmaris was not physically stopped by the Navy without risking helicopter-borne soldiers rappelling down into a lynch mob, Turjeman said that the Marmaris is too large and heavy to have been physically blocked by navy ships. MK Tzachi HaNegbi (Kadima), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, opened the session with these remarks: "After Operation Cast Lead, the government decided to impose a maritime blockade on Gaza [in accordance with international law governing parties in a state of armed conflict — ed.], and that all cargo headed for Gaza would be checked first in the Ashdod port... This issue is a matter of total consensus in Israel, and the reason is the sense of injustice that we all feel, the cynicism and hypocrisy that typify the attack on the State of Israel, and the sense we all have that the IDF's operation yesterday was logical and ethical. We left Gaza five years ago, yet for years we have been attacked from Gaza, and our soldier Gilad Shalit is still being held in a dark dungeon in Gaza. We therefore feel that we have the right to act in the way we did." HaNegbi added that many questions remain open in terms of the operation, the intelligence that preceded it, and the PR efforts after it, "and we will insist on investigating these matters and receiving answers." Several terror activists wounded on the Marmaris ship early Tuesday morning are hospitalized in several hospitals throughout Israel. Each of them is guarded by a military policeman, ensuring that he not try to escape or give media interviews. Dozens of others who were arrested after being taken off the ships are being questioned. Among them is Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, head of the Northern Branch of the extremist Islamic Movement in Israel. He was originally thought to have been injured on the boat, leading to Israeli-Arab rioting and much media speculation, but he is now known to be safe and sound. Arab MK Hanin Zouabi (Balad), a rookie female MK from Nazareth, was on board the ship as well, but was released straight home because of her parliamentary immunity — infuriating some Knesset Members. MK Aryeh Bibi (Kadima) said, "Our democracy has lost its direction. We've reached the point where Arab citizens and MKs do whatever they wish. Zouabi's parliamentary immunity must be removed and she should be arrested. I'd like to see her try similar protests in Arab countries... let her join the Hamas regime in Gaza." MK Danny Danon (Likud) said, "Zouabi and her Hamas friends boarded this flotilla as shahids [martyrs] who said that they knew that they might die in the course of harming IDF soldiers. Instead of making peace, Zouabi started war on board the ship. Terror activists like her must not be permitted to return to the Knesset." Zouabi was recorded shouting for help in English and Hebrew when the IDF boarded the ship on which she sailed. (3). "Sailor's First-Hand Report: We Came to Speak; They Came to Fight"
One of the Naval Special Forces commandos who sustained a broken arm while under attack by the S.S. Mavi Marmaris' passengers, reports, "Each soldier who descended was grabbed by three or four men and they simply exploded, beating him up. They lynched us. "They had metal clubs, knives, slingshots, glass bottles...At one point there was also live fire. The naval soldier also described how his unit was shot at from the entrance to the ship's corridor: "I saw two from my group lying flat on the ground. From the opening of the corridor they were shooting at them the entire time with live fire, bullets. We identified a gun barrel, and one of us shot at the guy holding it. Afterwards we entered and he wasn't there. "[They were] about 30 men; they simply came for war. We came to straighten things out, to speak to those who went downstairs, but each of us who descended was simply attacked. Commentators in Israel have criticized the fact that many of the soldiers were equipped with pistols and paintball guns instead of being prepared for a worst case scenario where they would need rifles. (4.) "IDF Evidence, US Stem Turkish-Led Diplomatic War
Against Israel"
IDF video documentation and United States diplomats have stemmed the anti-Israel tide in the United Nations — for the time being — a day after the flotilla clash on the high seas. The U.N. Security Council met in closed session until late Monday night after U.S. diplomats watered down a Turkish attempt to censure Israel. Most of the 15 countries sitting on the Council expressed harsh criticism of Israel, but no joint statement was issued. Turkey is trying to use the universal anti-Israel mood to force an end to Israel's partial blockade on Gaza, imposed since Hamas gained control of the area un a military coup three years ago. "It is clearer than ever that Israel's restrictions on access to Gaza must be lifted," said British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant. Foreign media and diplomats have begun to note the IDF videos of a brutal attack on Israeli Navy commandos as they descended on one of the ships after the crew and passengers refused requests to change course and sail to Ashdod instead of Hamas. Under the Oslo Accords and agreements with the Palestinian Authority, Israel maintains sovereignty over the international waters off the Gaza coast. "Direct (aid) delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible under the circumstances," said U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. Alejandro Wolff. While European and Arab countries castigated Israel for the killing of nine Muslim extremists who attacked Navy commandos, Wolff stated, "We are working to ascertain the facts [and] we expect a credible and transparent investigation." Hamas has smuggled hundreds of tons of explosives, arms and ammunition, as well as terrorists, by land and sea, and Israel is determined to prevent further smuggling actions. Allowing boats to reach Gaza without inspection would give Hamas free passage to bring in advanced weapons, including long-range missiles. Israel's U.N. envoy Daniel Cameron stated Jerusalem's position, backed up by IDF videos from a helicopter hovering over the flotilla, that "this flotilla was anything but a humanitarian mission. What kind of humanitarian activists demand to bypass the United Nations, the Red Cross, and other internationally recognized agencies? What kind of peace activists use knives, clubs and other weapons to attack soldiers who board a ship in accordance with international law?" he said. Arab diplomats harped on Israel's trying to inspect the ships in international waters, but legal experts have stated that Israel, like any other country, has the right to sail in international waters and stop foreign ships suspected of trying to reach its shores with suspicious cargo or people. Yahya Mahmassani, representing the Arab bloc at the United Nations, said they want a total censure of Israel because the incident happened in international waters and because they want the partial blockade lifted. International media, which until recently have adopted the Arab claim that a "humanitarian crisis" exists in Gaza, have virtually ignored daily shipments of hundreds of tons of food, merchandise and supplies from Israel to Gaza. Lebanon, currently the rotating president of the U.N. Security Council, and Turkey both led the condemnation of Israel at the Council session with such terms as "piracy," "crime" and "a black day in the history of humanity." "I'm not sure any international lawyer would be able to defend such words" at this stage, said one senior Council diplomat, quoted by Benny Avni, writing in The New York Sun Tuesday morning. The diplomat noted that after more than two months since an unprovoked torpedo attack on a South Korean ship, China and other Council members have prevented even a discussion of the incident, even though a probe has clearly established that North Korea attacked the boat, and even though a multinational investigation has credibly established North Korea's role as aggressor. Monday's clash between Muslim militants and the Israeli Navy occurred on the Marmara, one of the six ships in the flotilla. Most of the passengers on the other five vessels consisted largely of an assortment of international peace activists. The sixth ship included Muslim extremists, including northern Israel Islamic Movement leader Ra'ad Salah, who initially but incorrectly was reported as having suffered critical wounds in the clash. After the Israeli commandos took control of the Marmara and led it to the port of Ashdod, where the humanitarian aid was unloaded and shipped to Gaza, the IDF collected and photographed weapons that had been brought on board. The extremists had stockpiled and used two dozen knives, metal pipes and clubs to beat the Navy commandos as they descended on the Marmara by rope from helicopters. (5). IDF Photos of Knives Contradict Turkish Claims of 'No Weapons'
IDF photos of two dozen knives, including a machete, plus clubs, chains and metal rods used against Israeli Navy commandoes in the flotilla clash Monday contradict Turkish claims that the passengers did not carry weapons on board. "Customs officials at the Port of Antalya have denied Israeli claims that weapons were detected on a ship taking humanitarian aid to Gaza that took off from Antalya on Sunday," the Turkish news site Today's Zaman reported. It quoted a customs official as stating, "Forty-two passengers boarded in Istanbul and 504 passengers got on the ship here. They were screened. We spotted no weapons and there is no such record in our logs. We did not notice anything suspicious about the Mavi Marmara. Had our officers had any suspicions, they would have reported it." The IDF confiscated and photographed the weapons, which were used to brutally attack Navy commandoes as they descended to one of the ships via ropes from hovering helicopters, intending to take over the ships peacefully. Greta Berlin, spokeswoman for the Free Gaza movement, claimed to Israel National News that the IDF edited the video showing the commandoes landing on board and added the violence. Concerning the weapons, she told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, "I will venture to say that Israel is lying about this because the weapons that I saw coming on board this morning belonged to Israel. If there were weapons, they planted those weapons."
You can subscribe for free daily email deliveries of Arutz-7
at http://www.IsraelNationNews.com
|
|
ENDING ISRAEL'S LOSING STREAK
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 1, 2010. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it was published yesterday
in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
|
|
These words are being written before the dust has had a chance to settle on Monday night's naval commando raid of the Gaza-bound Turkish flotilla of terror supporters. The raid's full range of operational failures still cannot be known. Obviously the fact that the mission ended with at least six soldiers wounded and at least ten Hamas supporters dead makes clear that there were significant failures in both the IDF's training for and execution of the mission. The Navy and other relevant bodies will no doubt study these failures. But they point to a larger strategic failure that has crippled Israel's capacity to contend with the information war being waged against it. Until this failure is remedied, no after-action investigation, no enhanced training, no new electronic warfare doodad will make a significant impact on Israel's ability to contend with the next Hamas flotilla that sets sail for Gaza. In the space of four days, Israel has suffered two massive defeats. A straight line runs between the anti-Israel resolution passed last Friday at the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the Hamas flotilla. And in both cases, Israeli officials voiced "surprise," at these defeats. Given the months-long build-up to the NPT review conference, and the weeks-long build-up to the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, that surprise cannot be attributed to a lack of information. What it points to rather is a cognitive failure of Israel's leaders — from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down — to understand the nature of the war being waged against us. And it is this fundamental failure of cognition that has landed six soldiers in the hospital, Israel's international reputation in tatters and Israeli spokesmen — from Netanyahu down — searching for a way to describe a reality they do not understand and explain how they will cope with challenges that confound them. The reality is simple and stark. Israel is the target of a massive information war that is unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds. The staggering scale of the forces aligned against Israel is demonstrated by two things. The Hamas abetting Free Gaza website published a list of some 222 organizations that endorsed the terror-supporting flotilla. The listed organizations hail from the four corners of the earth. They include Jewish anti-Israel groups as well as Christian, Islamic and non-religious anti-Israel groups. It is hard to think of any cause other than Israel-bashing that could unite such disparate forces. The second indicator of the scope of the war against Israel is far more devastating than the list of groups that endorsed the pro-Hamas flotilla. That indicator is the fact that at the UN on Friday, 189 governments of 189 countries came together as one to savage Israel. There is no other issue that commands such unanimity. The NPT review conference demonstrated that the only way the international community will agree on anything is if its members are agreeing that Israel has no right to defend itself. The NPT review conference's campaign against Israel shows that the 222 organizations supporting Hamas are a reflection of the will of the majority — not a minority — of the nations of the world. This war against Israel is nothing new. It has been going on since the dawn of modern Zionism 150 years ago. In many ways, it is just the current iteration of the eternal war against the Jewish people. The Red-Green alliance's aims are twofold. It seeks to delegitimize Israel's right to exist and it seeks to make it impossible for Israel to defend itself. If these aims are met, Israel's destruction will become an historic inevitability. Until US President Barack Obama took office, Israel's one steady asset in this war was the US. Until last year, the US consistently refused to join the Red-Green alliance because its leaders recognized that the alliance's campaign against Israel was part and parcel of the Red-Green campaign against US superpower status in the Middle East and throughout the world. Indeed, some US leaders recognized that the Red-Green alliance's animus towards Israel stemmed from the same source as its rejection of American exceptionalism. Dismally, what the US's vote in favor of the NPT review conference's final anti-Israel and by default pro-Iranian resolution makes clear is that under President Barack Obama, the US is no longer Israel's reliable ally. Indeed, what the US's vote shows is that the Obama administration's ideological preferences place it on the side of the Red-Green alliance against Israel. No amount of backpedalling by the Obama administration can make up the damage caused by its act of belligerence against Israel at the NPT review conference. If Israel's leaders were better informed, in the lead-up to the NPT conference they would have recognized a number of things. They would have realized that Obama's anti-nuclear conference in April, his commitment to a nuclear-free world, as well as his general ambivalence — at best — to US global leadership rendered it all but inevitable that he would turn on Israel at the NPT review conference. The truth is that Egypt's call for the denuclearization of Israel jibes with Obama's own repeatedly held views both regarding Israel and regarding the US's own nuclear arsenal. Armed with this basic understanding of Obama's inclinations, Israel should have taken for granted that the NPT conference would target Israel. Consequently, in months preceding the conference, Israel should have stated loudly and consistently that as currently constituted the NPT serves as the chief enabler of nuclear proliferation rather than the central instrument for preventing nuclear proliferation it was supposed to be. North Korea exploited its status as an NPT signatory to develop its nuclear arsenal. Today Iran exploits its status as an NPT signatory to develop nuclear weapons. Unless the NPT is fundamentally revised it will continue to serve as the primary instrument for nuclear proliferation. Had this been Israel's position, it would have been able to undercut US arguments in favor of signing onto the anti-Israel final resolution. So too, such a position would have prepared Israel to cogently explain its rejection of the final resolution without sounding hypocritical. And that is the thing of it. The Red-Green alliance's aim at the NPT conference was to discredit Israel's deterrent capacity while delegitimizing its right to take preemptive action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Now, due to Israel's failure to make its case against the NPT in the months leading up to the conference, as Israel's enemies use the US-supported final resolution to claim that Israel's opposition to Iran's nuclear weapons program is hypocritical, Israel lacks a cognitive framework for responding. The fact that Israel still doesn't get the point is made clear by the government's response to the decision. Israel's denunciation of the resolution makes no mention of the fact that the NPT regime itself has become the chief institutional enabler of nuclear proliferation today. So too, disastrously, in a clear bid to pretend away Obama's treachery, Israel actually applauded Obama for emptily criticizing the resolution he voted for. This Israeli response compounds the damage and ensures that the assault will continue and grow stronger. As to the flotilla, the challenge it presented Israel was nothing new. Israel has been confronted by suicide protestors for a decade now. The fact that these pro-Hamas activists intended to commit suicide in order to discredit Israel on camera was made clear by the fact that the Turkish organizers named the lead ship Rachel Corrie — after the most famous pro-Hamas suicide protestor. So too, the fact that Israeli forces boarding the ships would be met by trenchant, violent opposition was knowable simply by looking at Turkey's role in the operation. First of all, the Turkish government-supported NGO behind the operation is IHH. As the US government, the Turkish government in the 1990s, the Investigative Project on Terrorism and countless other sources have proven, the IHH is a terrorist organization. It has direct links to al Qaida and Hamas. Its members have been involved in terrorist warfare from Chechnya and Bosnia to Iraq and Israel. The notion that IHH organizers would behave like radical leftist anti-Israel demonstrators on university campuses is simply ridiculous. Moreover, there is Turkey's behavior to consider. Since Obama took office, Turkey's gradual slide into the Iranian axis has sped up considerably. Turkey's leading role in the flotilla, and the Erdogan government's ostentatious embrace of IHH which just a decade ago Turkey banned from earthquake relief efforts in light of its violent, jihadist mission made clear that the Erdogan regime would use the violence on board the ships as a way to strike a strategic blow at Israel's international standing. In view of all of this, it is clear that Israel's information strategy for contending with the flotilla was ill-conceived. Rather than attack Turkey for its facilitation of terrorism, and openly prepare charge sheets against the flotilla's organizers, crew and passengers for their facilitation of terrorism in breach of both Israeli domestic law and international law, Israel's information efforts were largely concentrated on irrelevancies. Israeli officials detailed all the humanitarian assistance Israel has provided Hamas-controlled Gaza. They spoke of the Navy's commitment to use non-lethal force to take over the ships. And now, in the aftermath of the lethal takeover of the flotilla, Israel's leaders stammer. Rather than demand an apology from the Turkish government for its support for these terrorists, Defense Minister Ehud Barak called his Turkish counterpart to talk over what happened. Rather than demand restitution for the terrorist assault against Israeli troops, Israel has defended its troops' moral training in non-violent crowd control. These efforts are worse than worthless. They make Israel appear whiny rather than indignant. And more depressingly, they expose a dangerous lack of basic comprehension about what has just occurred and a concomitant inability to prepare for what will most certainly follow. Israel is the target of a massive information war. For Israel to win this war it needs to counter its enemies' lies with the truth. The NPT has been subverted by the very forces it was created to prevent from acquiring nuclear weapons. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization ideologically indistinguishable from al Qaida. International law requires all states and non-state actors to take active measures to defeat it. Israel is the frontline of the free world. Its ability to defend itself and deter its foes is the single most important guarantee of international peace and security in the world. A strong Israel is also the most potent and reliable guarantor of the US's continued ability to project its power in the Middle East. This is the unvarnished truth. It is also the beginning of a successful Israel campaign to defang and neutralize the massive coalition of nuclear proliferation — and terrorism — abettors aligned against it. But until our leaders finally recognize the nature of the war being waged against our country, these basic facts will remain ignored as Israel moves from one stunning defeat to the next. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
THE GAZA "STARVATION" CHARADE AND THE "PEACE" "ACTIVISTS" AREN'T
JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR SHARE IN THE BLUNDER
Posted by Gadi Eshel, June 1, 2010. |
|
Of course, the root source of the troubles Gaza brings upon us all, is not the Arabs but our reckless appeasement. It is the stupid and shameful retreat from Gush-Katif. A retreat combined with the criminal deportation of its indigenous Jews and the wicked dismantling of their flourishing communities — a paragon of productive Zionism. All, so as to gratify Islamists/"Palestinians" by presenting them with a Judenreine land. This, in addition to the wisdom proven once again, in the saying in Hebrew: "whoever runs away from Gaza, Gaza would run after him" gadi Contact Gadi Eshel by email at gadi.eshel@ptk.co.il |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: STONE STAIRWAY IN THE BANIAS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 1, 2010. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Missed a Photo?
HOW I GOT THE SHOT: I try not to delve too deeply into meaning in my photographs. Why a particular image speaks to me may have no relation to how other viewers see it. This is even more important when a photo contains a bit of mystery, such as this shot of a stone stairway along a trail in the Banias Nature Reserve on the Golan Heights. Words redirect our thoughts and our imagination should really be left alone to wander where it will. The intrigue of this shot has two sources. First, there are the old stones, worn smooth by time, and which recall another era, a different world altogether. They are unlike most stairs we encounter on a daily basis, oddly crooked and meandering. Secondly, the stairs go up, disappearing on their way to some unseen destination. They are a visual metaphor for passage to something new, better, and higher. As longtime readers of this blog know by now, no image fully succeeds without interesting light. Here the sun just brushes the tops of the stairs while leaving the risers in shadow, a perfect combination to give form and texture to each individual stone. Sometimes the sun is in just the right position to accent the landscape and reveal the beauty in something so simple and mundane that otherwise we might just trod on it unawares. Technical Data: Nikon D200, ISO 200, 18-70 zoom at 55mm, f5.6 at 1/125 sec.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
EGYPT IN WATER RIVALRY WITH OTHER AFTICAN STATES; GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 1, 2010. |
|
OBAMA 'DANCES' WITH BOTH ARABS AND JEWS ON NUCLEAR AND FRIENDSHIP ISSUES The U.S. helped the nuclear proliferation conference single out Israel, demanding that it give up its nuclear deterrent. The conference did not pursue the violators, Iran and N. Korea. At about the same time, President Obama held an event honoring Jewish luminaries, at which he said that the bond with Israel that he just broke are unbreakable. After the conference, in apparent damage control, Obama said he opposes singling out Israel and jeopardizing its national security. But he just had helped single out Israel. Obama also had another afterthought, that first, there should be comprehensive peace. Which is the real Obama? (IMRA, 5/30). How long will he be demagogic? Probably as long as he can get away with it. Jews must learn that flattery can be false.
EGYPT IN WATER RIVALRY WITH OTHER AFTICAN STATES Egypt and Sudan worked out an agreement in 1929 with Nile upstream Ethiopia and colonies at the time in Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Congo, and Burundi. The treaty allocated 90% of Nile water to the downstream pair and 10% for the upstream areas. The rationale was that the upstream areas had more rain.
GAZA FLOTILLA: Part 1: ACTIVISTS PREPARED THEIR VIOLENCE Before the Israeli commandos arrived, flotilla activists prepared themselves psychologically to make a violent confrontation. A day before the clash, Al-Jazeera TV documented this. It filmed a woman saying, Gaza or martyrdom. Passengers chanted, Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" Khaibar is where Muslims defeated and expelled the Jews of Arabia. Invoking it threatens to do the same nowadays. It is a call to kill Jews. Part 2: EFFECT ON TURKEY-ISRAEL RELATIONS As Turks demonstrate in the streets over the deaths of some Turks on the flotilla, even rioting over it, their government has recalled its ambassador from Israel and canceled planned joint military exercises. Israel has not made the usual tit-for-tat diplomatic reaction. Turkey expects the flotilla activists to be released immediately and for Israel to apologize. Turkey denies responsibility for what Turkish citizens did privately. A columnist for the Turkish daily, Milliyet, claims that the government could have prevented the flotilla from sailing. Turkey "has long been Israel's closest friend in the Muslim world..." Israel and the U.S. use Turkish airspace for military exercises. The regime in Turkey is headed by Recep Erdogan, "former Islamist who is the driving force behind Turkey's criticism of Israel..." and is "serving as mediator between Israel and Syria. But the US has not appreciated all his efforts, like his recent attempt with Brazil to broker a nuclear deal with Iran." Erdogan sees Hamas as "democratically elected." He is pushing for international condemnation of Israel. PM Erdogan called the Israeli raid on the flotilla "inhuman state terrorism" and Israel's claim of weapons being aboard, "lies." The raid shows him that "the Israeli government has no desire for peace in the region." (Sabrina Tavernese, NY Times, 6/1, A10). The difficulty with releasing all the activists not charged with criminal violence is that at the approach of Israeli forces, they were ordered to throw their passports overboard (Winston Mid East Analysis and Report, 6/1). One has to admire Erdogan's instant and omniscient knowledge that no weapons were aboard the ships. The background description sprinkled throughout the New York Times report seems like an obsolete P.R. job for Erdogan. Turkey canceled military exercises before. Calling Turkey Israel's "closest friend in the Muslim world" implies Israel has others. Would they please name the others? Referring to Turkey, which has made an alliance with Iran and Syria, and which supports Hamas, as a "friend," is obsolete. The newspaper does not want to acknowledge that Erdogan, who verbally renounced Islamism, subverts Turkish society to be Islamist and carries out an Islamist foreign policy (as some of my articles documented). However, he does not totally burn bridges with Israel, from which he wants to buy some specialized weapons. Being allied with Syria, his offering to mediate between it and Israel fails the test of "honest broker." Calling Hamas "democratically elected," is dubious enough without being put to the improper use of implying that it is democratic, now. Ask purged members of Fatah or repressed women in Gaza. The raid on the flotilla does not show a rejection of peace. The flotilla was to set precedent for Turkey to build a deep water port in Gaza, unhindered. Heavy arms would be brought in. Arms for Hamas means war on Israel. Since Hamas rejects peace, so, in effect, do those who assist it. Part 3: NEWS OF THE RAID AND AFTERMATH
The Israeli raid and the subsequent deaths of passengers on the flotilla, "many of whom are Turks," led to an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. It caused Israeli PM Netanyahu to cancel a meeting with President Obama. PM Netanyahu defended the raid as enforcement of a legal blockade. According to his government, international law authorizes capture of vessels about to violate a blockade. This blockade was imposed by Israel and Egypt against terrorism; it is not a total blockade. Netanyahu defended the raiders as firing only in self-defense, which an IDF video purports to confirm. Israel states that activists aboard, who depict themselves as humanitarian, came to start a physical fight. The activists contest that account with their own video. They claim that Israeli troops dropped onto the ship and opened fire on sleeping passengers, said the head of Free Gaza, from Cyprus, and apparently not a witness. Within Israel and among its friends, there were questions not of Israel's rights or conduct so much as of Israeli advance intelligence about activists' intent and whether the IDF has prepared for what happened. The IDF had intended merely to tow the six ships to an Israeli port. Troops boarding one ship found themselves ambushed, Israel reports. Several soldiers were wounded, one severely. At least one was stabbed and a couple were shot. Two of the commando's pistols later were found in activist possession, their magazines empty (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 6/1, A1). Israel states that the casualties were nine activists and seven Israelis. Turkey had assured Israel that no weapons were loaded on the ships, but the IDF claims to have found them, some the hard way. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA suggests investigating this Turkish inspection failure (IMRA, 5/31). When all the activists were removed from the ship of violence, security forces searched it. They found "knives, Molotov cocktails, detonators, wood and metal clubs, slingshots and rocks, large hammers and sharp metal objects. In addition, gas masks were found, pointing to the prior intention of the ship's passengers to use violence against IDF soldiers who would then be forced to use riot dispersal methods." (IMRA, 6/1). Prof. Steven Plaut writes that the killing of nine, violent activists is not a "tragedy," as most people put it (5/31). Israel already is unloading the ships' cargo and transporting the goods through the portals into Gaza (IMRA, 6/1). Apparently the IDF mistake was in preparing primarily for non-violent defense and in rappelling onto the ship one at-a-time, where dozens of activists met them with clubs and knives and disarmed them individually (Winston Mid East Analysis and Report, 6/1). Part 4: INTERNATIONAL REACTION
The U.S. officially supports the blockade. Privately, President Obama is said to be frustrated with the humanitarian condition in Gaza (Helene Cooper, Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 6/1, A8). In contrast with a prior article in which the Turkish government claimed it was helpless to stop the flotilla, the Wall St. Journal reports that the government acted as unofficial sponsor of the flotilla, encouraging it. Various governments called Israel's action "disproportionate." In an accompanying Op.-Ed, Max Boot of the council on Foreign Relations observes that whatever Israel does, including the pinpoint execution of a notorious terrorist, in Dubai, its critics call "disproportionate." The flotilla, he points out, was organized by an organization that raises funds for Hamas, a terrorist organization that is not humanitarian (Joshua Mitnick and Mark Champion, Wall St. J., 6/1/10, A1, 13). Israeli Foreign Min. Lieberman told UN Secretary-General Ban that this past month, 500 people were killed throughout the world in various confrontations, but only is Israeli self-defense condemned. Lieberman added that the UN Security Council resolution making such a condemnation is unacceptable. The condemnatory resolution called for an investigation (IMRA, 6/1). Part 5: IDF AND INTERNATIONAL LAW Met by organized non-humanitarians wielding knives and metal rods, Israeli commandos tried crowd-control methods. However, the mob seized an Israeli's pistol and shot at least one commando. That is when the troops opened fire, to save themselves. Casualty figures may be higher than first estimated. The ships were urged to turn back or unload cargo in Israel, were warned to halt, were advised that their goods would be distributed by Israel, but on they came, defiantly. Distribution of goods apparently was not their main objective. Hamas claims that Israel violated international laws, but did not cite or explain the application of any. Some of Israel's critics use the term, "high seas," to describe where the confrontation took place. The implication is that such confrontation is improper. Having stated intent to break through the blockade, and setting a course that demonstrate such intent, and having quite a few ships in the flotilla, the IDF intercept them not so near shore that some ships might get through. What is international law on this? Hebrew University international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel says that embargo activities long have been carried out in international waters. Embargoes legally can be imposed in wartime and enforced in international waters but not in the waters of third parties. The embargo placer is authorized to detain civilian ships trying to break the embargo. If the ships resist by force, the raiding party is entitled to defend itself by force. San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea,
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT Neutral merchant vessels 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or
breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly
refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or
capture;
Gaza-Jericho Agremeent Annex I
Article XI
1. Maritime Activity Zones
4. As part of Israel's responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity. The Palestinian Police will be notified of such actions, and the ensuing procedures will be coordinated through the Maritime Coordination and Cooperation Center (IMRA, 5/31). Israel's Foreign Min. Lieberman pointed out that the Karine-A, a ship smuggling arms to Gaza in 2002, also was intercepted on the high seas (IMRA, 5/31). So Hamas is interested in international law and indignant at Israeli troops fighting with civilians. Would Hamas be interested in following international law and stop bombarding Israeli civilians and stop using its own people as human shields, a form of callousness that belies its tears over the fatalities on shipboard. Part 6: ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY EXPLANATION Speaking about the flotilla, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon said at a press conference, "The organizers are well-known for their ties to Global Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Hamas. They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror. On board the ship we found weapons that were prepared in advance and used against our forces. The organizers' intent was violent, their method was violent, and unfortunately, the results were violent." Min. Ayalon said that Israel regrets the casualties, but the blockade-runners disregarded warnings and offers to deliver their humanitarian goods legally, but humanitarianism was not their purpose. "Please tell me what kind of peace activists carry long knives and metal rods and try to kill others," the Deputy Foreign Minister said. "The organizers openly stated on many occasions that delivering humanitarian aid was not their main mission and we now see how true that is." "No sovereign country would tolerate such violence against its civilian population, against its sovereignty, against international law. And we in Israel call today upon all relevant parties and all relevant countries to work together on calming the situation." (IMRA, 5/31). Part 7: GIVING THE NEWS MEANING I w the start of an IDF video, but could not make out what was happening. A shrewd observation was that the one ship carrying the most ardent activists was the only one to experience violence. In other words, a violent confrontation was not IDF intent. Can you imagine the IDF wanting to shoot unarmed people not making violent resistance, and be accused again of criminality and have to face prosecution? What would you expect to happen when a terrorist-sponsored flotilla, striving to give Israel unfavorable publicity, is intercepted by Israeli troops? A peaceful stand-down? The organizers admitted that their goal was to break a blockade that Israel points out is legal, and to break it in behalf of a terrorist regime that would use a sea corridor to wage war and inflict many more casualties. Having that purpose in mind, neither the organizers nor Israel's other critics will heed Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister's call to calm the situation. They try to inflame it. This is another case of draping the flag of humanitarianism over inhumane causes. Human rights groups do this often, in behalf of terrorism against Israel. Writers sympathetic to Israel have warned that country that it does poorly in public relations. When will that country acknowledge this weakness? Israel has to strive harder than the Arabs, who are more skilled in public relations, because of the built-in UN and media prejudice and the handiness of Jews as international scapegoats. UN investigatory missions have set out with condemnation of Israel written before the fact-finding and manufacturing. In this instance, first the UN Security Council condemned Israel, and then it called for investigation. Having made up its mind so quickly, the UN disqualifies itself from being the investigator. Why doesn't the UN denounce the people who provoked the violence and who defied the blockade? As I have pointed out, the world waits for what is obvious will be a violent conflict, and then condemns Israel for defending itself. If the UN were to condemn in advance of violence the terrorist instigators for plans and for conditions leading to violence, terrorists would not get be able to inflict much unfavorable publicity on Israel by guerilla theater. Then they might desist in certain cases. I have pointed out that Israel rarely makes its case, though the present regime does speak up more. It lets the Arabs make their case, usually unchallenged. Some readers comment that I am inciting to violence against Muslims. They say that I condone the IDF coming to shoot peaceful civilians. Serious charge. For that serious charge, they offer no evidence nor examples of such wording. Nor can they. I do not suggest that the IDF shoot any peaceful protesters. I wrote reports, above, that deny the IDF did and affirm that the protesters attacked the troops. The readers are divorced from reality, as they were on the Gaza combat. Neither do critics show that what I write about Islamic terrorism is incorrect. That leaves me to conclude that they are trying to repress criticism, a common jihadist tactic I have exposed before. Actually, I write about terrorists, radical Islam, and defense from terrorism, and not about attacking Muslims. Some of the accusatory comments came after I posted some paragraphs explaining that I do not write against Islam. They did not dispute those paragraphs. Are they part of the war of words, described next? "Israel is the target of a massive information war, unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds. The staggering scale of the forces aligned against us is demonstrated by two things. One is the huge collection of anti-Israel NGOs that endorsed the flotilla. The other is the huge number of UN members that condemned Israel, though they are hardly able to agree on anything else. This information war and its consortium also is anti-American. Too bad that neither the U.S. nor Israel realizes what is happening! Israel should have demanded an apology from Turkey for sponsoring the shipment of violent activists (IMRA, 6/1 from Caroline Glick). http://www.imra.org.il/
Part 8: INTL. SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT BROKE U.S. LAW The Israel Law Center wrote to California Attorney-Gen. Brown about evidence that the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is conspiring to violate U.S. law in California. The Center suggests that he and the FBI investigate the evidence, and, If they verify it, prosecute. The U.S. Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960, bans fund raising in the U.S. for naval operations against a state with which the U.S. is at peace. ISM has been raising money in California with which to buy two ships to help break the Israeli blockade of Gaze, in August. The money raised by ISM, under the heading of a Free Gaza Movement, would strengthen the terrorist Hamas organization. Hamas is hostile to the U.S.. The Carter Center helped in the fund raising. Bishop Tutu endorses the project. Security experts, however, knowing ISM's record of creating strife and fostering violence, anticipate a high risk of those ships carrying weapons and other contraband (IMRA, 6/1). What did Carter and Tutu think would happen? Part 9: FLOTILLA MIS-CHARACTERIZED IHH, sponsor of the flotilla, was declared by Israel as a terrorist organization. Some of its leaders belong to the Hamas terrorist organizations. Another is the Yemeni, Abd al-Majid al-Zindani, whom the U.S. Treasury designated a terrorist in 2004 for providing support to al Qaeda. The IHH's umbrella organization is the Saudi Union of Good, which the U.S. designated as terrorist, and which is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, whose fatwa encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. Hamas formed the Union of Good in order to smuggle funds into Gaza. Since Israel knows all this, the IHH leadership must have realized that its ships would not reach Gaza. It was far from a peace flotilla (IMRA, 6/1). It was part of the P.R. war on Israel, to make it seem illegitimate and terrorists legitimate. Part 10: SECRETARY CLINTON ASKED HER OPINION She supports the UN condemnation of the "acts" that created the fight at sea. She did not define those acts. Do they include Turkey's failure to screen out the arms used against the Israeli troops? After supporting the vague condemnation, she also supports investigation, including by Israel. First condemn, then check? She ended her answer with a plug for her policy, suggesting that the solution is to set up the Palestinian Arabs in Judea-Samaria and Gaza in an independent state (IMRA, 6/1). The problem with her suggestion is that Hamas has shown itself to be an aggressor. It admits aiming to destroy Israel. Fatah has shown itself to be an aggressor, teaches the duty of taking over Israel, refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and makes negotiating demands that would get Israel destroyed. Both Hamas and Fatah engage in terrorism and promote it. What kind of a solution to the conflict is it to empower terrorist organizations that exist to make conflict? The flotilla demonstrates the fallacy of Clinton's policy and theory. She was making cheap propaganda for it, but lives would be at stake. Part 11: WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY QUERIED 
The U.S. condemned the acts leading to the battle at sea, so White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked which acts, leading to the loss of life at sea, the U.S. was condemning. Mr. Gibbs admitted he can't say, because there was no investigation yet (IMRA, 6/1). Then how could the U.S. condemn acts it cannot identify? You see how different reality is from what the parties say it is? That is why I interpret the news, to show what reality is. Part 12: BRINGING OUT UN HYPOCRISY? The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) finds the UN resolution against Israel hypocritical, because the UN hardly condemned North Korea's sinking of a South Korean ship. Israel acted within its rights and under provocation. North Korea committed aggression by sneak attack. Israel should not have been condemned, but N. Korea should have been. There was a certain hypocrisy by the media for calling the entire passenger roster "peace activists," when they included a number of terrorists. Some journalists failed to report the weapons readied in advance against legal boarding. Turkey should be investigated to determine whether it deliberately assured Israel incorrectly that the passengers had no weapons (6/1 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member). Israel knew terrorists were among the passengers. Why then, did it trust the Islamist government of Turkey's reassurance that no weapons were aboard, and arm its terrorists primarily with paintball rifles? When, after the first commando to land on the ship was mobbed, didn't the rest use their pistols to shoot to kill, instead of letting the mob overpower more commandos? Is the answer that Israel's Left, still influential in media and academia, but which expands in extremism as it shrinks in popular support, has imposed such strict second-guessing of troops, that the troops now take great risks rather than be prosecuted? Do Israeli troops and police feel that their primary duty is to spare Arab assailants and that if they give primary attention to mission success and preserving their own lives, the government will not back them up? Part 13: WHAT IS ISRAEL DOING WITH THE ASSAILANTS? Activists out of the hospital are being deported, all of them. Israel has decided not to prosecute the ones who attacked its troops (IMRA, 6/1). No punishment for criminals? That is not justice. That is caving in to public outcry based on international scapegoating of Israel. Every time Israel gives in, it encourages criminals to act with impunity. It encourages the international bullies and bigots to yell until Israel gives in again. It also must discourage the troops, who risk their lives, suffer wounds, only to have to release their captives. If Israel prosecuted the prisoners, wouldn't that help counteract some of the adverse publicity, by making its case? Doesn't failure to prosecute lend color to its enemies' case? A critic now condemns my articles for being poorly written. No evidence given. Anything to carp. He also says the IDF committed mass-murder and piracy on the high seas, and I should not hold victims responsible. Guess he did not read the facts about who attacked whom, about weapons already aboard, and especially about the stabbed and shot Israelis, who certainly were victims, and the documentation of Israel's legal right to blockade and board. Nine deaths out of 680+ passengers is the critic's idea of mass-murder?
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 GAZA FLOTILLA: TRAGIC, YOU SAY?
Posted by Steven Plaut, June 1, 2010. |
|
The whole world is speaking about the flotilla affair as "tragic." The Israeli media and government are also calling it "tragic." It was not tragic. It was a terrorist aggression against Israel by Islamofascists and leftwing fascists. The tragedy is that the flotilla ships were not sunk by torpedos, as I proposed, rather than forcing IDF soldiers to risk injury. The tragedy is that the idiotic Israeli politicians are agreeing to an "investigation" of the soldiers' actions, so once again Israel proclaims itself guilty until proven innocent in order to appease the anti-Semites. Once again the world is demanding a Goldstone-style investigation, one whose conclusions were written before the ships even left Turkey. Want an investigation? Let's investigate why ONLY 9 terrorists on the ships were killed in the fighting. That seems to be the final tally. Investigate why the Sheikh SALAH was not tossed overboard in memory of Leon Klinghoffer. How about investigating the Arab students at the University of Haifa who injured a policeman yesterday in their violent pro-Hamas rally? And what should be the appropriate response to Turkish involvement in the terrorist flotilla and the attack on Israeli soldiers? The time has come to stop the pretense and to start calling a spade a spade. The Ankara regime is in control of Turkish-occupied Greek Anatolia. Greek Pontos must be freed. The lands of Homer must again fly the Greek flag. We will not even BEGIN to talk about Turkish crimes in Northern Cyprus. The correct name for Istanbul is Constantinople, so let's start using that name. Let's start calling Turkey by its correct name — Occupied Greece. When will the Obama people start speaking out about construction activity in occupied Constantinople? It is time to end Turkish occupation, not only of Greece, but also of the homelands of the Kurds and the Armenians. Until those areas are liberated, the EU should dismiss the attempts by the Asiatic aggressors to gain admission as members of Europe. Let the EU tell them to go back to their Turkic homelands of origin. And maybe the time has even come to demand that the legitimate Ottoman rulers of the Turkish people be restored. Sure, the Ottomans had their faults, but they were far more civilized than the criminal Ankara regime.
Here is an earlier article I wrote about Turkey:
It's archived at
|
|
The hypocritical world of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had a temper tantrum at the Davos forum on world economics recently. He foamed at the mouth about Israel's supposedly "massacring innocent women and children" in its recent military operations against the genocidal Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip. He walked out in demonstrative contempt when Israel's own leftwing president, Shimon Peres, arose to speak to the delegates. He repeatedly accused Israel of "mass murder" in Gaza. Erdogan ranted at length about how Israel had turned the Gaza Strip into an "open-air prison." Even more incredibly, as part of his anti-Israel ravings, Erdogan cited two anti-Semitic ex-Israelis as "authorities" for his claims. One "authority" cited by the Turkish Prime Minister is the notorious deranged Holocaust Denier Gilad Atzmon. A saxophone player in the UK with ties to German Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Deniers in other countries, Atzmon is so openly anti-Semitic that even the most bigoted segments of the Bash-Israel Lobby in the UK usually will have nothing to do with him. He swings back and forth between denying altogether that there was any Holocaust of Jews by the Germans and justifying it as something the Jews deserved. He is on record calling for synagogues to be burned down and promotes the anti-Semitic czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Erdogan cited Atzmon as saying, "Israeli barbarity is far beyond even ordinary cruelty." The other "scholar" cited by Erdogan is the Israel-hating professor Avi Shlaim, who is on the faculty of Oxford University. Shlaim is a pseudo-historian who has made a career out of serving up anti-Israel propaganda, including for the extremist Jew-hating "The Nation" magazine. At Istanbul's airport thousands of people gathered to greet Erdogan when he returned, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags and chanting "Turkey is proud of you." In response to Erdogan's arrogant rant against Israel's defense operations in Gaza, what can be said? Well, for one, in Turkey, unlike in Israel, Islamists are routinely taken out back and shot. Turkey also invaded the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, mowing down any Kurds who got in their way, for Kurdish provocations that never came anywhere near those of the Hamas savages, who fired 8000 rockets into Israel from Gaza. But what else is one to make of this display of temper by the Prime Minister of a country attempting to gain membership in the EU? I would venture to respond to Erdogan by offering the following summary of the conflict: The occupation is entirely illegal and is not recognized as legitimate by a single country on earth other than the occupying power. The occupier carried out acts of mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing when the illegal occupation was imposed on its victims. It transferred thousands of its own citizens illegally as settlers into the territories it continues to occupy. Its human rights record in the occupied territories has been atrocious. It continues to defy all world opinion, while imposing military control and suppression on the hapless residents of the illegally occupied territories. Moreover, its human rights record at home is almost as atrocious. It is an apartheid regime in which minorities are discriminated against and openly harassed. It is a militarist entity that came into existence through perpetration of a set of massive crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Indeed, it has often been accused of having perpetrated genocide at the very moment of its creation. There are serious doubts as to whether it even has any moral right to exist as an independent state. Certainly its capital, a city considered holy by many religions, may not rightfully even belong to it at all. That city was seized from its rightful owners using military force, and its religious shrines were looted and transformed to serve the regime. The above paragraph of course refers to Turkey. The occupied territories in which ethnic cleansing was perpetrated by the Turkish occupying power refer to northern Cyprus. Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus, an independent state (now part of NATO and the EU), in 1974, and militarily seized about a third of the island. It then expelled the entire Greek population from those occupied territories. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Greek Cypriots were made homeless refugees due to the military aggression of Turkey. Not a single country on earth recognizes the puppet "republic" Turkey still operates there. To maintain its hold on northern Cyprus, Turkey transferred many thousands of its own citizens to northern Cyprus as illegal settlers. Northern Cyprus is not even the only set of occupied territories seized and held by modern Turkey. In the year 1939, Turkey simply marched into the Alexandretta area of Syria, then a French protectorate, and annexed it. The ethnic Turks in the area were a minority of the population. The Turkish conquest was based on nothing more than Turkey's desire to take charge of the excellent port facilities there. Syria still considers this area as its own (of course, it also considers Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Cyprus also to be its own). Turkey has shown no interest in removing its settlers from Alexandretta. Its control of other areas, such as the area around Kars near the Armenian border or swaths of Thrace, is also based on dubious legitimacy and questionable claims. Turkey is a semi-democracy in which the military exercises enormous amounts of political power. The respect for human rights in Turkey is notable for its absence. Kurdish, Armenian, and other ethnic minorities have been forcibly Turkified. Religious minorities, such as the Alevi, are persecuted. Censorship is common. Kurdish areas have been subjected to martial rule. Brutal force has been used against Kurdish separatists and other political groups. Indeed, the operations of the Turkish military against the Kurds make Israel's recent incursion into the Gaza Strip (in Operation "Cast Lead") look like a May Day picnic. Until 2003, it was forbidden to speak Kurdish on the radio or television; the Kurdish alphabet still cannot be used. The state of human rights in Turkey, according to numerous human rights NGOs, continues to be atrocious. Women in Turkey are mistreated; until very recently women students applying to universities had to pass a virginity test. The Turkish military police routinely kill civilians. Journalists have been assassinated. Open-air prison, indeed. But today's abuses in Turkey pail into insignificance when placed in the context of the mass murders and ethnic cleansings that accompanied the birth of modern Turkey itself. As the Ottoman Empire collapsed during World War I, ethnic Turks led by Ataturk seized control of most of Anatolia. The infamous mass murders, considered by some to have been genocidal, of ethnic Armenians accompanied the Turkish campaign for independence. Somewhat less well known in the West is the fact that Turkey's creation was also accompanied by the mass expulsion of almost the entire Greek population of Anatolia. The Greeks had been living in Anatolia for thousands of years before the first Turk even stepped foot in the place. Homer was an Anatolian. Western Anatolia at the beginning of the twentieth century held large areas with Greek ethnic majorities. As the Ottoman Empire fell apart, the large Greek populations declared their own independence from Turkey and their union with Greece. The areas around Smyrna and parts of Thrace, with their large Greek population, were supposed to come under Greek sovereignty in the name of self-determination. Britain's Lloyd George was among those who had made the promise. Between 1919 and 1922, Greece and Turkey fought a bloody war for Western Anatolia. No one knows how many Greeks were butchered by the Turks during the war. But the Greeks lost and virtually the entire Greek population, many hundreds of thousands of people, were expelled en masse by Turkey from their ancestral homelands. Almost four times as many Greeks were expelled from Anatolia than the number of "Palestinians" who became refugees as a result of their fleeing the territory that became independent Israel in 1948. The Anatolian Greeks would never be granted any "right of return." Then there is the little matter of Constantinople. The Greek claims to Istanbul are at least a hundred times more legitimate than are any Arab claims to Jerusalem. Constantinople was always a Greek city, conquered by the Turks only in 1453. Its Greek churches were turned into mosques, and some today are Turkish museums. Turkey has never offered to internationalize the city nor turn half of it over to the disenfranchised Greeks. Meanwhile, an entire section of Athens consists of the Greek families expelled from Smyrna (Izmir). Other residents of Athens are ethnic Greeks expelled from illegally occupied northern Cyprus. After his tantrum, Prime Minister Erdogan told the press, "My anger over Gaza directed at Israeli government, not Jews." Well, the whole world's disgust with this hypocrisy is directed against Erdogan and not against the Turkish people. After all, the Turkish people deserve better. 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
|
|
PREACHER OF HATE IS LET INTO UK-TIMES ONLINE
Posted by Babu Suseelan, June 1, 2010. |
|
At no times in the history of the western world, have their freedom, safety, security and pluralistic thinking in greater jeopardy than now. In return for the hollow promise of safety and security, too many political leaders are blindly willing to cede their hard won liberty to hard core Islamic preachers, Jihadi terrorists and smooth talking Islamic snake charmers. Now more than ever, political leaders from all parties need to understand the real Islam, its goal for world domination and coercive conversion of all infidels. We thought western conservative governments stands between us and those who want to convert us into Islam or put to death by the Islamic sword. The despotic behavior of British foreign minister to allow Jihadi preacher to visit Britain is a grave mistake. We thought that the New York City Mayor Bloomberg care about liberty and the future of American democracy. Now he has approved the construction of a mega Mosque (barrack) at Ground Zero. What is going on? Britain and the US are on the brink of surrendering its liberties to such an extent to extremist Islamism, we may never recover unless concerned citizens act decisively now. This below is by David Leppard. |
|
Zakir Naik, an Indian Muslim televangelist described as a "hate-monger" by moderate Muslims and one Tory MP, says western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing. Naik, who proselytises on Peace TV, a satellite television channel, is reported to have called for the execution of Muslims who change their faith, described Americans as "pigs" and said that "every Muslim should be a terrorist". In a recent lecture, he said he was "with" Osama Bin Laden over the attacks on "terrorist America", adding that the 9/11 hijackings were an inside job by President George W Bush. In opposition, David Cameron and other senior Tories led criticism of the Labour government for allowing radical preachers into Britain to stir up hatred on lecture tours. While in opposition, Cameron also campaigned to get Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian radical, banned from Britain. Cameron and May now face a political test over Naik, whose inflammatory comments have led some moderate Muslims to call him a "truth-twister". One well-placed insider said: "Zakir Naik is a nasty man who makes al-Qaradawi look like a participant at a teddy bears' picnic. He shouldn't be allowed into the country to stir up hatred." The Home Office indicated that it was not planning to ban Naik, however. Although Naik makes it clear he does not support specific acts of terrorism, his inflammatory speeches have included one, currently on YouTube, in which he states: "Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them ... we don't know. "But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. "I don't know what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him. I don't know him personally. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist ... I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist." According to reports in the Indian media, his organisation, the Islamic Research Foundation in Mumbai, was where Rahil Abdul Rehman Sheikh, suspected of being commander of a series of train bombings in Mumbai, and other alleged terrorists spent much of their time before the attacks. The American terror suspect Najibullah Zazi, arrested last year for planning suicide attacks on the New York subway, is said to have been inspired by Naik's YouTube videos. There is no suggestion Naik had any knowledge of terrorist plotting. The UK Border Agency said: "Each case is considered on its own merits. When assessing a visa application, we will consider the previous conduct of the individual and we will ensure the UK does not provide a platform for the promotion of violent extremism. "We reserve the right to revoke someone's visa if they are found to be promoting extreme views which are contrary to UK values." Naik will be appearing at Wembley Arena in London and in Sheffield on his British tour. When he last came to Britain in 2006, his visit was condemned by David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth, who described him as a "hate-monger". A doctor by profession, Naik has distinguished himself from dozens of other "mad mullahs" through his intellect and his ability to recite verbatim extended sections of the Koran. Peace TV has a huge following in the Muslim neighbourhoods of Mumbai, Naik's native city. He has been named as the third most popular spiritual guru in India. Last year he was ranked 82nd in a list of India's most powerful people. Since the 9/11 attacks, he appears to have developed a particular hatred of America. He is reported to have said: "The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the Earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. "In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives. Many say, 'You sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife'. If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs." Sermons of malice "Western society has actually degraded [women] to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers" "People who change their religion should face the death penalty" "It is a blatant secret that this attack on the twin towers was done by George Bush himself" "If he [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist ... I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist" Zakir on Non-Muslims Contact Babu by email at b.suseelan@gmail.com |
|
READER-SELECTED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, June, 2010. |
|
From (1jun10)
From (1jun10)
From (1jun10)
From (1jun10)
From (1jun10)
From (1jun10) From Fred Reifenberg (30jun10)
Secure Borders From Dave Alpern (30jun10) This film by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) is excellent for understanding Israel's critical security needs in any serious and viable peace agreement. The upper film is in Hebrew, while the lower film is in English. I, or someone, may have sent this before.... From Fred Reifenberg (30jun10) FOR ALL THOSE WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT ISRAEL From AFSI (30jun10) There is an amazing musician from Neve Daniel named Yedida Freilich. She has just come out with and extremely powerful song called "Only Israel." If you would like to be one of the first to hear it and see the music video. Patrick Henry Panda speaks on Obama" From (30jun10) ] What to do while you're waiting for the White House Comment Line Operator From Justic For Jonathan (30jun10) J4JP experienced a much shorter wait on the line than previously. Here is a 2 minute video to watch while you are waiting! Thanks so much for your participation in this great mitzvah! Fw: Israel & Gulf Spill Connection FromLaureen Moe (30jun10) A pastor reveals a stunning connection between Israel's Independence Day celebration Apr. 19, and the irony of Obama announcing his withdrawal of support by the USA towards Israel. The NEXT day, Apr. 20 THIS year after that announcement, the Discovery oil rig platform in the Gulf blew up. "Coincidentally" Apr. 20 PROTEST AGAINST ISRAELI GOVT. PLANS TO DESTROY OD YOSEF CHAI YESHIVAI From AFSI (30jun10) This is our demonstration in front of the Israeli Consulate, protesting the Israeli government plans to destroy the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar, Israel. We welcome your comments. Helen Freedman
Meet Your Straw Man From Yaacov Levi (30jun10) This light-hearted video is an introduction to information that you *must* know about how your government relates to you and to your strawman (Yes, like in the Wizard of Oz. Remember the Tin Man? Best to know what TIN stands for. The Wizard of Oz was the last warning that the gummint allowed you to get. Did you get it?). Don't let the pounds symbol fool you. It is true of every country that is a colony of Britain. That's right. I don't say was, but is. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War. US, Inc. is an expansion of the Virginia Company. Don't believe me. See this video, which cites all of its claims: 30 Little Known Facts about America All of the British colonies are corporations. Israel too. Yes, Israel is still under British Admiralty Law. Len Getz&Marc Pevar-ZOA Philly co-presidents From Hebron (30jun10) Hebron video. Rep Pence on Blockade. Murky in Turkey From Yaacov Levi (29jun10) Project by Okan Altiparmak. A journey into the Gaza Flotilla Incident. More: A journey into the Gaza Flotilla Incident. 1948 Cartoon From (29jun10) THIS IS A MUST SEE CARTOON What can a cartoon, produced in 1948, teach us today, that's of any value? You'd be very surprised! Pay close attention! Keep in mind as you watch this that it was done in '1948'. Keep telling yourself that as you view it. This is one of the best I have ever seen and it was produced in 1948. This should be viewed by every AMERICAN... Click on 1948 Cartoon below — this cartoon is timeless and is just as true today as it was in 1948! innovation and Israel From (1jun10) Show the UN, yeah right! From Fred Reifenberg (29jun10) This is ONE story, of many stories, of an Arab aka "Palestinian" who was brutally attacked by Hamas and was saved by Israeli Soldiers-saved by the same soldiers many in the world call "Nazis." Please share this video so the truth is thrown right in their faces! Palestinian arab brutally attacked by Hamas. IDF saves Palestinian from Hamas. LATMA Presents 'The Muslim War Council". From Paul Rotenberg (28jun10) Thanks Caroline. Our agents at Latma have penetrated deep within the Axis of Evil to bring you the following report from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's war room. Spoof on Ahmadinejad's war room. The Show is for Free From Susana K-M (28jun10) These are the "friends" of Israeli Academics and all leftists around.
Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick and the Imam Abdullah Faarooq Human Rights Forum in UN — United Nations Watch From Robin Ticker (28jun10) This email is L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch. Defending our Rights to the Land From Robin Ticker (28jun10) Thanks to Evelyn Haze for forwarding this YouTubes. The Rabbanim must take their cue from him. Proclaiming the Biblical Boundaries without fear. Dr. Saviour Chisimba — Presidential Candidate, Zambia — the Voice of intelligence. All Jewish Executive Directors and Vice Presidents can take their cue from him Mi KeAmcha Yisroel Goi Echad Baaretz — Who is like you Israel a Unique Nation in the Land! To all that are Silent in this dangerous times, the Words of Mordechai Hatzadik to Queen Esther are as relevant today as then "Im Hachareish Tacharishu...." Hamas — public relations From Ben Ami (27jun10)
From (1jun10) Israel Air Force From Fred Reifenberg (27jun10) liberal case for Israel From David Meir-Levi (26jun10) Please take just 4 minutes to watch Bret Stephens, of the Wall Street Journal, as he makes "the liberal case for Israel" — excellent basis for a presentation to a liberal audience or a college audience or a high school audience. video choc sur obama — encore pire que nous l avions imaginé — limpide!!! From Monp (26jun10) Islam is peaceful? In Whose Mind? Not the Moslems' Mind From Boris Celser (26jun10) CBN News traveled to London to talk with Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim radical who says Islamic teachings are what shaped his pro-jihad message. Hear in his own words that Islam is NOT a "religion of peace", but rather that Jihad and the killing of Christians and Jews is authorized by the Koran. Rabbi Dr. Richard Rubenstein on Obama From (24jun10) Rabbi Dr.Richard Rubenstein, has had an outstanding career as a scholar. His latest book is Jihad and Genocide. An interview with. Rabbi Dr.Richard Rubenstein
From Sasha Stawski (24jun10) German parliamentarians on the Flotilla An open letter to President Obama from Jon Voight From UCI (23jun10) Hebron News: Yehuda Shaul of extreme left, visits Hebron with Arab MKs From Hebron (23jun10) 
The war Obama ignores From Yaacov Levi (23jun10) Along the US Border with Mexico it is beginning to look just like the Israeli borders. when ABC puts on something like this there is still hope. When We Die as Martyrs From Daily Alert (21jun10) Watch cute little girls singing about Allah's revenge over Palestine. Pence: "Mr. President, Whose Side Are You On?" From Yaacov Levi (20jun10) WOW! AND HE'S NOT A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE!!! G-D BLESS HIM AND MAY HE BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.. PEOPLE — MAKE SURE YOU SEND HIM AN EMAIL TELLING HIM HOW WONDERFUL HE IS!!!!!! Rep Mike Pence on the blockade GEERT WILDERS: THE CONFLICT WITH ISLAM From Paul Rotenberg (20jun10) This comes from Izzy Kaplan of www.IsraelOnIsrael.blogspot.com Few are willing to stand up to the issue. Fewer still look past their own difficulties to see what others are facing. Geert Wilders is not only trying to see the big picture, he is also willing to stand up and fight the fight. One does not have to agree with everything he says, though it is hard to disagree with most of it. It is most interesting to see who listens and who just covers their ears. Geert Wilders' warning to America.
From (23jun10) Hitler's Children From Boris Celser (19jun10) Hitler's Children — just the family names alone evoke genocidal horror: Himmler, Frank, Goering, von Ribbentrop. Hitler's Children is a film about the descendants of the most notorious killers in the Nazi regime: men and women who were left a legacy of being the offspring of mass murderers of the Jewish people. A powerful dialogue between children of perpetrators of the Holocaust and children of survivors. Very touchy 20 minutes clip! Good "educational" piece for the Holocaust deniers!
From Fred Reifenberg (18jun10) Once again, friends and advocates of Israel owe a debt of gratitude to Acting Minister for Information, and Special Raporteur on Strategic Use of Ridicule as a Tool of Anti-terrorism, Caroline Glick. With her talented team of guerilla-hasbara exponents at Latma, she has produced another very clever viral video. This time, the delicate sensibilities of the YouTube crowd are not at risk; this take-off of the Three Tenors seems carefully calculated to infringe no one's intellectual property rights. And here's another from the Latma Comedy Group.
The Three Terrors comedy show and related TVs From R, Rubinek (18jun10) A page full of videos from the www.latma.co.il comedy group. Listen to this Bitch From (16jun10) Egyptian Lawyer — "Arab Men Should Harass Israeli Women as Resistance": Beat up on women. Show you are a man. Glenn Beck on Youtube From Robin Ticker (16jun10) Also Keren Malki — Memorial You tube and fundraiser Bazaar L'ilui Nishmas Malka Roth hy"d and Michal Raziel hy"d murdered in Sbarro
YOU TUBE for Keren Malky Memorial video 9:37 minutes li'lui Nishmas Malki Roth hy"d and Michal Raziel hy"d 15 and 16 year old teenagers murdered in Sbarro and to promote a street bazaar in Ramot in July to raise funds for special needs children in their memory and l'Illui Nishmatam
Malka Roth's hy:"d mother Frimet, was my childhood friend growing up in Forest Hills, Queens NY. Her father is Arnold Roth of One Israel Fund. Thank you to my bff (best friends forever) Srif for sending me these links. The Paulian Moonbats and Their Condemnation of Israel From Brother Shane (15jun10) And yes, i have proof that Ron Paul is a hypocrite...and an idiot. First off, he has always said that we should stay out of other nation's business. He always has said that Israel had her hands tied so she could not do her proper job of defending her nation and people. He said he believes in non-intervention. But now...he says that, because America supports Israel, we have a reason to go to "war" ...if she doesn't stop blocking aid from going into the Gaza. WHAT!?????????? Does he need to be reminded that the Philistinians (Gazaites), and the Ammonites (West Bank Arabs), are nothing more than Palestinian/Israeli Arabs who CHOSE to stay in Israel (being invited by them), after the 1967 war...after they got their butts kicked for trying to kill all the Jews and "drive them into the sea"...!??? History of Israel & Palestine Does he need to be reminded that ALL OF (ONCE BRITISH RULED) PALESTINE was to be given to the Jews, according to Balfour Agreement (and agreed upon by the League Of Nations)!??? That the Arab leaders in Palestine complained and demanded that they get 70% of the land...which eventually became Trans-Jordan, and later Jordan!??? The Mandate
So the Palestinian/Israeli Arabs have already been given a state of their own on Israeli land. Does he also need to be reminded that HAMAS and FATAH (PLO), have both been recognized as terrorist organizations by the U.S., NATO and the U.N.!??? Reagrdless of what they say now, the reality is, that this has never changed... Palestinean Terrorist Organizations
Here's a little history of their leadership Does he also need to be reminded that Israel has been giving the Arabs living in the Gaza, and the West Bank (Judea), $MILLION$ in medical aid, clothing, supplies and food for decades now!??? Does he also need to be reminded that not only does Cyprus, Egypt and and many other nations want to have a naval blockade...but even FATAH wants it!??? Abbas to Obama: I'm against lifting the Gaza naval blockade
Now, since HAMAS is recognized as a terrorist organization, and Abbas is recoginized as the true leader of the Palestinians, then that would make Paul's comment about Israel letting HAMAS rule over the Philistinians kind of idiotic, wouldn't it? See also: Michael Coren On Turkish hypocrisy Gaza flotilla deaths can be blamed on Obama White House rejected Israeli intel, blocked use of anti-riot gear against flotilla someone sent the Marines to their death Why the Security and Well-Being of the United States Depends Very Much on Israel
Flotilla to Gaza film clip from streaming video
Here is an interview with some of the brave supporters of Hamas. You won't understand all of it, but it's worth listening to the end:
If you want to watch the streaming video, here is the link:
Turkey Never Was a Friend of Ours War and What is to be Done — Paul Eidelberg NY Times Denies Flotilla Terrorist Connection Hamas: Red Cross Visit to Shalit Not Possible
Where is the world outcry over this?
White House denies agreeing to UN Commission on flotilla of fools Hamas prevents flotilla aid from entering Gaza The medicines and supplies Hamas won't let in to Gaza Gaza: Do These People Look Like They Need An Aid Flotilla?
excerpt... So what can be done to thwart this cynical exercise from reinforcing the dominant narrative not only in the Arab and Muslim world, but in mainstream Western media, that Gaza is "under siege" by callous Israel? For starters it can tell an indifferent world what actually entered Gaza legally from Israel just this last week of the "siege": 637 truckloads, consisting of 14,069 tons of humanitarian aid. Among the goods for Gaza civilians were 810,209 liters of heavy duty diesel fuel; 21 truckloads of milk powder and baby food; 897 tons of cooking gas; 66 truckloads of fruits and vegetables; 51 truckloads of wheat; 27 truckloads of meat, chicken and fish products; 40 truckloads of dairy products; 117 truckloads of animal feed; 36 truckloads of hygiene products; 38 trucks of clothing; 22 trucks of sugar and 4 trucks of medicine and medical equipment. Joyce Kaufman — A Must See From Zalmi (15jun10) The Forgotten Rachels From Fred Reifenberg (15jun10) TR: SUPERBE TRAVAIL VIDEO AMERICA RISING From Monp(14jun10) CHANGER AMERICA POUR FRANCE OU EUROPE ET ON POURRAIT FAIRE LA MEME DEMONSTRATION A powerful 3 minutes. PLEASE pass this on to your friends!!! THIS HAD TO BE PRODUCED BY A VERY PROFESSIONAL AD AGENCY. IT IS BRILLIANT!
From David Meir-Levi (13jun10) Subject: good news! "We con the world" is still available and more content is coming (next Thursday) Pass this around as widely as possible. don't let Youtube's surrender
to Arab intimidation get the upper hand.
It's also available at
Three More Important Videos From Truth Provider (11jun10) Dear friends, Here are three excellent video clips and a picture. Indeed, pictures speak thousands of words. 1) The first clip is titled I AM ISRAEL. It is a true and emotional picture of what Israel is about:
2) While most of the world media continued to demonize Israel, Glen Beck on FOX News devoted a whole hour to the truth about the Gaza "Humanity" flotilla incident. Here is the program condensed for your convenienc. This is a must, just to receive a lesson in how to report the news correctly.
3) I thought the US Constitution forbids the government to promote any certain religion. Here is President Obama clearly promoting Islam on several occasions:
Have a great weekend. Your Truth Provider,
Abbas. Liar, Liar pants on fire! From David Frankfurter (10jun10)
I received all these in today's batch of emails. Read these: 1. Abbas tells U.S. Jews: I would never deny Jewish right to the land of Israel
2. Palestinian President repeats acceptance of Jews' claim to the land of Israel, citing the Koran.
THEN watch this video 3. Abbas rejects Israel as Jewish state
THEN read this: 4. Abbas not truthful to Obama; denies PA incitement
Who is this man trying to fool? I'd be willing to bet the word in Somalia is, don't mess with Russian ships. From Boris Celser (10jun10) Goodness me. Perhaps I missed the sound of "disproportionate" somewhere. Can you imagine the outcry if an Israeli navy ship had done this to those poor pirates? MW This is part of the videotape showing Russian Navy commandos on a Somalia pirate ship. You may remember that the pirates captured a Russian oil tanker. The EuroUnion Navy that patrols these waters could not interfere because there could be casualties. (Not a joke) All explanations are in Russian and, with a single exception when a wounded pirate tells something in English, all conversations are between the commandos, in Russian. If you don't understand Russian, the pictures speak for themselves. The soldiers freed their compatriots, moved all the pirates to their own (pirate) ship, searched the pirate ship for weapons and explosives, and took seven Somalia pirates. Then they left the ship and exploded it with the remaining pirates on it. The commandos sunk the majority of the pirates without any court proceedings, lawyers, etc. That is, they used anti-piracy laws of the 18th and the 19th centuries. The captain of the rescuing ship has the right to decide what to do with the pirates. Usually, they were hanged or walked the plank. I would think from now on the Russian ships will not be future targets... Russian Navy Commandos Capture Somali Pirates Frank Gaffney about Obama, Iran Sanctions & Abbas/Gaza From Philly AFSI(10jun10)
John Gambling had Frank Gaffney, Founder/President of the Center for Security Policy on 6/10/2010 to discuss President Obama's comments about sanctions against Iran and policy towards the Palestinians. Gaffney was brilliant.
Here is a link to the podcast:
On the John Gambling Show. Gilad Shalit From Bruce S Ticker (10jun10) The One About Hamas and The One About Iran From (9jun10) From No Laughing Matter great video: A Blind Musician with a Dream From Michael Freund (9jun10) Dina Samte uses unique singing talent to express yearnings of Bnei Menashe people from northeastern India to come home to Israel Captured garbage truck in Gaza fitted out as a missile launcher From Boris Celser (7jun10) It has been documented that terrorists in Lebanon and Gaza have used human shields, have used ambulances to transport weapons and terrorists, have used mosques to hide weapons and terrorists — to the list add garbage trucks! 
This is a captured "garbage truck" from Gaza. The truck is set up to fire Kasem rockets and then drive off innocently. The note pasted on the driver's door says — "In case of traffic violations, please contact The Palestinian Authority." The Israelis have evidence of ambulances and emergency vehicles set up the same way. The Kinks — Living on a Thin Line — Israel and the world in 2010 From Rom Mossad(8jun10) More on aftermath From Yaacov Levi (7Jun10) Aid boat 'Rachel Corrie' boarded The worlds attitude towards Israel put to music! From Yaacov Levi (6jun10) another copy of the spoof song The last Jews of Baghdad From Yaacov Levi (6jun10) Talk about uplifting....you have to watch this short video. You will be thankful that you did..... Strategy behind ground zero mosque From Boris Celser (6jun10) This video explains it all. Think NYC covered in minarets. Suicide Activists on the Gaza Flotilla From Arlene Peck (6jun10) (6jun10) An excellent and accurate piece of reporting !!! Peace cargo From Asher (6jun10) Shraga Simmons is narrator
Some of the peaceful cargo. What a world to pass on to the future From Fred Reifenberg(6jun10) Reuters captions a pix of a wounded IDFer as a wounded flotilla activist. Gaza Flotilla — The Love Boat From Boris Celser (6jun10) Get Real! by Prof. Paul Eidelberg From Aryeh Zelasko (5jun10) Get Real!
"We will con the world" was a brilliant video, and we all need a good laugh. However, while its producers deserve praise, let's get real. Let's bear in mind that wars are not won by means of satire. Nor are they won by "hasbara" or information campaigns. We've had such campaigns year after year for decades with no discernible effect — and it won't do to say they were flawed. While "hasbara" may enlighten the ignorant, they may also obscure the simple fact that against Islamism, as was the case against Nazism, overwhelming military force is the decisive factor, which of course seems to be beyond the wherewithal of the miniscule State of Israel. However, since Israel is repeatedly condemned for defending itself — whether in the case of Jenin, Gaza, Lebanon, and now for killing some terrorists in the Islamic Flotilla, why shouldn't the IDF, by means of covert and overt operations, emasculate one terrorist haven after another right here in the Land of Israel? When I looked at the face of Israel's prime minister and listened to his words defending Israel's actions vis-à-vis Islam's terrorist flotilla, I was dismayed. Perhaps I am mistaken, but he appeared as a tired if not broken man unequal to the challenge confronting Israel. If he was merely putting on a diplomatic or PR face on a horrific situation, was this the right PR? Instead of defensive remarks, couldn't he have gone on the OFFENSIVE — to begin with, but only to begin with — by exposing the axis of evil confronting Israel of which the Jihadist flotilla was merely a flea? Why must Israel always appear on the defensive against its genocidal enemies and their spineless supporters in the media and capitals of the democratic world? Since Israel get's a bad press no matter what it does, why not deserve it! Which means: make sure Israel's enemies get what they deserve! Can't Israel's Military and Intelligence echelons figure this out? And if the political echelon is not cooperative, I suggest that a few generals, who are responsible for the lives of our soldiers, have a private meeting with the prime minister and put the fear of God in him. Deep Inside a Moslem From Yaacov Levi (5jun10) ISLAM — A SHORT SYNOPSIS OF HOW IT WORKS
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.' When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)). As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness: United States — Muslim 1.0%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Denmark — Muslim 2%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ). France — Muslim 8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons). Guyana — Muslim 10%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8% At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia — Muslim 40%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Albania — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace — there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. 'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel' — Leon Uris, 'The Haj' It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate. And we continue to cater and negotiate in a politically correct way so as not to 'offend' our Muslim 'brothers.' Time to wake up! DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post is to be construed as a call to violence, just my opinion as a citizen of the United States of America one boy stands up From Doc Milt Fried (5jun10) A lone Jew takes on the muslims and their far-left buddies : What do you think was found on the Turkish boat???? From Roberta Dzubow (5jun10) On the boat with the peaceful activists Mosque Near Ground Zero From (5jun10) Pat Condell on the Ground Zero mosque It's also available at
They prayed before they lynched From Fred Reifenberg (5jun10) Wall Street Journal Videos From Susana (4jun10) lion-warning From Boris Celser (4jun10) 
Compare Arab"peacenik'" words with his other words in Arabic From Esther Green (4jun10) Please read the blogpost at the link below to see how an Arab spokesman who is a peacemonger in English becomes a warmonger in Arabic.
"Peaceful" Osama Kahoo turns nasty when speaking on board the Marmara Absolutely brilliant From Aryeh Zelasko(4jun10) If only it were really funny rather than so accurately real More Flotilla News — June 3rd From (4jun10) The Truth About Israel's Defensive Actions Against The Flotilla We got over 150 volunteers. Our goal was 100. Well now, our goal is 500! That means I need another 350 volunteers to help make Israel's case by doing small 5 minute tasks. If you are willing to volunteer, please send an email to volunteerforisrael@gmail.com (this is the only place I will manage the volunteers so please... do not email our other email about volunteering.) Gaza Flotilla, NGOs, and the Exploitation of Human Rights From Professor Gerald Steinberg(4jun10) Transcript of News Hour, 20:00 GMS, BBC World Service, May 31, 2010 Julian Marshall: "So where does the truth lie? I've been speaking to Professor Gerald Steinberg in Israel, he runs a website called NGO Monitor and to Dr. Arafat Shukri who chairs the European campaign to end the siege on Gaza — one of the groups that organized the convoy of boats. I started by putting to him the allegation that the convoy was more to do with provocation than peace. Dr. Arafat Shukri: "Simply this is not true. Israel has been preparing themselves for attacking us. Israel did not allow this aid to get into Gaza, like the cement, the building material, all the things that were on board. If they allowed such material to get into Gaza, there is no need for us to go in the first place." Marshall: "Professor Steinberg, the very existence of a blockade in Gaza lends itself to what we've seen on the high seas in the past twenty-four hours..." Professor Gerald Steinberg: "The very existence of a very vicious and violent war against Israel, particularly since the Hamas takeover — that's certainly the reason for the blockade. I think that having these kinds of exchanges, which are very simplistic, avoids what I think is one of the main issues, and that is the abuse of moral rhetoric: human rights, humanitarian aid, peace processes. These were once called "peace activists." To use that framework, that moral framework to justify what are clearly immoral acts — that's a much bigger and wider problem. Marshall: "But how can you classify the delivery of humanitarian aid supplies to Gaza in the kind of language that you've been using?" Steinberg: "This is a military situation, and groups that use humanitarian frameworks and say that they are bringing medical aid in order to be part of that military confrontation is fundamentally immoral, and that is something I'd like to hear Dr. Shukri address." Shukri: "Well, actually, this is very cheap Israeli propaganda. They just want to show everybody who is supporting the Palestinians as a terrorist. This is simply not true. We are in a humanitarian mission. We've got parliamentarians from different parts of Europe who came with us on board to deliver this humanitarian aid." Marshall: "But you have to admit that you are also seeking to highlight the Israeli blockade of Gaza." Shukri: "This is our right: to highlight the issue of people who are besieging Gaza for around four years. Because it is illegal and brutal on the lives of the people there." Marshall: "Professor Steinberg, Israel may find these convoys delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza annoying. Why the confrontation, the loss of life on this particular occasion?" Steinberg: "What we saw in the video is people who claim to be peace activists, who claim to act in the name of morality, in a ship flying a Turkish flag from a group called IHH, which has close connections with jihadist groups, that attacked the Israeli soldiers coming down one at a time. This was not a violent attempt to take over the ship or to injure people..." Marshall: "In international waters." Steinberg: "The point is that this is part of a state of war. And with all the criticism that exists from European officials, who, unfortunately, have a very simple-minded approach — this was clearly designed to be the end of a confrontation in a peaceful manner and the Israelis were ambushed." Marshall: "Could I just ask, Dr. Shukri, do you issue instruction to those who take part in these convoys to remain passive at all times? To not offer resistance?" Shukri: "Yeah, definitely. This is the training. We tell them that we are in a humanitarian mission: if you want to resist, you have to be passive in your resistance. But the Israeli Army in such a move, shooting at them, some people would defend themselves by using the acts or something which might appear in the videos." Marshalls: "Professor Steinberg, I mean, could I put it to you that, over a period of years, that Israel has perhaps come to look upon any activist who aligns himself or herself with the Palestinian cause as representing some sort of threat to Israel itself?" Steinberg: "I think that is an exaggeration for two reasons. Number one there is clearly a political dimension to the military and terrorist war that is being waged against Israel and many of the people who call themselves activist are part of the process and when Israel defends itself, these activist immediately scream "war crimes." We saw it in Jenin, the false massacre claims, and I think that needs to be addressed. The other flaw with that kind of argument is that many of these people are in fact, I saw the term today, I think its useful to use, they are suicide activist, they are martyrs for the Palestinian cause. They want to bring on the violence." Marshall: "Dr. Shukri, given the kinds of confrontations there has been over the past 24 hours, will you continue with these convoys to Gaza?" Shukri: "We think what we are doing is legal, in the eyes of the Professor here, he portrayed all the NGOs working to help the Palestinians are a kind of extremists, including Amnesty and Oxfam, which is utterly untrue." Marshall: "Dr. Arafat Shukri who chairs the European Campaign to end the siege on Gaza, I was also speaking to Professor Gerald Steinberg in Israel who runs a website called NGO Monitor." ----------- Transcript from BBC Europe Today, June 1, 2010 BBC: To Jerusalem where we can speak to Professor Gerald Steinberg. He's the director of a group called NGO Monitor. I wonder what you made of those comments there from Omar Faruk ... G.S.: Organisations that support terrorist groups, whether Al Qaida, Hizbollah, or Hamas, don't usually come out and say that we work closely with these groups [IHH, ISM, etc.] The process is very complex. They hide the money and the sources of their support. Beyond the investigation and the raid [by Turkish security agencies] that you mentioned in 1997, where bomb making material and weapons were found, we also have the case that the United States, the US Treasury Department has designated the umbrella organization which is the Turkish Union of the Good, which IHH is a partner member of that organization, they have designated them as being part of the global terrorist network. That broader umbrella group has transferred funds to the families of Hamas suicide bombers. This is a US government organization, this is not an Israeli organization, and it's not a rumour, or an artificial creation. So, this is part of the problem. What we really have here in this flotilla is — maybe the term "perfect storm" is useful, certainly in terms of the way Israel looks at it, — a huge disaster. On the one hand you have a very militant Turkish government which is allying itself now with Iran and Syria and Israel's paying the price for this. They are the ones who helped promote and support this flotilla and we heard the angry words. Then we have the abuse of human rights, of humanitarian aid as part of political warfare. Not just the IHH, but also we have this organization called the International Solidarity Movement with the Palestinians and we have people like Caoimhe Butterly [an ISM militant from Ireland], people who have been involved in supporting terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas since 2002-2003. And ISM spokesperson Greta Berlin is very well known for her very virulent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements. They all work together. BBC: I take your view but on board those ship were a number of elected politicians from fairly moderate parties within Europe and the condemnation has not just been from Turkey, the British, for example, have been saying that it's an outrage. The, uh, NATO has, the UN has. We've also been hearing many commentators within Israel have described the raid as a mistake and a failure. Do you think the military could have handled this better? G.S.: I think we should distinguish between the deliberate provocation and the failure of the Israeli military to find a proper way, a successful way of dealing with it. Certainly this was a failure. There's no question about it, you wouldn't be talking to me now, there wouldn't be 9 or 10 dead people. It was clearly a failure. But we see the images. We see the images of the soldiers coming down one at a time. They could have done a lot more damage if they were interested in creating this kind of provocation. They were beaten up. They feared for their lives, I think legitimately, and that they would be lynched. One soldier was thrown overboard. We all see the images. Israelis are very very aware of, cognisant of what has happened to soldiers who are captured by Palestinians and tortured. Gilad Shalit is still held, four years, in Gaza after he was kidnapped on Israeli soil. And the international human rights community, groups like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, all of these groups are completely silent on his fate. So if there are European politicians on these boats in what you describe as from moderate parties then they clearly do not understand the situation that they are in, they have been captured by the Palestinian narrative, which makes Israelis always aggressors and Palestinians always the victims, and that is a big part of the problem which Israel frankly has not successfully learned how to deal with. It is part of political warfare. We con the world. From Yatza at the Seasoned Skeptic (4jun10) We con the world. "We are peaceful travelers." Netanyahu talking about the flotilla From Susana (3jun10) Netanyahu talking about stopping the flotilla. Glenn Beck, Fox News:The real motivations behind the "Freedom Flotilla" From (4jun10) Glenn Beck. Real motivation behind the flotilla. *Do it for the media From Truth Provider (3jun10) Dear Friends I received the following video a few minutes ago. Please add the link to the ones I sent earlier and forward it to everybody you know. If the media cannot supply the facts, the least you can do is do it for them. Your Truth Provider,
If you haven't seen all the videos of the tragic incident off the coast of Israel From Sheridan Neimark(3jun10) These are Tom Gross's notes: 1. Videos of today's incident off the coast of Israel
VIDEOS OF INCIDENT OFF THE COAST OF ISRAEL Israeli naval patrol boats intercepted eight blockade-running vessels overnight. The boarding turned violent on one of the boats, when pro-Hamas activists attacked the Israelis with long metal bars, knives and hammers. Some reportedly managed to seize weapons from the Israeli sailors and turned on them with live fire, prompting Israel to open fire in response. On a personal note, to state the obvious, any loss of life including those who lost their lives last night, is deeply regrettable, but it is important to be properly informed of the context in which this incident occurred in order to decide where the blame ultimately lies. THROWING AN ISRAELI OFF THE TOP DECK OF THE BOAT Below is aerial footage showing the misnamed "peace" activists throwing
an Israeli soldier off the top deck of the boat, and beating up other
soldiers with iron bars:
Here they use firebombs and metal pipes against Israeli soldiers:
THE CHANTING OF ANTI-SEMITIC SLOGANS Before they set sail from Turkey, I published this video footage, showing participants on board one of the ships chanting violent anti-Jewish slogans. To watch it, please scroll down to the end of section 4 titled "An
industry of lies" here:
WHO ARE THESE PEACE ACTIVISTS? This research by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (an
organization which I am well acquainted with and is very reliable)
outlines who the IHH (the group involved in the violence aboard the
boat, which the BBC and others are uncritically calling "Turkish peace
activists") really
are:
This research from the Danish Institute for International Studies
details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan and
elsewhere and their links to al-Qaeda:
Gaza Affamee From Yaacov Levi (3jun10) Compare Starvation in Gaza and the real thing in Algeria and Guatemala.
Turkey, NATO & terrorism From Sandra Levy (3jun10) (1.) Shepard Smith asked PJ Crowley, what will happen if Turkey, a member of NATO, decides to send the Turkish Navy to protect the next Gaza bound flotillas due to arrive soon in the region. Shepard Smith stated that according to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, the United States must support Turkey in any confrontation i
Interview Shepard Smith and PJ Crowley, Ass Sec. of State
(2) The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 Al Qaeda plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France's former top anti-terrorism judge said Wednesday. The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 Al Qaeda plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France's former top anti-terrorism judge said Wednesday. The Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, had "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad," former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Bruguiere, who led the French judiciary's counterterrorism unit for nearly two decades before retiring in 2007, didn't indicate whether IHH now has terror ties, but said it did when he investigated it in the late 1990s. "They were basically helping Al Qaeda when (Usama) bin Laden started to want to target U.S. soil," he said. Some members of an international terrorism cell known as the Fateh Kamel network then worked at the IHH, he said. Kamel, an Algerian-Canadian dual national, had ties to the nascent Al Qaeda, Bruguiere said. Among Kamel's followers was Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian who was arrested in the U.S. state of Washington in December 1999 on his way to bomb Los Angeles International Airport as part of an Al Qaeda plot. "IHH had a role in the organization that led to the plot," Bruguiere said, reiterating sworn testimony he made in a U.S. Federal Court during Ressam's trial. Ressam is serving a 22-year prison sentence. Bruguiere issued an international warrant for Kamel, Ressam's former mentor, who was extradited from Jordan to France in 1999 and sentenced to eight years in prison on terror-related charges. IHH vehemently denies ties to radical groups. The group is not among some 45 groups listed as terrorists by the U.S. State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Nine people on board the IHH flotilla were killed by Israeli forces on Monday. "We are a legal organization," IHH board member Omer Faruk Korkmaz said late Wednesday in response to Bruguiere's statements. "We have nothing to do with any illegal organization," he said. "We don't know Ahmed Ressam or Fateh Kamel," Korkmaz said. "We don't approve of the actions of any terrorist organization in the world." French investigators found in the 1990s that "several members of Fateh Kamel's network worked at the IHH as a cover," Bruguiere said. "It was too systematic and too widespread for the NGO (non-governmental organization) not to know" their real goal, he said. The former judge, renowned for tracking down convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal, said he didn't believe the IHH could have been infiltrated by terrorists without its knowledge. "It's hard to prove, but all elements of the investigation showed that part of the NGO served to hide jihad-type activities," Bruguiere said. "I'm convinced this was a clear strategy, known by IHH." The judge said he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other "incriminating" material. "It was clearly proven that some of the NGO's work was not charity, it was to provide a facade for moving funds, weapons and mujahedeen to and from Bosnia and Afghanistan" — areas focused on by Islamic militants then. In Istanbul, Korkmaz, of IHH, confirmed the late '90s police raid but denied that any weapons were found and said there was no evidence found of links to militancy. Bruguiere would not specify how many members of Kamel's terror cell worked at IHH or give their names, but he said one of the suspects, a man from Bosnia, appeared in another terror-related case as recently as 2005 — though there was no indication at the time that the man still had ties to IHH. Elements within the charity supported jihadi operations in the 1990s, Bruguiere said, before adding: "I don't know whether they continued to do so" more recently. "But it seemed clear at the time that it was thanks to a measure of political backing within the Turkish government that it (IHH) could continue to operate," despite the strong suspicions against it, Bruguiere said. Bruguiere retired from the judiciary in 2007 when he took part in an election to become a lawmaker in the conservative party of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He lost his bid. Bruguiere, 67, is now the coordinator for the European Union in a terrorism finance tracking program jointly run with the United States. In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that "we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us." But, he said the U.S. could not "validate" that IHH has connections to Al Qaeda. Sabbath in Gilo From Israel Matzav(2jun10) More News on Flotilla From Yaacov Levi (2jun10) "They are firing on us with live fire!" On the other five ships which were part of the flotilla, the interception took place with no violence. When the soldiers attempted to board the Mavi Marmara, activists on board attacked the soldiers and stole two pistols in a prepared attack. In this footage you can hear the radio exchange between soldiers on their way to the bridge and the IDF ship. The soldiers report encountering live fire and serious violence. On Tuesday (June 1) Captain R., a Naval Special Forces commander of one of the squadrons who participated in the interception of the Mavi Marmara ship, said in an interview with IDF Radio: "There were terrorists who wanted to kill us. I cannot explain it any other way. We used every means possible in order that those who shouldnít get hurt ñ would not get hurt." Captain R. was stabbed in the stomach and was wounded in his arm. "After I descended from the helicopter, I was in front of several terrorists and I cocked my weapon when I saw one of them come towards me with a knife. I fired one shot, and at that point, another twenty people started coming at me from every direction. They jumped at me and hurled me to the lower deck. At the same time, I felt intense pain in my stomach. I saw a knife stabbed into my stomach and I pulled it out. I somehow managed to get to the lower level, where there was another mob of people. I, along with other team members, jumped into the water. The third commando that was with us was hit in the head and lost consciousness, " he said. "We came to speak, they came to fight." Another naval soldier, who participated in the interception of the Mavi Marmara ship and sustained a broken arm while under attack by the ship's passengers, described how the soldiers were shot at from the entrance to the shipís corridor. "ìI saw two from my group lying flat on the ground. From the opening of the corridor they were shooting at them the entire time with live fire, bullets. We identified a gun barrel, and one of us shot at the guy holding it. Afterwards we entered and he wasn't there. About 30 men, they simply came for war. We came to straighten things out, to speak to those who went downstairs, but each of us who descended was simply attacked." "There were some from my group that were thrown to the lower floor, and the passengers took their equipment. They jumped to the water as a last resort. We were told that if they didn't listen, we should shoot at their legs with our paintball guns. The pistol was to be used only if we really felt our lives in danger, which wasn't expected to happen. It would be extremely abnormal. But in the end, that is what happened." "We came with the intention of stopping the ship and taking it to Ashdod, and we did not come with the weapons we usually have, we came for something entirely different." Glenn Beck's report on Flotilla and HIstory of Israel From Yardena 3 (2jun10) Thank you Mr Beck for such a wonderful presentation on Israel and all the problems it faced and still faces. I was appalled by the Brennan remarks. Brennan is said to have caused an uproar. Please watch and take action against this Israel denyer in a high position as Brennan occupies in USA. John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address — Providing Aid and-by PipeLineNews.org Overall, the speech emphasized the worst elements of "State Department speak," especially reflective of an overly accommodative Arabist mindset. The choice of words [referring to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem by its Muslim name, as well as delivering part of the speech in Arabic] tone [extraordinarily deferential to Muslim sensibilities, which always seem to be set on a hair-trigger] and political effect [another slap in the face to the concept of Israel as a Jewish state] all telegraph the unmistakable message from team Obama that the term "America's ally, Israel," is fading into distant memory, driven by a delusional sense of reality which pervades 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. From the security cameras aboard the Mavi Marmara From Boris Celser (2jun10) http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU About Gaza see u tube video From Sheridan Neimark (2jun10) Dennis Prager Q & A At University of Denver From (1jun10) From the security cameras aboard the Mavi Marmara From Boris Celser (2jun10)
IDF on Deck Terror Advocates From Sandra Levy (1jun10) Prior to departure, the 'peace activists' sing about killing Jews The Israeli Navy addresses a ship nearing the Gaza shore, offering it to dock at the Ashdod Port and transfer its supplies under the ship's crew's supervision. The ship refused to comply. Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldiers Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers Israeli Navy Soldier Describes the Violent Mob Aboard Mavi Marmara Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon presents Israel's position to the media — very few foreign journalists were in attendance StandWithUs Denounces Anti-Israel Flotilla Goals and Lynching Attempt Great article by Melanie Phillips: 'Peace convoy'? This was an Islamist terror ambush Another great video by my friend 'Democast" From Aryeh Zelasko (1jun10) Israel Truth Times. Daniel — who defended the flag. 911 memorial in Israel From Aryeh Zelasko (1jun10) |
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |