| HOME | Featured Stories | March 2011 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: BLUE LUPINE IN YELLOW MUSTARD FIELD
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 31, 2011. |
|
"There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography
are in yourself, for what we see is what we are."
— Ernst Haas
HOW I GOT THE SHOT: In my workshops, I instruct students how to build a photograph by assembling elements around the subject. A strong subject can stand on its own, but carefully incorporating foreground and background features can elevate an image to a higher level of sophistication and, hopefully, create a greater impact on and appreciation by the viewer. This week's photo of a blue lupine amid a field of yellow mustard is another in the "If at first you don't succeed" series. On Givat HaTurmosim (Lupine Hill) in the Ela Valley, the inaccurately named blue lupines (I hope they look purple to you as well) grow abundantly amid mustard on the hill's southern slope. I've tried in the past to take a shot of a single purple flower floating in the sea of yellow, knowing that these complementary colors will bring out the best in each other. This image exceeded my previous results for several reasons. First, by using a very shallow depth of field, the mustard flowers closest to and furthest from the point of focus fall into an extreme blur, filling the entire frame with a soft yellow wash. Secondly, by a small stroke of luck, the nearest mustard flower occupies an area in the center of the green leaves of the plant stem, so that the leaves remain visible but slightly obscured, perfect for their reduced level of importance in the photo. Finally, the angle of the main flower and her supporting cast conveys a sense of swaying in the breeze, which is often the case. The pieces all fall into place to deliver their visual punch. Technical Data: Nikon D700, 70-200mm lens at 170mm, f4@ 1/2000th sec., ISO 320.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL'S SOVEREIGNTY EVEN OVER JUDEA AND SAMARIA
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 31, 2011. |
|
This is an analysis covering the legal basis for Israel's sovereignty even over Judea Samaria. |
|
THE LEGITIMACY OF SETTLEMENTS, IN A NUTSHELL: In 1920, after the end of WWI, the victorious allies met in San Remo, Italy, to decide on the disposition of territory that had been under the control of the defeated Ottoman Empire. It was decided that Great Britain would be given the Mandate for Palestine. This was predicated on the Balfour Declaration that acknowledged the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, known as Palestine. It was determined that a homeland for the Jews was to be established in this area, and that close settlement of Jews on the land was to be encouraged. In 1922, the League of Nations unanimously approved this Mandate, which has never been superseded in international law. When the Arabs began to generate disturbances because of Jewish settlement, the General Assembly of the UN (which had assumed all responsibilities of the League of Nations) voted in 1947 to recommend a partition of the land into two states — one for Jews, one for Arabs. Note, please that I say recommend. GA votes carry no weight in international law — they are only recommendations. As it was, the Arabs rejected the recommendation anyway. The Jews honored the recommendation, and so declared a Jewish state in 1948 on only a portion of Palestine. But this does not mean that the status of the other portion had changed. It was still Mandate land — now, unclaimed Mandate land. In 1949, at the end of the War of Independence (a war fought when the Arabs attacked the new state of Israel), the Jordanians had the eastern portion of Palestine. Jordan's occupation of this area was illegal as it was acquired in an offensive war. An armistice agreement was signed at that time between Israel and Jordan, and an armistice line was drawn, delineating the areas of control. This armistice line is the Green Line. It was NOT a border and was NOT intended to be permanent. In 1967, in the face of existential threats — primarily by Nassar — Israel initiated a pre-emptive attack on the surrounding Arab states that were poised to attack Israel. This is an important point. It's not who attacked first that is key — it's the intention, offensive or defensive. Israel's action was defensive. International law does differentiate between the two. In the course of that war, Israel acquired Judea and Samaria. After the war, the UN Security Council passed resolution 242, which did NOT require Israel to return to the Green Line. It was acknowedged that additional strategic depth was required by Israel and the Green Line would not constitute a defensible border. It is my understanding that internationally it often happens that when a nation fights a defensive war, it is recognized that return to the original borders would be unsafe and some additional land is acquired. Add to this the fact that nothing in the subsequent Oslo Accords prohibits Israel's building in Judea and Samaria. Resolution 242 and a number of other subsequently are clear on the fact that disposition of the land can be determined only via negotiations. Judea and Samaria remain unclaimed Mandate land, to which Israel has the strongest claim — which claim was made stronger by the fact of the defensive nature of the Six Day War. Yes, there was movement to determine that the settlements are "illegal" but this is a highly politicized anti-Israel position. For me there is no legitimacy to anything that vile institution, the UN, does these days. The US reference to "illegitimate" seems to me simply a sop to the Arab nations, at a time when the "illegal" vote was vetoed. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
HISTORY AND REPETITION
Posted by Harold B. Reisman, March 31, 2011. |
|
The well-known adage of George Santayana concerning memory loss and repetitive errors of history usually refers to forgotten eras or events. Jews, of all groups, should be acutely aware of the disastrous historic mistakes made by both political and religious leaders, If these errors were made in ancient times, not remembering them might be costly, but might be rationalized. If the gross error were made during the recent decades of Israeli history, no such excuse would be valid. The close, one might even say, symbiotic relationship between Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Netanyahu has a recent, and very troubling parallel. Shmuel Katz was a member of the first Knesset and served under Menachem Begin in the Irgun. Both were disciples of Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Katz wrote "The Hollow Peace". In the book, he describes his close ties to Begin and noted that a new, close relationship existed between the Prime Minister and the man he selected as Foreign Minister, Moshe Dayan. Katz learned that strange and totally unexpected shifts in policy were taking place. These changes were, to Katz, totally unlike the Begin philosophy and history that Katz knew, lived through and appreciated. There was an irrational abandonment of the political philosophy that Katz and begin had shared for decades. Novel illusions of peace vis land concessions were the new driving force. There was a new demarche and a new willingness to compromise and reach agreement with the United States and Egypt. Dayan traveled in secret and negotiated with the foreign powers. Katz saw Begin privately and expressed his surprise, dismay and concern. Begin told him all was under control and "not to worry". What did occur after the Camp David Accords was a hardening of anti-Israel attitudes on the part of sworn opponents. The widening gulf between Katz and Begin finally led to a rupture between the two. Katz refused an offer of UN Ambassador and Begin was stunned by the refusal. Katz felt both sadness and anger at the change that seemed to have overcome Begin. Netanyahu has had a political career with some greater range of opinion than Begin had in his earlier years. Netanyahu himself referred to Begin in August of 2010 by saying, "I hope to find a courageous partner as Begin found in Sadat". This does not correlate at all with earlier Netanyahu recognition of the serious, even existential, problems of an irredentist Palestinian state close to critical population centers in Israel. This view has changed, in a rather dramatic fashion. Whether the impact of Barak is important or negligible is unclear, but from press reports and unnamed sources, Barak is chief advisor, or even confidante to Netanyahu. As an example, Israel has recently allowed more Egyptian troops into Sinai "to restore order". This itself is a violation of the treaty that Begin-Dayan formulated and agreed to. If three or six dozen tanks are needed by the new Egyptian government to aid in "restoring order", can Netanyahu-Barak decline the request? So, once again, in a matter of a few decades, a declared hawk (characterized in both the U.S. and Israeli press as a "staunch right winger") has evolved to someone amenable to both internal and external pressures. The softening of geopolitical position is variously described as "statesman-like","more mature" and "seeking the middle ground". Begin was similarly lauded by the Left (in both Israel and the U.S.) For his supposed growth and maturation. Netanyahu, too, is receiving qualified praise for his movement toward "consensus" and compromise. We do not know what Begin thought in his final years concerning the change in political philosophy and his new diplomacy. What we do know is that the Sinai was surrendered and that his (and presumably Dayan's) policies have not yielded positive results for Israel. Incitement and anti-Israel propaganda — which was to end — have, if anything, increased. Today, Begin's critics say he did not yield enough. What exactly "enough" entailed is never clearly defined. Whatever the Netanyahu-Barak concessions are, they too will be declared not enough. The violence and incitement of the post-Begin era may very well be repeated. The lessons of history are either discounted or totally forgotten. Santayana is, once again, vindicated. Contact Harold Reisman by email at hbr029@sbcglobal.net |
|
MARWAN BARGHOUTI, AMOS OZ, HAIM ORON AND A TALE OF
DARKNESS
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, March 31, 2011. |
|
: The next time someone decides to invite Oz or Oron to speak, they shouldn't waste time; they should cut to the chase and invite Barghouti himself. Assaf Harofeh Medical Center did something strange recently. It invited an author who dedicated and sent a copy of his book to a terrorist to speak at a ceremony for outstanding doctors. The doctors at Assaf Harofeh have often treated victims of terror. On September 9, 2003 eight soldiers were killed and 32 wounded in a suicide bombing near the hospital entrance. So how did it come to invite a speaker who consorts with terrorists whose victims the doctors might treat? The answer is not simple. The author happens to be the country's most famous writer, Israel Prize laureate Amos Oz. On March 16 Yediot Aharonot reported that Oz had sent a book to convicted Palestinian terror leader Marwan Barghouti. He had become aware that Meretz MK Haim Oron was in the habit of visiting Barghouti in prison, and Oz asked him to take a copy of his 2002 book A Tale of Love and Darkness. The book is a namedropping account of the author's early life on Kibbutz Hulda, where he met many lions of the early Zionist movement. It also discusses his family's successes, failures and passions. Oz sent Barghouti an Arabic translation with the inscription: "This story is our story. I hope you read it and understand us better, as we attempt to understand you. Hoping to meet soon in peace and freedom." On March 24 it was announced that Assaf Harofeh had cancelled the affair. Reports noted that "a senior doctor threatened to disrupt the ceremony" if Oz attended. After the cancellation the "free speech" alarm was sounded. Haaretz reported that a senior doctor claimed"it is hard to believe that because of one doctor who has certain political opinions, they revoked Oz's invitation to the conference... That's political interference in hospital matters." Gideon Levy condemned the "really sick" hospital's "censorship" and Soviet-style "witch-hunt," adding: "Heaven forbid if Oz wants Barghouti to get to know us better. But in 2011 Israel, this was enough to provoke aggression and censorship. Now it isn't just Barghouti who is labeled as a monster, but Oz, too." Levy called Oz "a middle-of-the-road, profoundly Zionist and patriotic author" who should make us all proud because his works have been translated into more than a dozen languages. Oz also "dares" to speak truth to power, writing in The New York Times in June that "Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an idea — a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians. No idea has ever been defeated by force."
I DON'T know what Oz's personal feelings are for Barghouti. But the facts are clear. Barghouti was born in 1959 in a village north of Ramallah. He comes from a large, well-known Palestinian family. He joined Fatah at 15 and co-founded its youth movement. He was a long-time militant and student activist, eventually receiving both a BA and MA. During the second intifada he led Fatah's most militant sections — Tanzim and the Aksa Martyrs Brigades. The brigades were responsible for killing more than 100 people, mostly civilians inside the Green Line, between 2001 and 2006. Barghouti was arrested in April 2002 and convicted of five counts of murder. So why did Israel's leading author support giving this man freedom? Why, furthermore, did a hospital invite such an author to speak? Why does it appear that only one leading doctor protested against this person giving the keynote speech? Why is it considered "political" to ban Oz, but not political to invite him? No one wants to censor Oz. He is entitled to his opinions. He can send his book to whomever he wants: Islamists, neo-Nazis, jailed members of the Ku Klux Klan, the African warlord Charles Taylor. But why must his opinion be forced upon doctors whose job is to save lives? Why must his opinions be forced upon public institutions, whether hospitals, high schools or universities? There is a fetishism in the support Barghouti receives. Oron is a major supporter. In a March interview he gave to Haaretz, the interviewer, Gidi Weitz, noted that "in the past few years, Oron has visited Hadarim Prison, in the center of the country, every few weeks to see his friend Marwan Barghouti." Oron believes Barghouti is a great supporter of the Israeli Left — a "super-significant figure" like a Nelson Mandela, a "partner for dialogue" who does not renounce his "right to an armed struggle." It seems to me that Oron and his friends support Barghouti partly out of a sense that history will judge them like it judged the Afrikaners who sat down with Mandela. They also support him because they believe only he can unify the Palestinians. But does it seem strange that within Israel there are so many wellknown, cultured, progressive Jewish voices who not only want to befriend a murderer but also believe it is important to unify Hamas and Fatah? Barghouti is a super-significant figure. But just because he can unify Palestinians doesn't mean Jews should support him. It would be like Turks supporting the jailed Kurdish nationalist Abdullah Ocalan. It would be like the Palestinians supporting the release of Jewish nationalist settlers under the theory that only they can unify Israel against the Palestinians. Oron and Oz work on behalf of the Palestinians to get Barghouti released. Oron calls Barghouti a "moderate," but he is only moderate like Mussolini was moderate compared to Hitler or Lenin was moderate compared to Stalin. Barghouti is like summer at the North Pole; it is moderate compared to winter. The next time someone decides to invite Oz or Oron to speak, they shouldn't waste time; they should cut to the chase and invite Barghouti himself. At least that would be honest. And moderate. Seth Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
SYRIAN REBELS
Posted by Samara Greenberg, March 31, 2011. |
|
For the first time under Asad family rule, the Syrian government is experiencing the kind of unrest that unseated the decades-long rulers of Tunisia and Egypt and threatens Libya's Muammar Qaddafi. Anti-government demonstrations began mid-March in Syria's southern city of Daraa after 15 children were arrested for spray-painting walls with words that have recently rattled the Arab world: "The people want the fall of the regime." Thought to be contained, the protests have now spread across the country, including to the capital city of Damascus and to Hama, where Syrian security forces massacred thousands in 1982. Syrian President Bashar al-Asad has responded to the protests with brutal repression. According to human rights activists and witnesses, over 100 people have been killed by police gunfire in the city of Daraa alone. 
A government building destroyed by protesters in Daraa, Syria In an effort to quell the uprisings, Syria's government resigned Tuesday. But if that move calmed tensions at all, Asad further angered protesters on Wednesday when he gave his first speech since the uprisings began. That speech was expected to offer significant political concessions but did nothing of the sort; Asad instead took the time to claim that the uprisings were the result of "a big plot from outside" and said nothing about ending the emergency law that has stifled Syrians for the last 48 years. The U.S. should take this opportunity to lead the European Union in applying more pressure on the Asad regime. Unlike Libya, Syria is actively and currently working against American interests in the region. From building nuclear reactors, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, partnering with Iran, assassinating political rivals at home and abroad, and choking Lebanon, the time has come for Asad and company to face the music. The White House should begin by recalling its recently appointed ambassador. WHO ARE THE SYRIAN REBELS? Concerns over Libya's rebels began to surface Tuesday as the U.S. considers arming the opposition and NATO moves closer to taking charge of the campaign. In a Senate hearing Tuesday, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, testified that intelligence agencies had picked up "flickers" of the presence of extremists among Libyan rebel fighters. Noting that most of the opposition's leaders are "responsible men and women who are struggling against Col. Qaddafi," Stavridis also said that intelligence has reported the presence of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah on the ground, although he lacks sufficient detail to say that their numbers are "significant." Stavridis' comments yesterday marked the first time a senior U.S. official publicly acknowledged an al-Qaeda presence, although the terrorist network and Libyan opposition groups are known to have long-standing ties. For years, Libya has served as a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. Libyans have served as senior members of the terrorist group and traveled to Iraq in disproportionately large numbers to carry out attacks on U.S. forces. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an enemy of Qaddafi's, formally joined al-Qaeda in 2007. Moreover, according to a December 2009 Canadian intelligence report, the anti-Qaddafi stronghold of eastern Libya an "epicentre of Islamist extremism." The report, written by the government's Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, noted that "several Islamist insurgent groups" were based in eastern Libya and mosques in Benghazi were urging followers to fight in Iraq. The United States has a long history of supporting rebel armies or opposition groups, which has backfired at times. Afghanistan is a perfect example. While American action in Libya and establishing the no-fly zone was a step in the right direction, many questions will need to be answered before deciding if arming the rebels is in America's long-term interest.
Samara Greenberg is with the Jewish Policy Center, where these
articles are archived:
|
|
LIBYAN REBELS SOLD HIZBALLAH AND HAMAS CHEMICAL SHELLS
Posted by YogiRUs, March 31, 2011. |
|
So what is Israel supposed to do now? Give the West Bank away? Go to the U.N.?Give the Golan to that potential lover of democracy, Bashir Assad? Ask Hamas and Hizbulla to have mercy? But above all, it must not initiate violence. The Jews must emulate their forebears and submit to mass murder quietly. But they are allowed to pray. |
|
From the DEBKAfile: Senior Libyan rebel "officers" sold Hizballah and Hamas thousands of chemical shells from the stocks of mustard and nerve gas that fell into rebel hands when they overran Muammar Qaddafi's military facilities in and around Benghazi, debkafile's exclusive military and intelligence sources report. Word of the capture touched off a scramble in Tehran and among the terrorist groups it sponsors to get hold of their first unconventional weapons. According to our sources, the rebels offloaded at least 2,000 artillery shells carrying mustard gas and 1,200 nerve gas shells for cash payment amounting to several million dollars. US and Israeli intelligence agencies have tracked the WMD consignments from eastern Libya as far as Sudan in convoys secured by Iranian agents and Hizballah and Hamas guards. They are not believed to have reached their destinations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, apparently waiting for an opportunity to get their deadly freights through without the US or Israel attacking and destroying them. It is also not clear whether the shells and gases were assembled upon delivery or were travelling in separate containers. Our sources report that some of the poison gas may be intended not only for artillery use but also for drones which Hizballah recently acquired from Iran. Tehran threw its support behind the anti-Qaddafi rebels because of this unique opportunity to get hold of the Libyan ruler's stock of poison gas after it fell into opposition hands and arm Hizballah and Hamas with unconventional weapons without Iran being implicated in the transaction. Shortly after the uprising began in the third week of February, a secret Iranian delegation arrived in Benghazi. Its members met rebel chiefs, some of them deserters from the Libyan army, and clinched the deal for purchasing the entire stock of poison gas stock and the price. The rebels threw in a quantity of various types of anti-air missiles. Hizballah and Hamas purchasing missions arrived in the first week of March to finalize the deal and arrange the means of delivery. The first authoritative American source to refer to a Hizballah presence in Benghazi was the commander of US NATO forces Adm. James Stavridis. When he addressed a US Senate committee on Tuesday, March 29, he spoke of "telltale signs of the presence of Islamic insurgents led by Al-Qaeda and Hizballah" on the rebel side of the Libyan war. He did not disclose what they were doing there. Contact YogiRUs by email @yogirus@aol.com |
|
DR. DENIS MACEOIN'S LETTER TO THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY STUDENT ASSOCIATION
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 31, 2011. |
|
Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 2:11 AM
May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain's great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field. I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves. Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those member of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I'm speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a 'Nazi' state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nüremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of. Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country's 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha'is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren't your members boycotting Iran? Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews — something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres. In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it's better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke? University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it's clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world's freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha'is.... Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott. I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. As for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don't you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there . Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense to me. I have given you some of the evidence. It's up to you to find out more. Yours sincerely,
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il . |
|
THE WEST IS NOW AN OPEN GOAL FOR ITS ENEMIES
Posted by Hands Fiasco, March 31, 2011. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared March 31, 2011
in Jewish World Review
|
|
One can only gape in stunned amazement at the extent of the idiocy being displayed by the leaders of America, Britain and Europe over the "Arab Spring", which should surely be renamed "the Arab Boomerang". First of all, their declared policy is utterly incoherent. They claim that their aim in Libya is not regime change. Yet bombing Gaddafy's compound hardly signals their desire that he should stay alive, let alone in power. This week Obama said Gaddafy should leave power. Now he said overthrowing Gaddafy by force would be a mistake. In similar vein, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague says the UK wants Gaddafy to leave power — but that's not regime change, because apparently it's up to him to decide to do so. Presumably, for both Hague and Obama, if Gaddafy did decide to give up power this would have nothing whatever to do with the fact that they are bombing Libyan forces fighting for him to retain power. And they would also have us believe that the fact that the western air strikes are enabling the Libyan rebels to advance does not mean that the west intends its air strikes to enable the rebels to advance. One is reminded of Humpty Dumpty, who told Alice in Through the Looking Glass: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". Especially where the restrictive wording of a UN resolution is involved. And what might the results of this incoherent support for freedom against tyranny be? Well, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be in pole position to come to power in the elections planned for later this year. And in Libya, either Gaddafy will survive, in which case the begetter of the atrocity against the west over Lockerbie will doubtless be sufficiently enraged against the west to return to anti-western terror; or, should he fall, there seems to be a more than sporting chance that the Islamists he has until now fought off will eventually come out on top. Now even Britain's absurd Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has blurted out that the west may have to accept that an Islamist regime may come to power in Libya. Maybe so; maybe not. Who would be surprised if so, since amongst the "rebels" are thought to be supporters of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The bottom line, however, is that Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama have absolutely no idea just who it is that they are supporting 'not assisting' in removing Gaddafy from power by force. So the utterly brilliant achievement of Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama may be to help bring to power jihadis or others with interests inimical to the west, in countries in which they had previously had been confined to their box. Instead of being reasonably helpful to us, such states would therefore become intent on doing us harm. So Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama would have made the world an infinitely more dangerous place and quite likely hugely strengthened the Islamic jihad against their own countries. Some achievement. Meanwhile, hundreds of people are thought to have died in Syria's brutal crackdown against unrest there. Yet the humanitarian hearts of Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama do not bleed for them. Indeed, according to Hillary Clinton Congress believes Assad is a "reformer". So much for the Arab 'rebels' against tyranny in Syria. According to Hillary — and supposedly Congress — they are rebelling against the 'reformer' Assad. Whch makes those who are rebelling against what is by any measure a vicious and brutal despotism... what, exactly? So no air strikes to get rid of Bashar Assad. Of course not. The rule of thumb for western "progressives" is that tyrants can stay in office if they are the mortal enemies of freedom, democracy and human rights and are helping the jihad, in which case it is a "war crime" to get rid of them; the only ones they want to get rid of are those who are resisting the jihad. As a result, moderate Arabs are appalled by western hypocrisy. In two articles in Al Sharq al Awsat, its editor Tariq Alhomayed suggested that the U.S. had failed to realize that the demands of the Shi'ite protestors in Bahrain were not democratic, but a manifestation of Iran's threat to Bahrain and the Gulf states: "Amidst America's contradictory comments regarding the events in our region, one particular statement always stands out, namely the call for restraint. Two days ago, the Americans reiterated this same statement in comments on the [GCC's] Peninsula Shield Force's entering Manama, at Bahrain's request. Tumultuous changes are under way in the Arab world. At present, it is unclear what the outcome will be. But at this crucial juncture in history, a time of unparalleled danger not just for individual countries but for western civilisation, the west has not produced one single leader who possesses the insight, statesmanship and moral courage to deal with it. Instead in Britain we have toytown politicians, tyros who are clearly wholly out of their depth — and supported by an administrative class that increasingly only knows what it must think rather than how to do so. In France, the ridiculous, strutting Sarkozy was apparently prompted to go to war in Libya by the even more ridiculous and strutting "public intellectual" Bernard-Henri Levy. Say no more. And the US is currently led by a President whose lethal anti-western radicalism has rendered America an impotent giant, whose powerlessness is plain for all the enemies of the west to see. The West is now an open goal for its enemies. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
PERFIDIOUS ALBION AND ISRAEL
Posted by Isi Leibler, March 31, 2011. |
|
British Jews who primarily interact with fellow Jews in their daily lives, and thus remain largely insulated from direct anti-Semitic confrontations, frequently underrate the impact of the relentless demonization of Israel on their standing in society. Others, who insist that the anti-Israeli onslaughts are unconnected to anti-Semitism, are simply in outright denial The principal barometer is the media which is now so consistently hostile to Israel that an occasional neutral or positive article is almost cause for celebration. The poisonous atmosphere has now extended to the entertainment arena. In London, I saw the final episode of "The Promise," a four-part drama series televised during peak viewing time on Channel 4, which encompasses the history of the Jewish state from its birth to modern-day Israel. I doubt whether any production in the Western world has ever related to Israel with such vile bias and venom. Virtually every Jew is demonized as a duplicitous and heartless monster. The drama focuses on a British soldier who witnessed the Nazi death camps and subsequently served in the British mandatory forces when the state of Israel was born. His granddaughter, the heroine, witnesses Israeli brutality against peace-loving Palestinian women and children. It concludes with the aged former British soldier pontificating that despite the Nazi death camps, the creation of Israel was a terrible event which dispossessed the Palestinian people. The historical events are utterly distorted; rich Jews celebrate as innocent Arabs are butchered; a Jewish sniper deliberately murders a young Arab child and Israeli soldiers continuously abuse elderly Palestinians. The Jewish director, Peter Kosminsky, had the gall to inform the media that the research undertaken prior to production demonstrated that overall, Israel had squandered the compassion it derived from the Holocaust and was now "isolated, feared and loathed in equal measure." The credits at the end of the film disclose the dominant involvement of Jews and Israelis in the production.
AT THE universities, the situation continues to deteriorate. Campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction Israel are the order of the day. Many Jewish students are intimidated by the aggressiveness and violence of pro-Palestinian leftists and Arabs. Only two weeks ago, an Israeli activist at the University of London was brutally attacked and hospitalized after peacefully challenging anti-Semitic remarks expressed at an anti-Israeli demonstration. The hypocrisy and double standards of British universities were highlighted when the director of the London School of Economics, Sir Howard Davies, was obliged to resign after it was disclosed that the LSE had received huge donations from the Gaddafi family and hosted Gaddafi's son Saif, who had provided them with the benefit of his insights on civil society and human rights. The visceral hatred against Israel extends to the British judiciary. A judge recently went so far as to acquit seven anti-Israel activists vandalizing and causing $300,000 damage in a factory supplying weapons to Israel. His ruling exonerated the perpetrators on the grounds that they were preventing Israel from indulging in further Nazi like "war crimes"! The government maintains the tradition of perfidious Albion towards Israel, with the Conservatives behaving no better than their predecessors. On March 2, Prime Minister David Cameron gave a major speech to the Jewish community extolling the contributions of the Anglo-Jewish community, condemning anti-Semitism, claiming his "belief in Israel" was "indestructible" and even endorsing Zionism. Yet according to "All the president's messengers" in The Economist, with encouragement from US President Barack Obama, Cameron remains at the forefront of one-sided condemnations of Israel at the United Nations and within the Quartet. During his visit to Turkey, the PM endeared himself to his Turkish counterpart Recep Erdogan by describing Gaza as an "open air prison camp" and condemning Israel for its "attack" on the Mavi Marmara. Foreign Minister William Hague is also at the forefront of the European anti-Israeli pack. In response to the upheaval in Egypt, he reprimanded Israel for using "belligerent language" and congratulated the fervently anti-Zionist Labor Parliamentarian Gerald Kaufman for taking a "tough line" on the peace process.
YET, THERE is some light at the end of the tunnel. Prime Minister Cameron has for the first time conveyed concern regarding the failures of multiculturalism and one senses a popular backlash against Islamic extremism and terror. Regrettably, this is not accompanied by a more positive attitude towards Israel and the Jews. The Jewish community is besieged. I met with the well-intentioned leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews seeking to cope with a difficult situation. In my opinion, they are overwhelmed by the hostile climate. They still emphasize the merits of retaining a low profile, prioritizing silent diplomacy and avoiding confrontation. They also remain reluctant to resort to public action other than as a last recourse. Together with BICOM, a generously-funded organization commissioned to promote Israel advocacy, they appear to be continuously on the defensive, desperately seeking to prove their bona fides to the Left. They invest more effort against the marginal fascists than the far more threatening Arabs and anti-Israeli far Left. The community also faces internal problems. The head of the unaccountable 'Jewish Leadership Council', Mick Davis, who also chairs the UJIA, has been severely condemned for encouraging Jews to be critical of Israel. Samuel Hayek, the JNF UK head, resigned in protest and Davis was also subject to considerable criticism by rank-and-file members of the Board of Deputies. The feisty Zionist Federation vice president Jonathan Hoffman was obliged to withdraw a petition calling on Davis to resign when threatened by him with a costly libel suit. Hoffman's subsequent challenge to debate Davis was ignored. There are also increasing grassroots calls demanding that Jewish leaders become more assertive in their pro-Israel advocacy and public activity. The highlight of my visit was meeting talented young people who, under the leadership of Sam Westrop, have formed a new pro-Israel advocacy body called "The British Coalition for Israel." Despite resistance from some establishment Jewish communal and student leaders averse to confrontation, they have received a remarkable flow of grassroots support from activists throughout the UK. Together with a British offshoot of "Stand with Us", they now stand at the forefront of those courageously resisting the anti-Israeli onslaughts at universities and in the media. Prominent individual publicists are also making an impact. There is the renowned journalist Melanie Phillips, author of the book Londonistan which exposed the extension of radical Islamic influence within the core of British society. Currently she is under police investigation for having referred to "the moral depravity" of the Arab "savages" who slaughtered the Fogel family in Itamar and those who incited them. She represents a beacon of light, fearlessly exposing the cant and hypocrisy of the viciously anti-Israeli media. Also Robin Shepherd, a non-Jew who after publishing a brilliant book supportive of Israel, personally experienced outrageously anti-Israeli sanctions by Chatham House, which dismissed him from his post as Senior Fellow. He now writes a superb, widely read blog, commenting on Middle East affairs. Sadly, the best pro-Israel activists are frequently condemned by the Jewish establishment as extremists and accused of damaging the reputation of the Jewish community. May they grow from strength to strength. Contact Isi Leibler by email at editor@WordfromJerusalem.com |
|
REVIEW OF FIRST SCREENING OF FOR THE SAKE OF NAKBA
Posted by Susana K-M, March , 2011. |
|
This article was written by Anath Hartmann and was a Special
to the Washington Times
|
|
Hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are sunk annually into the coffers of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), an organization which uses much of the funding for classroom education that promotes terrorism and the obliteration of Israel, representatives of the Jerusalem-based Center for Near East Policy Research, Ltd., said at a Capitol Hill film screening Wednesday. The screening was the premier public showing of "For the Sake of Nakba," a documentary commissioned in part by the center and filmed last month in the UNRWA refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to expose the radical indoctrination in UNRWA schools, Center for Near East Policy Research Bureau Chief David Bedein said. Mr. Bedein said his organization was prompted to make the film after being asked how it could prove there was terrorism- and martyrdom-promoting curricula in schools run by UNWRA, an agency created as a temporary measure to provide for the Palestinian refugees in the wake of Israel's War of Independence in 1948 — an event many Palestinians call "the Nakba," or catastrophe. The vast majority of the day-to-day UNRWA operations are run by Palestinians hired by the agency. Many of these people are members of various terror groups, according to Mustafa Sawaf, editor-in-chief of Hamas-associated daily Felesteen. Mr. Sawaf wrote as much in an April letter to UNRWA Director of Operations John Ging. The documentary, which was shot over a period of several weeks in May by a team of Americans led by a Palestinian cameraman, shows school children of various ages, UNWRA employees and Palestinian politicians either parroting back the martyrdom-glorifying education they are receiving in school or extolling the virtues of the Hamas-backed education used in UNRWA schools. UNRWA students are taught that all of Israel is occupied Palestinian land and that only through violence can the "liberation" of Palestine be achieved, according to the film. One 12th grade textbook compares martyrdom — dying in the course of waging war in the name of Islam — to taking a wedding vow. One clip shows an UNRWA student no older than 12 or 13 standing next to his teacher on a stage and giving a speech to his classmates on May 15, Independence Day in Israel but "Nakba Day" in UNRWA schools. He is talking about the importance of liberating Palestine from the Jewish "pigs"; his teacher nods approvingly. No UNRWA school teaches students about Israel, Palestinian Education Minister Lamis al-Alami confirms in the documentary. "I must say that in the first place it's a Palestinian curriculum and we are free to do whatever we want, " Ms. al-Alami says. Later in the film she later compares "the Nakba" to the Holocaust. "To the Palestinians, the importance of this Nakba have the equal impact on the Palestinians that the Holocaust have on the Israelis," she says. The European Union and the United States each contribute $230 million to UNRWA yearly. Of that, approximately $500 million is spent on education — and as it is the policy of the agency to adopt the host entity's teaching plans, this money goes to fund Hamas-backed curricula. Rather than work toward a final solution of relocation for the Palestinians, UNRWA, the annual budget of which is more than $1 billion, and the Palestinian Authority encourage those in the West Bank and Gaza "to remain refugees... [to] create a state that would essentially replace the state of Israel," the film's narrator says. Unlike all other U.N. refugee agencies, UNRWA does not come under the mandate of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. UNRWA "should have been folded in" to the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees once the latter agency was created, Ms. Kushner said. "UNRWA has a policy of keeping [Palestinians] refugees. Unless they're back in Israel, they're still [considered] refugees." In January the Canadian government cut its annual $10 million in funding to UNRWA, saying it was concerned about the lack of transparency in the use of the money. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PA HONORS TERRORIST SERVING 30 LIFE SENTENCES FOR PASSOVER MURDERS
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, March 31, 2011. |
|
PA minister visits family of terrorist who planned Passover Seder bombing that killed 30 Israelis |
|
The Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, visited the family of the terrorist Abbas Al-Sayid who planned the Passover suicide bombing in 2002. Thirty Israelis were killed in the terror attack, when a suicide bomber entered a hotel in Netanya and detonated his bomb during the Passover Seder dinner. Al-Sayid is serving 30 life sentences for planning this attack. Palestinian Media Watch has reported that honoring terrorists is an integral part of PA policy. The photo in the PA daily shows the PA minister handing the family an honorary plaque from the PA. Terrorist Al-Sayid's name and the PA logo are visible on the plaque. (In the photo the rest of the print is too small to read.) 
"Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, and a delegation from the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs visited the home of [the family of] prisoner Abbas Al-Sayid in Tulkarem. Al-Sayid has maintained an unlimited hunger strike for the past 21 days, and has been transferred from solitary confinement at the Ramon prison to solitary confinement at the Israeli hospital in Ramle. Karake warned of the severity of prisoner Al-Sayid's condition, following a deterioration of his health in the wake of the strike. He placed the responsibility for [Sayid's] life and health upon the Israeli government and the prison administration, and called for a response to the demands for an end to his solitary confinement, which has continued for over six months, in difficult conditions." — Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 29, 2011 The Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, visited the family of the terrorist Abbas Al-Sayid who planned the Passover suicide bombing in 2002. Thirty Israelis were killed in the terror attack, when a suicide bomber entered a hotel in Netanya and detonated his bomb during the Passover Seder dinner. Al-Sayid is serving 30 life sentences for planning this attack. Palestinian Media Watch has reported that honoring terrorists is an integral part of PA policy. The photo in the PA daily shows the PA minister handing the family an honorary plaque from the PA. Terrorist Al-Sayid's name and the PA logo are visible on the plaque. (In the photo the rest of the print is too small to read.) "Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, and a delegation from the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs visited the home of [the family of] prisoner Abbas Al-Sayid in Tulkarem. Al-Sayid has maintained an unlimited hunger strike for the past 21 days, and has been transferred from solitary confinement at the Ramon prison to solitary confinement at the Israeli hospital in Ramle. Karake warned of the severity of prisoner Al-Sayid's condition, following a deterioration of his health in the wake of the strike. He placed the responsibility for [Sayid's] life and health upon the Israeli government and the prison administration, and called for a response to the demands for an end to his solitary confinement, which has continued for over six months, in difficult conditions."
Itamar Marcus is director of PMW — Palestinian Media Watch —
(http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem.
This article is archived at
|
|
THE SYRIAN TIME BOMB
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, March 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Patrick Seale and it appeared March 28, 2011 in
Foreign Policy
Comprehensive piece, but I think that Seale may be too close to the Assads to see the threat Hezbollah poses, in that, rather than finding themselves disenfranchised and powerless with the downfall of the Assads, they are now simply hanging back, preparing for the absence of the Assads. Assad has armed them with huge quantities of sophisticated weapons and created a powerful army, I don't think the current situation is lost on them in terms of opportunity. This only underscores the urgency of Seale's points.
Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA comments that Patrick Seale is known for his close ties to the Assads. He wrote this article before President Assad made his address in which he declined to mention reforms. |
|
Forget Libya. Washington should pay closer attention to the violent protests imperiling the Assad regime in Damascus. If there's one country where unrest could truly set the Middle East alight, it's Syria. While one war rages in Libya, another rages in Washington as to the necessity of U.S. action there. Indeed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said as much this weekend, noting that Libya was not a "vital national interest." But if Washington is looking for an Arab state in the throes of unrest, one that is key to its regional and national interests, planners might want to pay more attention to Syria, which is currently undergoing upheaval not seen since the early 1980s. Syria lies at the center of a dense network of Middle East relationships, and the crisis in that country — which has now resulted in the deaths of well over 100 civilians, and possibly close to double that number — is likely to have a major impact on the regional structure of power. The need to contain pressure from the United States and Israel, for decades the all-consuming concern of Syria's leadership, has suddenly been displaced by an explosion of popular protest highlighting urgent and long-neglected domestic issues. If the regime fails to tame this domestic unrest, Syria's external influence will inevitably be enfeebled, with dramatic repercussions across the Middle East. As the crisis deepens, Syria's allies tremble. Meanwhile, its enemies rejoice, as a weakened Syria would remove an obstacle to their ambitions. But nature abhors a vacuum, and what will come will be unpredictable, at best. The protests started in mid-March in Daraa, in southern Syria, a city that has suffered from drought and neglect by the government in Damascus. The heavy hand of the ruling Baath party was particularly resented. Because it lies on the border with Jordan, and therefore in a security zone, all land sales required the security services' approval, a slow and often costly business. This is one of the particular grievances that have powered the protest movement, though certainly the ripples of the successful Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings played a hand. The government, to put it bluntly, responded poorly. Troops in Daraa fired live rounds against youthful demonstrators and virtually all communications — Internet and telephone — were shuttered to prevent the seepage of unrest. To make matters worse, Damascus blamed Israeli provocateurs, rebel forces, and shady foreign agents for the bloodshed — anyone but its own forces. Civilian deaths at the hands of security forces there, and more recently in the coastal city of Latakia, have outraged opinion across the country, setting alight long pent-up anger at the denial of basic freedoms, the monopolistic rule of the Baath party, and the abuses of a privileged elite. To these ills should be added severe youth unemployment, devastation of the countryside by a grave shortage of rainfall over the past four years, and the impoverishment of the middle and lower classes by low wages and high inflation. In response to the public unrest, the regime has released some political prisoners and pledged to end the state of emergency in force since 1963. A government spokeswoman has hinted that coming reforms will include greater freedom for the press and the right to form political parties. President Bashar al-Assad is due to address the country in the next 48 hours. His speech is eagerly awaited, but it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to defuse the crisis and win time for the regime. If not, demonstrations could gather pace, triggering still more violent repression by the security services — an escalation with unpredictable consequences. The protesters have in fact challenged the fundamentals of Syria's security state, a harsh system of controls over every aspect of society, put in place by the late Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father, who ruled for 30 years from 1970 to his death in 2000. By all accounts, the debate about how to deal with the growing protests has led to increasingly violent confrontations inside the regime between would-be reformers and hard-liners. The outcome of this internal contest remains uncertain. What is certain, however, is that what happens in Syria is of great concern to the whole region. Together with its two principal allies, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Lebanese Shiite resistance movement Hezbollah, Syria is viewed with great hostility by Israel and with wary suspicion by the United States. The Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis — of which Syria is the linchpin — has long been seen by many leaders in the region as the lone bulwark against Israeli and American hegemony. With backing from Washington, Israel has sought to smash Hezbollah (notably through its 2006 invasion of Lebanon) and detach Syria from Iran, a country Israel views as its most dangerous regional rival. Neither objective has so far been realized. But now that Syria has been weakened by internal problems, the viability of the entire axis is in danger — which could encourage dangerous risk-taking behavior by its allies as they seek to counter perceived gains by the United States and Israel. If the Syrian regime were to be severely weakened by popular dissent, if only for a short while, Iran's influence in Arab affairs would almost certainly be reduced — in both Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. In Lebanon, it would appear that Hezbollah has already been thrown on the defensive. Although it remains the most powerful single movement, both politically and on account of its armed militia, its local enemies sense a turning of the tide in their favor. This might explain a violent speech delivered earlier this month by the Sunni Muslim leader and former prime minister Saad Hariri, in which he blatantly played the sectarian card. Cheered by his jubilant supporters, he charged that Hezbollah's weapons were not so much a threat to Israel as to Lebanon's own freedom, independence, and sovereignty — at the hand of a foreign power, namely Iran. The Syrian uprisings may have already deepened the sectarian divide in Lebanon, raising once more the specter of civil war and making more difficult the task of forming a new government, a job President Michel Suleiman has entrusted to the Tripoli notable, Najib Mikati. If Syria were overrun with internal strife, Hezbollah would be deprived of a valuable ally — no doubt to Israel's great satisfaction. Meanwhile, Turkey is deeply concerned by the Syrian disturbances: Damascus has been the cornerstone of Ankara's ambitious Arab policy. Turkey-Syria relations have flourished in recent years as Turkey-Israel relations have grown cold. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, have actively sought to mediate local conflicts and bring much-needed stability to the region by forging close economic links. One of their bold projects is the creation of an economic bloc comprising Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan — already something of a reality by the removal of visa requirements as well as by an injection of Turkish investment and technological know-how. A power struggle in Syria could set back this project; and regime change in Damascus would likely put a serious dent in further Turkish initiatives. Turkey's loss, however, may turn out to be Egypt's gain. Freed from the stagnant rule of former President Hosni Mubarak, Cairo is now expected to play a more active role in Arab affairs. Instead of continuing Mubarak's policy, conducted in complicity with Israel, of punishing Gaza and isolating its Hamas government, Egypt is reported to be pushing for a reconciliation of the rival Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah. If successful, this could help defuse the current dangerous escalation of violence between Israel on the one side and Hamas and still more extreme Gaza-based Palestinian groups on the other. But Syria's internal troubles might just as easily have a negative effect. Undoubtedly, the failed peace process has bred extreme frustration among Palestinian militants, some of whom may think that a sharp shock is needed to wrench international attention away from the Arab democratic wave and back to the Palestine problem. They are anxious to alert the United States and Europe to the danger of allowing the peace process to sink into a prolonged coma. Israeli hard-liners, too, may calculate that a short war could serve their purpose: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government may sense weakness and quietly dream of finishing off Hamas once and for all. Syria has been a strong supporter of Hamas and has given a base in Damascus to the head of its political bureau, Khaled Mashal. Turmoil in Damascus could deal Hamas a severe blow. On all these fronts — Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel — Syria is a key player. But its internal problems now threaten to reshuffle the cards, adding to the general sense of insecurity and latent violence in the region. And of all the threats facing the Middle East, perhaps the greatest — greater even than of another Arab-Israeli clash — is that of rampant sectarianism, poisoning relationships between and within states, and breeding hate, intolerance, and mistrust. Several of the modern states of the Middle East — and Syria is no exception — were built on a mosaic of ancient religions, sects, and ethnic groups held uneasily and sometimes uncomfortably together by central government. But governments have themselves been far from neutral, favoring one community over another in cynical power plays. Many Sunni Muslims in Syria and throughout the region feel that Assad's Syria has unduly favored the Alawites, a sect of Shiite Islam, who constitute some 12 percent of the population but control a vastly greater percentage of the country's wealth. Open conflict between Sunnis and Alawites in Syria would profoundly disturb the whole region, creating a nightmare scenario for Washington and other Western capitals. Meanwhile, Washington seems at a loss as to how to respond to the growing unrest in Syria. In tempered language, the administration has condemned the use of violence against civilians and encouraged political reform. But the undertones are evident: Stability in Syria may still preferable to yet another experiment in Arab governance. Assad will need to act quickly and decisively — and one hopes not harshly — to quell the rising current of dissent. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to offer the regime some modest support this weekend, noting that she believed Bashar to be a "reformer." But reform has never been a primary goal of the Assad clan, which has long favored stability over change. This edifice may now be crumbling, and the United States would be wise to spend a little less time thinking about Libya and a little more time thinking about a state that truly has implications on U.S. national interests. If things go south in Syria, blood-thirsty sectarian demons risk being unleashed, and the entire region could be consumed in an orgy of violence. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
AL-QAEDA SLAUGHTERS 53 IRAQIS IN TERROR BLOODBATH
Posted by Jim Kouri, March 30, 2011. |
|
Yesterday, in Iraq, over 50 people were killed when Al-Qaeda carried out a large attack on a government building in the late Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit. Two suicide bombers detonated themselves inside the provincial building, while other gunmen managed to seize members of the provincial council as hostages. The gunmen kept hostages on the second floor of the building. The Al Qaeda fighters executed all of the hostages. The terrorists were eventually killed by Iraqi police officers and US troops. But the damage had already been done, and at least 53 innocent Iraqis died. According to Pentagon report, US forces were conducting a training/advising mission nearby and responded to distress calls from the Iraqi forces. US troops rushed to the scene and helped in neutralizing the Al-Qaeda attackers. "This is exactly the kind of situation that we keep troops in Iraq for," said former US Marine intelligence officer Sid Franes. This incident serves as a reminder that although our troops have helped achieve major progress in Iraq, that country is still a dangerous place, and even though Al-Qaeda has been defeated all over the country, there are still some small groups of extremists who are willing to carry out attacks on civilians, according to Move America Forward, a citizens' group that supports the US military. "The incident highlights the fact that we still have over 50,000 brave men and women serving in harm's way in Iraq," said MAF officials. Jim Kouri is Board Member, National Association of Chiefs of
Police. Contact him by email at com.magazine@aol.com.
This article is archived at
|
|
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN & FORMER FBI AGENT CALLS FOR POLLARD'S RELEASE
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, March 30, 2011. |
|
Republican Congressman Michael Grimm of New York has become the latest governmental leader, and the first Republican Member of the House of Representatives, to call for Jonathan Pollard's release. Pollard has spent more than 25 years languishing in a federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States. Congressman Grimm, who represents New York's 13th Congressional District, which is comprised of Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, previously served as an agent for the FBI for nine years. In addition, Grimm is a former U.S. Marine who served in the Gulf War and was awarded a Combat Meritorious Promotion. Congressman Grimm currently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, and the Subcommittee on Capital Markets. Grimm, who visited Pollard at his North Carolina prison several
weeks ago, made his public call for Pollard's release at an event in
Brooklyn yesterday (to see a video of Congressman Grimm making his
comments about Jonathan Pollard, go to
In discussing Pollard, Congressman Grimm referred to his own background as an FBI agent and a long-time advocate for justice as he noted that there is a consensus that Pollard's sentence is excessive. Grimm also noted that he is working with many other individuals in Washington to secure Pollard's release. "We are doing what we can to have justice prevail, and justice in the case is to have Jonathan Pollard released from prison," Grimm said. Over the past several months, numerous prominent government officials, high-ranking individuals in the national intelligence arena, leading professionals in the legal world, and renowned religious and communal leaders have issued public calls for clemency for Pollard. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former Deputy Attorney General and Harvard Law Professor Philip Heymann, former Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dennis DeConcini, and Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York, each of whom had the opportunity to thoroughly review Pollard's classified file and is fully familiar with the circumstances of his case, have called for Pollard's release. Henry Kissinger, who served as United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and who was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board at the time of Pollard's sentencing, sent a letter to President Obama requesting that he commute Pollard's sentence to time served. Lee Hamilton, a former U.S. Congressman from Indiana who served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time of Jonathan Pollard's sentencing, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and is currently member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, also called on President Obama to free Pollard. In addition, a wide array of American leaders have called for a commutation of Pollard's sentence, including former Vice President Dan Quayle, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Senator John McCain of Arizona, former Arkansas governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, former Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Arlen Specter, Senator Charles Schumer of New York, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, former New York City Mayor and former Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, well-known conservative leader Gary Bauer, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, Pastor John Hagee, and Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, who was President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama's law professor at Harvard and remains friends with them today. Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private in letters to many Presidents and others. His health has deteriorated significantly during his two-and-a-half decades in prison. Pollard's life sentence is grossly disproportionate when compared to the sentences of others who have spied for allied nations. Despite the fact that Pollard entered into a plea agreement and fully cooperated with the prosecution in his case, he nonetheless received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled, which was in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government. Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:
|
|
"COME MURDER ME" — THE MANTRA OF THE "OLIVE TREE INITIATIVE"
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 30, 2011. |
|
1. There is a certain kind of assimilationist Jewish liberal (or what I call "asslibs") whose highest aspiration is to be liked by genocidal anti-Semitic murderers. What better way to prove how nice and tolerant and accepted you are! Frank Sinatra has a song whose lyrics go, "Come Fly with me." These self-hating "Jews" have changed those lyrics to be, "Come Murder Me." The newest version of the "Organized Jewish Pilgrimage to the Nazis" has been a project of the far-leftist "Jewish" group calling itself the Olive Tree Initiative. It sends groups of Jewish youths, mainly from California, to Israel in order to meet with Hamas terrorists. This is not a spoof. Evidently Olive Tree Initiative wants these young Jews to seek peace by begging the Hamas to murder more Jews, other Jews. The full story can be read here: http://www.ha-emet.com/oti_students_meet_hamas.html Please open that web page and read the documentation for yourself. It must be read to be believed. It has been uncovered as part of a California "Sunshine Act" disclosure. These are assimilationist Jews whose biggest regret in life seems to
be that they were born too late to beg the Germans to kill more Jews.
2. I fear that there is no alternative to officially changing the name of Ben Gurion University to the "University of Treason." Nary a day goes by without some new atrocity coming out of the Ben Gurion University chapter of the Israeli academic fifth column. But the litany of treason that came out of Ben Gurion University in the past 24 hours makes most of the previous track record pale in comparison. First, we have BGU's Neve Gordon, the tenured tanzin from BGU's politics department, proclaim to his students in a required course that the kidnapping and holding of Gilad Shalit by the Hamas is NOT terrorism. Not a bit. In fact, it is entirely justified!! After all, didn't allied troops capture and hold enemy soldiers during World War II? So isn't the Hamas just doing the same thing? Never mind that the Hamas is not an army but a gang of genocidal terrorists. Never mind that Shalit was kidnapped and not captured in battle, and that Shalit has been held incommunicado for years by his Nazi captors. Gordon's quote appears in full, alas only in Hebrew, here: http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4049822,00.html but Hebrew readers should also check out the talkbacks there. 500 were posted in the first hours, almost all of them denouncing Gordon as a traitor. As it turns out, Ben Gurion University students are not taking
Gordon's campaign on behalf of the Hamas lying down. A group of BGU
students has called upon the University authorities to take action at
long last against Gordon. The details, again in Hebrew, are reported
by the Galei Zahal news service here:
What triggered the student petition was the fact that a university in South Africa just announced that they are going to boycott Ben Gurion University specifically, as part of the efforts of these South African beneficiaries of South African apartheid against "Israeli apartheid." The students claim correctly that the numerous BGU professors, led by Gordon, who call for a world boycott against Israel, are directly responsible for this newest development. After all, The South Africans were just listening to Neve Gordon! Now BGU President likes to claim that in all of BGU there is only one treasonous moonbat and that is Neve Gordon, but the rest of the university is filled with wise and Zionist patriots. She is lying. There are scores of tenured traitors at BGU. They are backed, defended, and endorsed by hundreds of other BGU leftists, led by the BGU President and Rector themselves, who maintain lower political profiles. What is amazing is that far-leftist anti-Zionism is so COMMON at BGU that it spills out from the usual cesspools of radicalism in the social sciences and humanities, and even effects the real sciences. As witness to this, take the newest jihad coming out of Ben Gurion University by Professor Karla Kedem. She is professor of computer sciences at BGU. Today she appears in the media (in English this time, see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4049619,00.html) where she denounces her own university for holding a special concert open only to Israeli reserve soldiers (and companions). This is racism and sexism, she bleats! Why? Because Arabs and women can't attend. Can't attend, she moos? Well, actually some Bedouins and some women DO serve in the reserves. But that is hardly the point. Komrade Karla sees racism and discrimination in a concert meant for reserve soldiers. But the REAL racism and discrimination is in the fact that ISRAEL STILL CONSCRIPTS ONLY JEWS AND DOES NOT CONSCRIPT ARABS, EVEN FOR CIVILIAN NATIONAL SERVICE. THAT is NOT discrimination, according to this BGU dingbette. (Again, check out the talkbacks) Finally we have Dr. Michal Givoni, who was a postdoc "researcher" from
Tel Aviv University in sociology (what else?) and the semi-Marxist
"Van Leer Institute," who just issued a paper that compares Gaza Arabs
to Holocaust survivors. She is this year at Berkeley in case anyone
wants to teach her about American baseball bats. See
3. A letter from my buddy Prof. Alexander to the WSJ, regarding an article posted here: Alan Dershowitz's column (29 March) on the latest eruption of Jew-hatred in Norway calls to mind the following passage from Philip Roth's novel The Counterlife: "I am in Norway on business for my product and written on a wall I read, 'Down with Israel.' I think,'What did Israel ever do to Norway?' I know Israel is a terrible country, but after all, there are countries even more terrible....Why don't you read on Norwegian walls,'Down with Russia,' 'Down with Chile,' 'Down with Libya'? Because Hitler didn't murder six million Libyans? I am walking in Norway and I am thinking 'If only he had.' Because then they would write on Norwegian walls, 'Down with Libya,' and leave Israel alone." Edward Alexander
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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
ANOTHER STUNNER BEHIND OBAMA'S LIBYA DOCTRINE
Posted by Laura, March 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein
with research by Chris Elliott
and it appeared yesterday in World Net Daily
|
|
TEL AVIV — A staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late PLO leader Yasser Arafat served on the committee that invented the military doctrine used by President Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya. As WND first reported, billionaire philanthropist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading organization pushing the military doctrine. Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on multiple boards with Soros. The doctrine and its founders, as WND reported, have been deeply tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya. Power is the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights. Now it has emerged that Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. That commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "Responsibility to Protect," while defining its guidelines. Ashrawi is an infamous defender of Palestinian terrorism. Her father, Daoud Mikhail, was a co-founder of the PLO with Arafat. The PLO was engaged in scores of international terrorist acts and was declared a terrorist group by the U.S. in 1987. During the First Palestinian Intifada, or war of "resistance" against Israel, in 1988, Ashrawi joined what was known as the Intifada Political Committee, which sought to advance Palestinian goals through both politics and "resistance." She served there until 1993. In 1991, Arafat appointed Ashrawi to serve as the PLO's Minister of Higher Education and Research. The Palestinian school system is notorious for its glorification of "martyrdom," or suicide bombings, and has long preached against the existence of Israel. Discover the Networks notes Ashrawi has long defended the Hamas terror group as a legitimate component of the Palestinian "political spectrum." She has stated she does not "think of Hamas as a terrorist group." "We coordinate [with Hamas] politically," she said in April 1993, "the people we know and talk to are not terrorists." In 1998 Ashrawi founded MIFTAH, a nonprofit that seeks to undermine Israel's legitimacy and refers to that Jewish state's 1948 creation as "Al Nakba," or "The Catastrophe." Ashrawi has long been a Holocaust denier. In the July 2, 1998, edition of the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, she published an article calling the Holocaust "a deceitful myth, which the Jews have ... exploited to get sympathy." In 2001 Ashrawi became a spokeswoman for the Arab League. Notably, Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, served as an adviser to the same 2001 commission that invented the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine. Ashrawi, meanwhile, was a protégé and later colleague and close friend of late Columbia University Professor Edward Said, another notorious apologist for Palestinian terrorism. Said was replaced by Rashid Khalidi, a close personal friend to Obama. Soros funded doctrine With Ashrawi on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine. In his address to the nation on Monday, Obama specifically cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya. Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of "Responsibility to Protect." "Responsibility to Protect," or "Responsibility to Act" as cited by Obama is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing." The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has also been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops. The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine. Two of global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the "Responsibility" doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "Responsibility to Protect." Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter. Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined — not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa." Obama cited doctrine multiple times Aside from his direct citation of the "Responsibility" doctrine in his address explaining why the U.S. is acting against Libya, Obama alluded to the doctrine four more times in his speech. The following are relevant excerpts from his address, with references to U.S. "responsibility" in bold:
Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders' Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations." In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments." "If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens. "In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict," he concluded. More Soros ties Responsibility founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chair, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "Responsibility to Protect." In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility." Evans presented "Responsibility to Protect" at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle. Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative. Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros. Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus. WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled. Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government. Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos. 'One World Order' WND also reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order." "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote in a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution." He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions." In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S. "The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore — global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote. "A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added. Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations." Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power." Power pushes doctrine Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power. Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the "Responsibility to Protect" principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu. Then last November, at the International Symposium on Preventing
Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of
the White House, argued for the use of "Responsibility to Protect"
alongside Evans.
Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com
|
|
DON'T WORRY, DAD, I'M OKAY
Posted by Sarah N. Stern, March 30, 2011. |
|
At five thirty in the morning last Wednesday, my husband was awakened by a phone call from our son, Noam, in Beer Sheba. "Don't worry, dad, we're in our safe rooms at home and we are okay." He made the call because the sirens went off, after a missile came perilously close to that city's population center. This was one of more than 50 that had been lobbed at Southern Israel from Gaza in the last several days. My daughter in law, Ali, who commutes from Beer Sheba to Hebrew University then got on the bus to Jerusalem, only to find that, later in the day a terrorist attack occurred just a few miles away from where she was, at a bus stop, which she often uses. The attack , the first within Jerusalem in several years, killed one woman, Mary Jane Gardner, 55, and left dozens wounded, some critically. Another phone call was made, that same day. The message was: " If you hear anything about a bus bombing in Jerusalem, don't worry, I am okay." This is life in Israel. The people in Israel know what they are up against. They know that they are living in the midst of an earthquake, one that is far more volatile than ever. They are well aware of the dangers of living on this shaky ground. But they are plucky and self reliant. After each terrorist attack or bus bombing, they pick themselves up, clean up the damage, and live from day to day. They know that now, more than ever in the past, there are rivaling terrorist groups, like marauding neighborhood gangs, that are itching to have Israel get into the fight. They know that in some of these terrorist gangs, Jewish blood is a trophy that they use to hang on their wall to gain respect in the 'hood. They are well aware of the dangers brought by the long tentacles of Iran stretching into every terrorist group. Iran is engaged in death by a thousand blows through their systematic support of terrorism, as it is also engaged in Israel's ultimate destruction through one nuclear attack, which they are working assiduously to create. They know that according to the latest IAEA report Iran has already compiled 3,606 kg. of low enriched uranium, (that we know of), and might already possess the nuclear warhead mechanism to deliver them. They know that the ultimate moose head hanging on the wall, the trophy of finally achieving a "World Without Israel" would win the Islamic Republic prestige within the rivaling Sunni and Shiite world, and will finally settle a primordial, tribal feud for the mantle of Muslim leadership that they have been fighting over for the last fourteen centuries. They know that Iran has provided training to Hezbollah, just north of their border, and 50,000 to 60,000 missiles to their bases in Southern Lebanon, aimed at every single city in Israel, and that Hezbollah is a little antsy for a little Jewish blood, as well. They understand the old Arab adage that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend", and that Iran has also been providing money , weapons and training to Hamas controlled Gaza. They know that the over 50 rockets fired last week from Gaza into Southern Israel now have have a much larger and wider trajectory. They landed in a kibbutz, in Eshkol wounding one man and causing sever property damage. The attacks have forced schools to be temporarily shut down in Ashdod, Ashkelon and Beer Sheba. Child psychiatrists have been reporting frequent and sever symptoms of trauma in the school age population. The Israelis know the international court of public opinion holds Israel to a standard that would be impossible for any other nation of the world to live with, and is scrutinizing their every move. They are well aware of the stakes of military engagement. They know that if Israel decides to retaliate against Hamas, to discourage this sort of wanton terrorism against their people, (which they have every right to do according to international law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter), the Palestinians will use their people as human shields and launch rockets from heavily populated urban centers. They know that there will be UN resolutions condemning Israel just waiting to be introduced, and that there will always be people who will see a moral equivalency between my son and daughter who were awoken at the night by terrorism, and the Palestinian use of crowded urban settings from which to launch their missiles, so that they can hide behind their own people as human shields and maximize the collateral damage is Israel is forced to respond. They know that there has been a two year period of relative quiet coming out of Gaza, and that is onlybecause Israel did respond with force in the war with Hamas controlled Gaza of 2009. And they acted with considerable restraint. Which bring me to my daughter, Rachel, who is going out seriously with a young American who is serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, in the Golani brigade. Rachel's boyfriend, Jeremy, just made aliyah, last week, and is proud to wear the uniform of the IDF. He is now being prepared to go from house to house, in case the command comes to re-enter Gaza. He is willing to do this not because he seeks death, but because he values life. Which brings me back to my other son, Noam, a medical student in Beer Sheva who has volunteered for a magnificent, humanitarian organization in Israel called," Save A Child's Heart Foundation". This organization delivers highly sophisticated cardiac surgery, totally free of charge to any youngster around the world that might need it. They have already operated on 2,553 children from 43 countries around the world. They also run a clinic every single Tuesday at the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv for Palestinian children who need cardiac care, where they save the lives of children not only from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, but from Hamas controlled Gaza. According to their website, nearly half the children that have been served by Save A Child's Heart Foundation come from the PA, and over 1200 Palestinian children have undergone Open Heart Surgery, since the organization was founded in 1995. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah was quoted as saying at a Graduation Ceremony, "We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life so that is what we are going to take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death." Wrong — Sheik Nasrallah. That is why we are going to win. You have underestimated the ability of our people to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, pick up the phone, and say, "Don't worry, dad. I'm okay." Sarah Stern is founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth
(EMET). This essay is from Vol. 3, Issue 7,
|
|
THREATENING TO MARCH INTO ISRAEL ON MAY 15
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Chana Ya'ar and is entitled "Arabs on Facebook Invade Israel." |
|
Palestinian Authority activists have recreated the Third Intifada page that was banned by Facebook on Tuesday in response to thousands of member requests. An Israeli Cabinet minister, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and a massive Internet campaign were only some of the measures used to pressure the popular social networking site into removing the page, which promoted violence against Jews in Israel. But the story doesn't end there, because angry Palestinian Authority sponsors of the page ensured the fight would continue. A Muslim page similarly entitled "Subscribe now to the Palestinian Intifada," on its logo but which is innocuously entitled "Make the Prophet Number One on Facebook" on the heading is listed under Non-profit Organizations. Easily the largest and most popular Muslim page on Facebook, it espouses peace and offers myriad beneficent comments about Allah and Islam's founder, the Prophet Muhammed. But the Rassoul Allaah page also directs readers to directs readers to a wealth of links to other pages promoting the Third Intifada and a massive attempt to carry out the destruction of the State of Israel. By Wednesday afternoon, the page had garnered more than three million — 3,293,252 — votes of support from Facebook members around the world. Organizers have summoned millions of Arabs from across the Middle East to march into Israel and forcibly attempt to implement a de facto "Right of Return," the Arab euphenism for the mass immigration of several million Arabs. The date for this march has been set for May 15 — the anniversary of what the Arabs refer to as the "Nakba" or "Tragedy" — the date of the establishment of the State of Israel. Although some of the pages promoting this campaign have warned its readers to maintain a peaceful demeanor, others do not bother with such niceties. At least one is a complete re-creation of the original Third Palestinian Intifada page that was removed. Third Palestinian Uprising — Persian Gulf Within 24 hours, organizers created the same page under a new name: Third Palestinian uprising — the Persian Gulf answer join our mosque. The page, written entirely in Arabic and listed under the Political Party category, was created at approximately 11:00 a.m. Jerusalem time. "This page has been created after the Facebook page was closed after the uprising, the number of logged-in page to 350,000, at the request of Israel. Accordingly we set up a number of pages to spread news of the uprising. All pages have been created to spread news of the uprising in case the main page is closed once again..." Under "Likes and Interests" on the page, organizers wrote, "One billion Muslims for the destruction of Israel. Billion Muslim to Exterminate Israel, a campaign one million pro-Aqsa Mosque, a campaign to write the date of the third Palestinian Intifada on the Egyptian currency... the historic march toward Palestine, 15.05.2011 — I am the first volunteer in the United Arab army in the event of a declaration of war on Israel and 5 more..." Posted on the page are various messages, including the notice by the "Million campaign to advocate for the al Aqsa Mosque," which tells readers, "Save al-Aqsa mosque from injustice, and aggression is our goal." Arab Revolt for Liberation of Palestine Another notice was posted by the Arab Revolt for the Liberation of Palestine (listed under "Cause"). It announced its "primary goal is to liberate our land, Arab Filistine (Palestine -ed.) and the defeat of the occupation in every inch of the land of Palestine, pure and simple. We call upon the Arab masses... "This day will be a dawn of freedom for the liberated Arab peoples. Free Palestine and we will be released..." This page alone has garnered 27,379 "Likes." A number of other pages, all posted in Arabic, have also been created on the popular social networking site. Two pages, Maseera 2011 and Palatora, are non-violent but nevertheless threatening to the Jewish State, supporting the call for a mass invasion by millions of Arabs. By noon Wednesday, Maseera 2011 had garnered 7,209 "Likes." Maseera 2011 Written in Arabic, a statement on the page announced, "Our goal is to carry out the march of the Right of Return in both word and deed to Palestine on May 15 2011 from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, in order to penetrate the borders of Palestine and return to the homeland and validate the right of return in word and deed," proclaims a statement on the page. "This step is the first towards achievement of Resolution 194, to be followed by other steps such as recognition of the rights of returnees and compensation... "If you are a refugee who wants to return, or you support the right of refugees to return, we hope that you publish this page everywhere on the Internet, in Facebook, Twitter, forums, email groups and all possible locations," organizers wrote. "Copy our link and put it in your profile and publish it on all the pictures and videos and pages and everywhere... 63 years; it is time to return." Revolution for Palestinian Refugees — Palatora The Revolution for Palestinian Refugees page — Palatora — is categorized under Media/News/Publishing and by Wednesday late morning had collected 5,805 "Likes." Organizers describe themselves as "sons of exiles" and vow to carry out a "March of Return" on May 15 to "restore our right to our land... we will not be denied and will not go back to where we were at all costs of blood or money, nor with a white flag. We will be flying the flag of Palestine... and we will stand with our heads held high." Also written completely in Arabic, one posting on this page vows enthusiastically, "We will enter Palestine in the millions!" Another reminds readers, "March 30... Earth Day — Palestinians strong in our land and win!" March to Palestine The March to Palestine page, listed under the category of Political Party, proclaims the slogan, "May 15 is the date to march around historic Palestine." As of Wednesday morning, 8,080 people had expressed their support for the page. "Ready and on standby for the Liberation of Jerusalem," wrote Mahmoued Abd Elwahed. "O Jerusalem, coming, coming," wrote Ala'a Yousef. "Allah will chastise them at your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them..." promised Ghassan M. Ka'awach, who posted in response to a photo of a PA Arab woman hurling a rock, presumably at a Jew. One of the posts on this page is a link to a page that is aimed at Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg, who is Jewish. Hatred Hurled at Zuckerberg A new page was started as soon as Facebook removed the Third Palestinian Intifada to express the disappointment and in many cases, hatred of Facebook's Arab readers at being stymied. The page, Mark Zuckerberg is the next dictator to Go, proclaims as its slogan, "Reopen the Third Palestinian Intifada Page now!" On that page, more than a few readers have issued ultimatums and warnings of their own. "Do not be like the Israelis criminals," wrote Mustafa Hashem Safi. "The state of Israel was built on the blood and the skulls of the innocent Palestinian people since 1948 .. Israelis stole our land and killed out sons and drove us out of our country under duress, a fact that Israel .. And you know that your money and billions of dollars owned are not worth a drop of blood for our son Palestinian." "Message to staff in the Department of facebook: You have 48 hours to return the official page Third of the Palestinian uprising, or boycott the province on facebook will be Thursday, 31/03/2011" wrote one. "...you are a moron serving the Zionists..." "Dear Mark... you can remove the page but the third intifada has already begun. Its the awakening of the global consciousness to the crimes of the zionist entity... its BDS.. You caved in to the ADL....your a puppet..." Taunted another, "Why did you remove the page? ARE YOU AFRAID? :)" Marching Through the Desert 'A Thirsty Trek' Any march from surrounding Arab countries is likely to entail a thirsty trek through kilometers of desert wasteland, one Israeli tour guide told Israel National News in an exclusive interview Wednesday afternoon, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. Such a march could easily take days, if not weeks of walking in the blistering Negev sun, with complex logistics for organizing an ongoing supply of fresh water and food. Although the Negev Bedouin are experienced and adept at living under such conditions, the region's Palestinian Authority Arabs and their foreign-born descendants are unlikely to have similar expertise, he said. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
THE ANSWER MAN SPEAKS ONLY ARABIC
Posted by Susana K-M, March 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times. |
|
A growing number of congressmen say they want answers to questions about what the U.S. government is up to in Libya, but they're looking to the wrong people for answers. The questions shouldn't be addressed to President Obama, to the secretary of State or the secretary of Defense, but to the United Nations, the Arab League and maybe your favorite imam. Nobody wants to lead. Everybody's looking for the exits, coherent strategy or not. The president's speech on Monday night didn't change anything. Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, says Libya posed no threat to the United States but explains that "it was an interest for . . . the engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake." The Arabs and the Europeans have been unleashed as the big dogs, with the United States looking for a role as a wagging tail. maybe for France or Denmark. Washington doesn't even get to say much about the "general humanitarian question," a question that seems clear enough in Libya but apparently not in Syria, or Jordan or Yemen or any of the other way stations to the Islamic paradise now threatened by the restless natives. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has been leading the charge within the Obama administration for doing something even if it's something wrong, says there's no plan — yet — to do to Bashar al-Assad what we're trying to do, sort of, to Muammar Gadaffi. That's because the international community, the Arab League and the U.N. Security Council haven't yet given Uncle Sam permission. Besides, some members of Congress think Assad is a "reformer" who has not yet shown himself brutal enough to be an official bad guy. "What's happening there over the last few weeks is deeply concerning," Mrs. Clinton told CBS News on Sunday, but "there's a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, and police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see." The president himself continues to stay out of it, or as far away from it as he can, perhaps dreaming of joining Jimmy Carter on his mission to Cuba. He's limiting himself to joining his teleprompter for an occasional speech. He wouldn't want to be reminded of how he told the Boston Globe in 2007 that "the president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Just about that same time Hillary Clinton, then a United States senator from New York, told her colleagues that "if [George W. Bush] believes that any — any — use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority." Jake Tapper of ABC News posed the question Sunday that's obvious to everyone but the merry pranksters at the White House: "Why not go to Congress?" Ummm, ah, hmmm. Mrs. Clinton will try to explain that, as daintily and as noncommittally as she can. "Well, we would welcome congressional support. But I don't think this kind of internationally authorized intervention, where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission, is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago. I think this has a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling." But the "clearly defined mission" is beginning to suffer the hopey-changey disease at the edges of that "limited time frame." The White House now says the Libyan operation, once described as something to be wrapped up in days not weeks, might require months. Mr. Obama can't persuade the nation that he knows what he's doing, but he nevertheless tells Mr. Gadaffi that despite the falling bombs he certainly has no intention of killing him. Why would a commander chief, who has unleashed "kinetic military action" (the preferred White House weasel word for "war"), want to encourage the enemy with reassurance like that? Better to tell him that there's a garlic bullet with his name on it, and doom could arrive at any moment. Much of the heaviest fighting so far appears to be contained within the Obama administration. The Pentagon wants to give peace a chance, eager to mortar the pantywaists at the State Department, which this time wants to give war a chance. Bob Gates looks more and more like the not-so-famous starlet on the set of a Hollywood clunker inquiring of another starlet, "who do you have to sleep with to get out of this movie?" Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
MORE THAN 100 NY STATE LEGISLATORS JOIN THE CALL FOR POLLARD'S RELEASE
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, March 30, 2011. |
|
NEWS FROM ASSEMBLYMAN DOV HIKIND March 29, 2011
HIKIND & SILVER APPEAL TO PRESIDENT OBAMA TO PARDON JONATHAN POLLARD: MORE THAN 100 NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATORS LEND THEIR NAME TO THE CAUSE Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn), in conjunction with New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and 100 of their legislative colleagues representing areas throughout New York State, have affixed their signatures to a letter sent to President Obama beseeching him for a pardon for Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst who discovered that information vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld by the United States in the mid-1980's. Based on a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries, Israel was legally entitled to have this intelligence which concerned Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities being developed for use against Israel. Pollard is now serving the 26th year of a life sentence imposed for spying for Israel. When his efforts to end the United States' covert policy toward Israel proved unsuccessful, Pollard began to give information to Israel directly. In 1985, his actions were discovered by the United States government. He was indicted on only one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States. Pollard never had a trial. He received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled. The legislators' letter to President Obama states in part, "We write to urge you to use your constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has already served. Mr. Pollard committed serious crimes and he has expressed remorse. Such an exercise of the clemency power would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted. . . .We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us. It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-six years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence." After a personal visit with Pollard at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina in 2007, Hikind reflected, "I can attest to the fact that Jonathan is remorseful for his actions. He acknowledges he broke the law. All he is asking for is proportionality, and today, we asked President Obama to give him that much. I hope and pray to God that our request is granted." Joining Assemblyman Hikind in the call for Pollard's release are: Senators Eric Adams (D-Kings); Ruben Diaz, Sr. (D-Bronx); Adriano Espaillat (D-Bronx); Michael N. Gianaris (D-Queens); Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D-Bronx); Shirley Huntley (D-Queens); Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx); Liz Krueger (D-New York); Suzi Oppenheimer (D-Westchester); Kevin Parker (D-Kings); Bill Perkins (D-New York); John Sampson (D-Kings); Diane J. Savino (D-Kings); Daniel Squadron (D-Kings); Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Westchester); Assemblymembers Peter J. Abbate, Jr (D-Kings); Carmen E. Arroyo (D-Bronx); Jeffrion L. Aubry (D-Queens); Michael Benedetto (D-Bronx); Jonathan L. Bing (D-New York); Ed Braunstein (D-Queens); James F. Brennan (D-Kings); Harry Bronson (D-Monroe); Alec Brook-Krasny (D-Kings); Kevin A. Cahill (D-Dutchess); Nancy Calhoun (D-Orange); Karim Camara (D-Kings); Ronald Canestrari (D-Albany); Nelson Castro (D-Bronx); Barbara M. Clark (D-Queens); William Colton (D-Kings); Vivian E. Cook (D-Queens); Marcus A. Crespo (D-Bronx); Michael J. Cusick (D-Richmond); Steven Cymbrowitz (D-Kings); Michael DenDekker (D-Queens); RoAnn M. Destito (D-Oneida); Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx); Herman D. Farrell, Jr. (D-New York); Michael J. Fitzpatrick (R-Suffolk); Christopher Friend (R-Chemung); David F. Gantt (D-Monroe); Vanessa L. Gibson (D-Bronx); Deborah J. Glick (D-New York); Andrew Goodell (R-Chautauqua); Carl E. Heastie (D-Bronx); Andrew D. Hevesi (D-Queens); Dov Hikind (D-Kings); Earlene Hooper (D-Nassau); Sam Hoyt (D-Erie); Rhoda S. Jacobs (D-Kings); Ellen Jaffee (D-Rockland); Hakeem Jeffries (D-Kings); Micah Z. Kellner (D-New York); Rory Lancman (D-Queens); George Latimer (D-Westchester; Charles Lavine (D-Nassau); Joseph R. Lentol (D-Kings); Guillermo Linares (D-New York); Vito J. Lopez (D-Kings); Daniel P. Losquadro (D-Suffolk); Donna Lupardo (D-Broome); Alan Maisel (D-Kings); Nicole Malliotakis (R-Kings); Nettie Mayersohn (D-Queens); John J. McEneny (D-Albany); Tom McKevitt (R-Nassau); Grace Meng (D-Queens); Donald Miller (R-Onondaga); Joel M. Miller (R-Dutchess); Michael Miller (D-Queens); Joan L. Millman (D-Kings); Marcus Molinaro (R-Columbia); Joseph D. Morelle (D-Monroe); Francisco Moya (D-Queens); Felix W. Ortiz (D-Kings); Crystal D Peoples-Stokes (D-Erie); N. Nick Perry (D-Kings); Audrey I. Pheffer (D-Queens); J. Gary Pretlow (D-Westchester); Edward Re (R-Nassau); José Rivera (D-Bronx); Naomi Rivera (D-Bronx); Peter M. Rivera (D-Bronx); Sam Roberts (D-Onondaga; Annette M. Robinson (D-Kings); Robert Rodriguez (D-New York); Linda Rosenthal (D-New York); Addie J. Russell (D-Jefferson); Joseph Saladino (R-Nassau); William Scarborough (D-Queens); Michelle Schimel (D-Nassau); Sheldon Silver (D-New York; Aravella Simotas (D-Queens); Mike Spano (R-Westchester); Eric Stevenson (D-Bronx); Fred W. Thiele, Jr. (D-Suffolk); Matthew J. Titone (D-Richmond); Michele R. Titus (D-Queens); Darryl Towns (D-Kings); Helen E. Weinstein (D-Kings); Harvey Weisenberg (D-Nassau); David I. Weprin (D-Queens); Keith L. Wright (D-New York) Allison Witty
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:
|
|
AMERICAN ARMS TO AL-QAEDA?
Posted by Truth Provider, March 30, 2011. |
|
Dear friends, As I wrote to you yesterday, it is quite likely that the Libyan
rebels are affiliated with Al-Qaeda. This was suggested today by a
NATO commander in the Wall Street Journal
'Flickers' Of Al Qaeda Among 'Responsible' Rebels WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) — Intelligence reports about the leaders of a Libyan opposition group show "flickers" of potential ties to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah but the detail is not enough to indicate a significant terrorist presence, the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military operations told Congress Tuesday. If this proves correct, it will be a major debacle and one of the biggest disasters for Obama's administration. Even tonight, Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice continue to suggest arming the rebels. ARMING AL-QAEDA?????? Is she dragging Obama to his downfall? Some Republicans, including John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, continue to push for the ousting of Gadaffi. And who, pray tell, do they have in mind to replace him? What a mess. What a mess! Do you think Israel should ever listen to advice from these ignorant "leaders?" Your Truth Provider,
Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com |
|
HEBRON FIRST
Posted by David Wilder, March 30, 2011. |
|
As the weather changes, as winter moves into spring and summer, as the meteorological temperature rises, so too, the geopolitical climate is ascending at a rapid pace. It wasn't too many weeks ago that rumors of Bibi's intended US speech, declaring intentions to immediately recognize a 'palestinian state' within temporary borders, abounded. Commentators expected such an announcement, perhaps in the Premier's address before Congress in May. Then disaster struck. The Fogel butchery in Itamar seemed to throw a wrench into the mechanics of Bibi's seemingly well-oiled machinery. Photographs of a baby stabbed in the heart and a father with his throat cut are not conducive to peace plans. Then, again, Arab terror struck in the heart of Jerusalem, adjacent to the Central Bus station. Again, murder, targeted at the body and soul of every Jew in Israel, only because they are Jews, in Israel. It makes no difference that the one fatality was a non-Jew from England. Terror is terror is terror. Suddenly Bibi's new 'piece' initiative seemed to get stuck. Our Arab neighbors, not wanting to get pulled deep into Netanyahu's suggested quicksand, totally rejecting any form of 'temporary statehood,' began pushing for a unilateral declaration of 'palestinian statehood.' Building upon anti-Israel sentiment in South America, several countries announced their recognition of a 'palestinian state' in pre-1967 Judea and Samaria, part of which is presently partially controlled by the 'palestinian authority.' The winds of the new 'state' are quickly transforming into a political tornado, picking up speed and international support. The time and place seem to be September at the United Nations, when the UN will be asked to recognize 'palestine' as a full-fledged member of the world community. It must be clear without mincing any words. Nothing has changed within the Arab thought process. Abu Mazen has not repented. He still denies the Holocaust. He has not apologized for his role, planning terror attacks against Jews for decades, including his financing of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. He continues to honor terrorists. This month his advisor Sabri Saidam, exclaimed that palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel. Under his auspices, a town square in El-Birah was named in honor of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who participated in the 1978 Coast Road massacre. The 'palestinian authority, continuing to incite against Israel and Jews, is nothing less than a PTA — a 'palestinian terror organization.' This has not prevented UN secretary general Ban from castigating Israel, labeling Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria as 'occupation,' and 'morally, politically, unsustainable.' As Ban speaks, Arabs are killing Arabs in Libya and Syria, while other Arab tyrants are cranking up their killing machines in order to deflect any attempts to dethrone them. Yet, it is the 'Israeli occupation' that occupies the United Nations leadership. Israeli politicians and other public figures have started reacting to the September Accords. This morning Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau, a well-known, veteran right-wing leader, suggested that Israel annex parts of Judea and Samaria in reaction to declaration of a 'palestinian state.' Landau isn't the first to make such a declaration. However, Landau's solution is partial and lacking, in that he proclaimed that the 'large settlement blocks within the national consensus' should be made part of sovereign Israel. And so I ask, what about Hebron? Actually, there is no doubt in my mind that all of Judea and Samaria are part of Israel, and as such, should be officially annexed. However, if the state of Israel, for whatever reason, prefers to establish an annexation process, declaring statehood in Judea and Samaria little by little, what better a place to begin than Hebron?! Recently Education minister Saar announced that all Israeli schoolchildren should and would visit Hebron and Ma'arat HaMachpela. In a survey conducted amongst high school teachers, over seventy eight percent supported this decision. As reported on Kol Yisrael radio on March 21, the head of the teacher's union, Ron Erez, commented that "this result proves that educators are not only teaching with an aim of achievement, rather they are also looking at the roots of our state, our education, and deepening those roots, bond them to Eretz Yisrael." David began his rule in Hebron, and remained here for over seven years, thereby immersing himself, not as an individual, but as King of Israel, in the sanctity of our Patriarchs and Matriarchs, prior to moving up to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. Following in the footsteps of David, it would seem natural that still today, Hebron is the place to start. Jewish Hebron is, in the eyes of the world, a seeming question mark. How can Israel dare allow Jews to live in the first Jewish city in Israel? Hebron is, in their opinion, the epitome of Israeli intransigence and foreign occupation. The time has come to put an end to any such question marks. Hebron, the roots of our people, is, always was, and always will be, a Jewish, Israeli city. The fact that Arabs too live here, so what! That cannot and does not erase the core significance of Hebron, throughout the generations, to the Jewish people. For seven hundred years Jews were forcibly prevented from accessing building atop the caves of Machpela, the 2nd holiest site in the world. Yet Jews did not forget their roots, yearning for the day when they could return to visit, worship and identify at this sacred monument. As such, nothing could be more fitting than a declaration of "Hebron First." On the day that the UN declares acceptance of a 'palestinian state' the Knesset should vote to extend full Israeli sovereignty on the city of Hebron, again declaring the Jewish people's allegiance to our age-old heritage. This historic event will open the eyes of the world-at-large, proving to them that we, the Jewish people in the State of Israel, will never, ever, abandon our ancient homeland. And they will know: Hebron First is only the beginning. 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. |
|
OBAMA HAD TO KNOW HE WAS HELPING AL-QAEDA
Posted by Ted Belman, March 30, 2011. |
|
t's Not that Qaddafi Was Right, It's that We Knew He Was Right We can continue pretending that ...jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other anti-American Islamists are not a significant part of the Libyan mujahideen...But pretending won't change who the "rebels" really are and what this "Arab Spring" is really about. This is by Andrew C. McCarthy and it appeared on National Review Online. |
|
Jonah and Mark went back and forth over the weekend on the question of whether Qaddafi has been right in saying that the "'rebels' are al Qaeda." In particular, Jonah pointed to the reports about the "rebel" commander Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi (alternatively referred to as al-Hasidi), a member of the Qaeda-connected Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIGF) who was detained by the U.S. for several years after his capture in 2002. (I discussed al-Hasadi in my weekend column.) I'd suggest that the real issue here is not whether Qaddafi was right, it's that our government knew he was right . . . unless you think they were lying to us throughout the Bush years. Here, for example, is Secretary of State Condi Rice in 2006, explaining the Bush administration's decision to restore diplomatic relations with Qaddafi: We are taking these actions in recognition of Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States and other members of the international community in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001. The cooperation to which she was referring primarily involved intelligence about al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists (like the LIGF) in Libya. It was important because, as the Defense Department found, more Libyans (the kind of Libyans who are to be found among the "rebels") traveled to fight against U.S. forces in the war on terror than the citizens of any other country by percentage of population. By the time of Condi's gushing 2006 tribute to Qaddafi's cooperation, this provision of intelligence had been ongoing for three years. (And it didn't just involve us — the report I cite above says, "Libya began working last year [i.e., 2005] with Britain to curtail terrorism by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and had extradited a suspect in a Cairo bombing to Egypt.") The sharing of intelligence against Libyan jihadists also explains, in part, the Bush administration decision to take Qaddafi off the list of state sponsors of terrorism at that point — he was deemed to be an ally against jihadist terror, notwithstanding his blood-soaked history as an anti-American terrorist. It further explains why congressional Democrats like the late Tom Lantos strongly supported the Bush administration's cozying up to Qaddafi (Lantos in 2006: "Libya has thoroughly altered its behavior by abolishing its program to develop weapons of mass destruction and ending its support for terrorism.") The cooperation continued apace, according to our government. That's why, with great fanfare in 2008, the Bush administration formally settled past hostilities with Libya. At her meeting with Qaddafi that year, Secretary Rice again stressed the dictator's cooperation against terrorists. She affirmed that "the relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now and I think tonight does mark a new phase." The important thing, Rice insisted, was "moving forward. The United States, I've said many times, doesn't have any permanent enemies." Need more? In 2008, when the Bush State Department proposed to start pouring foreign aid into Libya, State's justification to Congress asserted that Libya "has changed course from a country fomenting international terrorism to an increasingly valuable partner against terrorism[.]" Aid to Libya was, of course, approved by Congress — without apparent objection from the many senators and House members now describing Qaddafi as a longtime, incorrigible terrorist enemy of the United States. Our government knew all along that Qaddafi was a thug. A determination was made, however, to overlook his past atrocities for what was said to be the greater good of his abandonment of his weapons programs and his cooperation against the anti-American jihadists we well knew were in his country and the wider rough neighborhood. We can continue pretending that these jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other anti-American Islamists are not a significant part of the Libyan mujahideen that commentators keep calling the "rebels" and the "freedom fighters." Similarly, we can keep pretending it's an "Arab Spring" of "democratic revolution" in neighboring Egypt ... and never you mind those "virginity tests" or that election they just had in which nearly three-quarters of Egyptians voted for a process that will shift control of the country and the writing of its next constitution to the Muslim Brotherhood. But pretending won't change who the "rebels" really are and what this "Arab Spring" is really about. Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
DECLARING A SECOND JEWISH STATE
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Dovid Efune and
is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF. E-mailed him
at defune@gjcf.com [1]. It appeared on thee
Matzav website |
|
In September the United Nations General Assembly will convene in New York. It is widely anticipated that the Palestinian Arab leadership will unilaterally push for the declaration of a State, seeking approval and diplomatic acceptance from among the gathered representatives. It is unlikely that this initiative, that would essentially amount to an effort to seize control of the West Bank, will materialize. However if it did, it could cause a great deal of concern for Israel. Now consider for a moment what the implications would be if at the very same time, a movement to declare a second Jewish State in Judea and Samaria was gathering pace. Sounds farfetched? Maybe, but the idea is not my own. Political activists in Israel and around the world have begun to debate the merits of this concept, and as interest grows, the embryo of a movement may begin to be taking shape. The residents of cities, villages, towns and outposts throughout Judea and Samaria have often borne the brunt of Arab aggression, and their future is constantly subject to political whims. Israeli civil law does not apply to residents of these areas and the ability for communities to defend themselves is restricted. The recent brutal and barbaric Itamar slaughter underscored the kind of threats that these communities need to take into account. Following Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit of consolation to the Fogel family, the following comments by their oldest daughter Tamar gives an indication of how isolated many Jewish West Bank residents feel. "The Prime Minister said, "They murder us and they try to...and we build. We build. We build. We...just continue on." So I told him, "And then afterwards you expel people (from their homes)." She continued, "And during the expulsions, it's not just expelling people from their homes; there is also a war between brothers going on." As communities feel more isolated, movements that call for Judean independence may begin to gather more steam. The argument, although not unflawed, is in many ways quite sound. First of all, as many Israel advocates are fond of mentioning, there are a number of Arab states and only one Jewish State. So why not establish a second? According to most in the international community, Israeli control-and certainly inhabitance-of the West Bank, is illegal and Arabs refer to the land as 'occupied' territory. Even to those observers that defer minimally to the laws of impartiality, the area is referred to as 'disputed.' If Israel were to cede control of the areas to a new entity, governed by the local Jewish inhabitants who have an extensive historical connection to the land, what grounds for reckoning would be left? Israel would no longer be involved, as the dispute would now be between the West Bank Jews and the West Bank Arabs. After all, historically Jewish sovereignty was divided at times between the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Of course, because of the strategic importance of the area militarily, economically, and agriculturally, Israel would need to maintain an extensive bilateral defense and trade pact with the new entity. Besides the immediate effects on the ground, the benefits for Israel in the ongoing arena of world opinion could go even further. The precious underdog status that has so expertly been transferred from Israel to the Palestinian Arabs over the last number of years may be assigned to the Judeans as they struggle to build their newly independent Jewish State. Faced with a new geopolitical reality, and understanding of Jewish fortitude and determination, the local Arab population, maintaining their refugee status, may have more of an incentive to seek resettlement elsewhere in the Arab world. They may finally even be assisted by the international community. These committed pioneers have settled the Jewish homeland in its entirety and have shouldered the burden of peoplehood and the hardships of actualizing the dream of a Jewish return to Zion. They may yet open up a new frontier in the battle for the Jewish right to self-determination and it may go a long way in reframing the Israel-Arab conversation. 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. |
|
GERMANY VERSUS THE JEWS — AGAIN
Posted by P. David Hornik, March 30, 2011. |
|
A poll earlier this month caused some consternation when it found "high levels of anti-Semitism in Germany" and, particularly, 47.7 percent of Germans saying that "Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians." One of the researchers called the findings "remarkable" in light of the "widespread Holocaust remembrance and education events in Germany." These don't seem to be working. Some German academics, however, explain such findings in terms of "secondary anti-Semitism" — or "that Germans are filled with pathological guilt about the Holocaust and shift the blame to Jews and Israel to assuage their complexes." One wonders if Germans are really that consumed with guilt, or if it's just old habits resurfacing. Whatever the case, it would be pleasant to report that, despite popular antipathy to the Jewish state and the Jews, the current conservative government of Angela Merkel is doing much better. But its record, too, at least toward Israel, is fraught with problems. Much of this concerns a Hamburg-based entity called the European-Iranian Trade Bank, or EIH. As Fox News reported last month, the U.S. Treasury Department states that "EIH has acted as a key financial lifeline for Iran as one of Iran's few remaining access points to the European financial system." Earlier in February, eleven U.S. senators wrote to the German foreign minister "asking that he stop EIH from doing business with Iran" and expressing concern about EIH's "continued financial support of Iran's nuclear proliferation activities." To no avail. Iran's geopolitical aggression and nuclear program are recognized by now as a threat to the West and not just to Israel — hence the U.S. effort to coordinate sanctions against Iran. But, considering that Tehran has often boasted of its imminent annihilation of Israel and is sponsoring terrorist activity on its borders, the threat to Israel is most acute — making Germany's abetting of that threat all the more striking. Indeed, Fox News also reports that Treasury says "EIH facilitated the sale of more than $3 million in materials for Iran's missile programs." And it goes beyond EIH, since "Germany is Iran's biggest European trade partner. German exports to Iran totaled $4.7 billion from January through November of last year. This was a 5 percent increase over the same period in 2009." Israelis could be forgiven for wondering if, the more things seemingly change, the more they stay the same. If you liked this article, please consider signing up for PJM daily digest. And on the diplomatic front, too, Germany — Holocaust remembrance and education events notwithstanding — has been doing Israel harm. Late last month, the United Nations Security Council voted on a resolution that would have condemned all Israeli building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as "illegal." The resolution originated with the Palestinian Authority as part of an effort to eventually force Israel out of the West Bank without a peace agreement ensuring Israel's security and rights. It was sponsored by Lebanon, a country dominated by Hezbollah — an Iranian-backed terrorist organization also sworn to Israel's destruction. Only a U.S. veto — reluctant, and under pressure from Congress — stopped the resolution. Israel, however, was reportedly under the impression that Germany, too, would oppose it, and dismayed when Germany voted in favor. Branding Israeli communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as "illegal" is not only false but intensifies the atmosphere of delegitimization surrounding them. It was within that context of delegitimization that earlier this month an Israeli family of five, including three young children, were butchered on the West Bank. Now Jerusalem Post editor in chief David Horovitz suggests that Germany might still have a way to redeem itself. Next September the Palestinians are expected to go after Israel again in the Security Council, this time with a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state. Even if that resolution were vetoed, Horovitz says, the Palestinians could get it adopted by the General Assembly — in a way that is severely harmful to Israel's legitimacy, security, and demography. Under UN regulations, the only way to stop such a resolution dead in its tracks in the Security Council is if at least 7 of its 15 members vote no, abstain, or absent themselves. And the vital countries with the capacity to sway others are Germany, France, and the UK. Might Germany be prepared to say "no" to unilateral UN establishment of Palestine? Maybe, say some, if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can persuade Merkel that he is truly prepared to put flesh on his skeletal talk of a two-state solution. Another source tells Horovitz that Israel should be working harder to stymie the Palestinian effort, "and that starts with Netanyahu trying to win over Merkel." If so, Netanyahu's work will be cut out for him. Considering that half of Germans view Israel as a Nazi country, that Germany is now the main European state abetting Iran's aggression, and that Germany already let Israel down on the settlements resolution, one has to be optimistic to think Germany would salvage Israel in the scenario Horovitz depicts. That scenario is still tentative, though well supported. But what is clear is that, facing a sea of troubles, and despite the weight of the past, Israel can hardly count on Germany as a friend. It's been behaving more like an enemy. P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in
Beersheva. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/
This article is archived at
|
|
GAZA ENDGAME?
Posted by Hadassah, March 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Elliot Jager and it appeared in Jewish Ideas Daily
|
|
A March 26 meeting in Ramallah between an unofficial delegation of West Bank Hamas "parliamentarians" and Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Authority and leader of the Fatah party, was ostensibly about reconciling the two factions. Actually it was about much more. Abbas reportedly told his visitors that Fatah is on the cusp of gaining United Nations backing for a Palestinian state along the 1949 armistice lines — without having given up the "right of return," without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, and without addressing a single one of Israel's security needs. Yet this coup, the fruit of long months of Palestinian diplomacy that would put paid to the idea of a peace based on compromise with Israel, was being jeopardized by Hamas's bellicosity. True, Abbas might have conceded, Palestinians under his authority could hurl rocks at Israeli motorists or ambulances, attack soldiers, or riot against the security barrier with relative impunity and without negative consequences to Palestinian interests. True, too, Palestinian diplomacy had not been adversely affected even by the news of a ship laden with weapons bound for Gaza "militants," or by Hamas terror efforts to tunnel into Israel from Gaza — or, for that matter, by the slaughter of a Jewish family at Itamar, excused in some Palestinian media and by others in the West as having been provoked by "settlements." But, one can picture him remonstrating, other recent "resistance" activities had put Fatah's progress in the UN at genuine risk. What was the point of pummeling Israel from Gaza with 50 mortars in 15 minutes back on March 19? What about the recent bus-stop bombing in "west" Jerusalem that killed a visiting Christian Bible scholar and almost claimed the life of a British television reporter? How were Abbas's diplomats to explain the bombardment of Beersheba and Ashdod by Grad missiles? A direct hit on some Jewish kindergarten could set back PLO progress substantially. Had they been in a position to speak frankly, the Hamas men would no doubt have acknowledged that they, too, have an interest in seeing Abbas succeed at the UN. After all, a diplomatic victory for Fatah today would accrue to Hamas tomorrow — since the Islamists fully expect to assume control one day over a reunited Palestinian polity. For now, however, Hamas's calculations must be anything but straightforward, which is why a show of unity with Fatah could be portrayed as benefiting the aims of both factions. It is certainly a fact that the popular uprisings now sweeping the Arab world have shaken the confidence of the Gaza-based regime, as demonstrated by the brutality with which its thugs have crushed the protests of Gazans themselves. Moreover, there are divisions within Hamas between the hard-line armed faction led by Ahmed Ja'abari and the purportedly more moderate "government" led by Ismail Haniyeh. The latter wants to be seen as open to reconciliation with Abbas; the former makes no such pretense. There are also tensions between the Damascus-based leadership, buffeted by the upheavals in Syria, and Hamas chiefs in Gaza. In this environment, it may be that Hamas is having trouble imposing its will on other extremist factions in Gaza, particularly Islamic Jihad. (Only hours after Hamas announced that Gaza terror groups were ready to return to a de-facto ceasefire with Israel, two Islamic Jihad gunmen on their way to launch rockets against the Jewish state were liquidated by its air force.) Add to this mix uncertainty over the future of Syria and, by implication, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, and it is little surprise that Hamas might seek to turn the spleen of Palestinians outward. For its part, of course, Israel has no interest in shifting onto itself the attention of the Arab street. By continuing to target terrorists engaged in actual attacks, deploying its imperfect Iron Dome defensive shield, and signaling that its agenda does not exclude killings of Hamas leaders, Jerusalem is endeavoring to deter Gaza violence in a prudent and calibrated manner. But what if these deterrent measures fail? What if a multi-casualty terror attack should leave Israel no choice but to go to war? What if an Operation Cast Lead II (after the name of the December 2008 intervention) becomes obligatory? In such an eventuality, Israel would obviously strive to avoid the mistakes of the first Gaza war. But it would have to do more: it would have to aim at ending Hamas rule. Through a strategy of unremitting attack against the movement's leaders, structures, and symbols, military and political alike, the next war would have to ensure that Hamas lost the ability to command and control events in the Gaza Strip. To that end, and in the certainty that Hamas would respond by unleashing its entire arsenal, a broad-based, national-unity cabinet might well be needed in Jerusalem to inspire confidence in the IDF and create solidarity on a besieged home front. The country's diplomats would have to argue convincingly that only the destruction of Hamas could spring Abbas out of his adamant refusal up until now to make the necessary compromises for a negotiated peace. To be sure, with Hamas vanquished, and the Palestinian Authority presumably back in Gaza, Abbas would still be faced with a dilemma: whether to take the risk of making a real peace or, by continuing his present path of appealing to the international community to deliver Israel prostrate, to pursue his version of Yassir Arafat's June 1974 plan for the phased destruction of the Jewish state. The big unknown would remain what it is already: whether the Obama administration and those EU countries not pledged robot-like to the Arab cause would cease their pressure on Israel to make ever greater unilateral concessions and instead press Abbas to choose wisely. Defeating Hamas, then, while marking a big step forward, not least for the repressed and beleaguered Gazan people, would be no panacea. But as the political analyst Max Singer has suggested, Israeli willingness to overthrow a Palestinian terror leadership and destroy its military capacity could serve as a crucial deterrent, signaling that the Jewish state will not tolerate a belligerent regime anywhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Hadassah Levy is website Manager of the Jewish Ideas Daily; its
address is http://www.jidaily.com/anewgermany. Contact her at
harelhadassah@yahoo.com
|
|
THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS OF LIBYA
Posted by Daniel Greenfield, March 30, 2011. |
|
The Known Unknowns of Libya The Libyan war may be dumbest war we have ever stumbled into. It is a war where the Secretary of Defense has admitted we have no national interest, a war where we don't know on whose behalf we're fighting or why we're even there. A war that the White House did not bother to run by either congress or the American people, except after the fact. A war that appears to be fought at the behest England, France, their oil companies, and a motley collection of Libyan rebels ranging from former regime thugs to Al Qaeda. A week after launching it, the administration still can't get its own story straight as to why we're fighting it at all. According to Obama, he went in because he refused to wait for images of mass graves. Other things he refused to wait for were basic intelligence, stated objectives and congressional approval. It took us ten years to decide to remove Saddam, it didn't even take Obama ten days. Was there any indication that there would be the implied genocide that comes with mass graves? Hardly. On Feb 22nd, Libyan diplomats began claiming in broken English that Gaddafi was committing 'genocide'. Since they had trouble with the language, it's an open question if they even knew what genocide was. And since Libya is an Arab-Muslim country and the civil war is fought between Arab Muslims, who exactly would Gaddafi be committing genocide against? The Tuaregs are the closest thing Libya has to a minority — and they're fighting on his side. If there's a possible genocide here, it would be of the Tuareg people by the rebels if they win. But if Obama was too afraid that there might someday emerge pictures of mass graves, why then did he oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein? Mass graves in Iraq are not hypothetical. And photos of them are available. Yet Obama who campaigned on his opposition to a war in which there were mass graves and in which every option had been exhausted after a decade — now leaps into a war to avoid the possibility that he might ever have to look at photos of mass graves. This isn't about Obama being too queasy to look at mass graves. If that were the case we would be invading North Korea, Sudan and the cartel run parts of Mexico. Gaddafi is not doing anything that half the Middle East isn't doing, and unlike our close ally Turkey, he's doing it without employing chemical weapons. We aren't in Libya because it's an extraordinary human rights situation, but because our decision making process has become a thorough and complete mess. What kind of war is it, when a week after it begins, the NATO commander admits that he's examining the possibility that maybe we're actually fighting for Al-Qaeda. Our main enemy in that other war, which we're neglecting in order to begin a war on yet another front. The very minimal condition for any war should be to make sure that we aren't fighting on the same side as our enemies. The only condition lower than that would be to make sure we aren't pointing the guns at ourselves. A war where we can't do that is a very bad war indeed. But don't worry. While we may not be sure who the rebels are yet, Obama has already proposed arming them. Or rather he's not ruling it out. Which is to say all options are on the table, except the reasoned and lawful ones. Bad is the operating word in the UK, where RAF instructors are being rushed off to the front lines because of a shortage of Typhoon pilots, and with no aircraft carrier to deploy them from because it's been cut up for scrap, while the Royal Navy flagship is being put up for sale on the military version of eBay. If you're going to start a war, as Prime Minister Cameron has, you should be prepared for it. But Libya isn't the kind of war you prepare for, it's the kind of war you stumble into. One bad idea mushrooming into another one. An error in judgement by world leaders escalating into a bombing campaign. The only thing missing is Peter Sellers trying to strangle himself. This is how liberals think all war happens, and so that's the kind of war they foisted on us. European governments with Libyan oil contracts prematurely celebrating a rebel victory, only to see the rebel advance turn into a retreat, scrambling to save the situation by making sure that the rebels win. Before really figuring out who the rebels are. We are bombing Libya, not because of the specter of mass graves, but because key European leaders made a wrong guess about the outcome of a civil war and their political futures and energy supply hangs in the balance. Despite our No Fly Zone, Gaddafi is still winning. Which means that now we have to get even deeper, to justify our original course of action. Now we may supply the rebels with arms and begin hitting Libyan armor. Then we'll have to start bombing armed camps. And if the rebels still can't pull it off, how many more steps will it take before we start sending the troops in? The credibility of Obama and key European allies is on the line. The Arab League has already made sure to stake out positions on both sides of the fence. Russia is against it, except when they're sort of for it. China expects to benefit no matter what happens. It's probably the safest bet of any player in the game. Obama and Sarkozy have elections coming up, and they need a win. But their only possible Victory Condition is either Gaddafi getting on a plane or going in the ground. And the latter is clearly more likely to happen than the former. It's not that Gaddafi is worth saving. He isn't. He isn't even worth the cost of a cruise missile. But it's doubtful that his replacements, most of whom either worked for him or think the Taliban didn't go far enough, will be any better. And what's worse is that we haven't done the due diligence to decide that one way or another. Our military people are just guessing. And they know that it doesn't matter. The politicians have committed themselves, which means that even if tomorrow Libya's rebel council were to appoint Osama bin Laden as its chief, some way would be found to rationalize and normalize the whole thing. That's how the dominoes of stupidity work. Sarkozy and Cameron fall on Obama, he fingers his chin and tugs on his earlobes while pondering the NCAA draft picks. Samantha Power shows up eager for an opportunity to put her interventionist ideas to the test, with the promise of international support. Obama checks his calendar and decides that they can get it done while he's vacationing with his family in Rio. Imagine Will Smith filling in for Peter Sellers, and you get some idea of how ridiculous and poorly thought out this whole farce really is. Libya isn't just an optional war, it's a war we began fighting before we even knew we were fighting it. It's a war that's being renamed even as it's being escalated. Odyssey Dawn sounds like an exotic perfume. What about Kinetic Military Action, it sounds like a feature for the latest video game. Anything but an honest admission that this is an undeclared war on behalf of the losing side in a civil war. The side we decided to choose before we even knew what that side was. And that's the real crime here. The revelation of how little thought and concern went into this war. How the major players, stumbled into this thinking only of themselves. Sarkozy and Cameron dreaming of oil contracts, Samantha Power of forcing her interventionist vision on the world, and Obama, hoping a few billion spent on bombing Libya will help him in the polls. The criminal thoughtlessness behind Obama's decision to go to war — mirrors the criminal thoughtlessness of his party in turning him into a viable candidate after a few months in the Senate. The confused leaders of the ad hoc coalition all expect Gaddafi to do the reasonable thing, but that's how they got into trouble to begin with, when they assumed that Libya would be just like Egypt which would be just like Tunisia. But Gaddafi isn't Mubarak, he isn't even Saddam Hussein. What he is, is authentically crazy. Not the usual crazy that's so commonplace in the Arab world. This isn't Baghdad Minister of Information crazy, or GPS Shark crazy or any of the usual melange of conspiracy theories, cunning ploys and contradictory beliefs that are commonplace among regional leaders. No, this is actual insanity. That means it may be possible that Gaddafi will get on a plane tomorrow and fly to Malta and announce that he is resigning to build an entry portal to paradise. Or more likely he will just hang on to the bitter end, spending his fortune on arms and mercenaries. And we will spend ours firing cruise missiles at pickup trucks. 
Which means this war may turn into Grenada or Iraq — or anything in between. It may be resolved tomorrow or three years from now. There really is no way to know, because of how much we don't know. The tactical maxim that 'no plan of operations survives first contact with the enemy' is more relevant here than ever, because of the sheer ignorance and lack of planning that went into this war. Liberals mocked Rumsfeld's 'Known Unknowns' and 'Unknown Unknowns', and here they find themselves in a war filled with 'Unknown Unknowns', things that they didn't even know they needed to know. Like how wars really work.
Daniel Greenfield is an Israeli born syndicated columnist. He blogs at the Sultan Knish website (sultanknish.blogspot.com). He writes daily on issues of terrorism and politics.
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: FIGHTING BACK
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 29, 2011. |
|
For those in N. America, tomorrow, March 30, has been designated as BIG day: Buy Israeli Goods. Why this date: The anti-Israel forces that promote boycotts of Israeli products have selected tomorrow for a boycott of Israeli products. This is designed to counter that effort. Go into stores, seek out Israeli brands that suit your needs, and let store managers know why you are there. For a list of Israeli brands in stores in your geographical area:
Then, continue that effort. Make sure that BIG is not a one-day event. People who wish to support Israel should be looking for Israeli products all of the time. It's an excellent way to show support for Israel and enjoy quality products at the same time. ~~~~~~~~~~ The leaders of the PA are up to their necks in game-playing. Their two big ploys of the moment are the plans to secure recognition of a Palestinian state via the UN, and the courting of Hamas in order to establish a unity government. The two are said to be connected, as the likelihood of securing a UN nod for a Palestinian state might depend at least in part on the existence of one governing body for all of the Palestinian Arab people. If the PA represents the Palestinian Arabs only in Judea and Samaria, it's not quite a "state." ~~~~~~~~~~ The problem here — or one of many problems, actually — is that Hamas has the upper hand. This was true already in early 2007, when there was a Fatah-Hamas unity agreement (which fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza). During the negotiations it was Fatah that was conciliatory and acceded to Hamas demands: Hamas sent the tone of radical discourse. And now it's even more the case. For it is Fatah (i.e., the PA) that wants this agreement. Hamas, after all, is not seeking UN approval for a state. What is more, there is an increased sense of empowerment for Hamas in the prospect of Muslim Brotherhood involvement in an Egyptian government (see Stephen's article below on this). For, just as Mubarak was involved previously in negotiations for a Fatah-Hamas unity agreement, so the Egyptians are expected to be involved again now. We see signs of the Hamas position of strength in its demands for "gestures" from the PA before there are discussions on unity: release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners, re-opening of closed Hamas charities, and the removal of a ban on Hamas activities in the West Bank. The last demand ought ring bells for Abbas, for if he removes the ban on Hamas activities, he is inviting the possibility of a Hamas takeover. In addition to demanding these "gestures," Hamas has made it clear that it wants parity in controlling security forces and would retain control of Gaza. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yet Abbas seems to want this quite badly. According to his aide, Azzam Ahmed — as cited by Mohammed Daraghmeh, writing for AP — Abbas would even be willing to forgo American aid, to the tune of over $470 million annually, if it is used as a means of pressuring the PA on the issue of unity. There is a great deal of posturing hidden within these words, you can be sure. ~~~~~~~~~~ Khaled Abu Toameh, writing for Hudson NY, sees Abbas's efforts in this regard as futile. In the end, Hamas, which does not trust Abbas, is not going to go along, he says. In fact, "Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Kassam, has even gone as far as threatening to assassinate Abbas if he dares to set foot in the Gaza Strip." Abu Toameh sees a number of factors possibly motivating Abbas to pursue the unity agreement. Perhaps most significant is the thought that this may be a means of threatening the US: lean harder on Israel to make concessions or we will go with Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Hanna Amerah, a member of the PLO executive committee, Abbas has the support of the UN, the EU and the Arab League in his efforts to forge a unity government. The UN and the Arab League, indeed. But if the EU is on board for this — and it well may be — then it is the final indication of the moral collapse of the Europeans. At least in theory, Hamas is identified by the EU as a terrorist group, and is not supposed to receive recognition unless it complies with specific Quartet criteria — that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and abide by past Israeli-Palestinian accords. These are criteria which it has no intention of accepting. But there a dozen ways around this, for those willing to shut their eyes. Some of those ways are so convoluted and dishonest as to make your head spin, e.g., a willingness by Hamas to acknowledge that, de facto, Israel does exist, which is then said to be "almost a recognition" of Israel. And so we are in watch-and-see mode. Abbas is making a bid to come to Gaza to discuss matters, and Hamas is not ready to receive him until they have certain evidence of his sincerity. ~~~~~~~~~~ In the face of all of this, is Israel fighting back? While I would like to see a great deal more, there are some modest signs of stiffer positions being taken. I mentioned recently the statement by Netanyahu that for the PA it's either Israel or Hamas but it cannot have both. If the PA reaches a unity agreement with Hamas, he said, that's the end of negotiations. Well, there are no negotiations, and Netanyahu is not really expecting any to begin imminently. I would imagine (hope) that this statement was truly meant for the Quartet: Israel will not deal with a Fatah-Hamas government. Do not expect this. ~~~~~~~~~~ A diplomatic message was sent out by Israel to the 15 members of the UN Security Council, as well as to 15 other EU nations last week, indicating that if the PA persists in its efforts to pursue statehood via the UN, Israel will take unilateral actions of its own. Good that 30 Israeli embassies were told to protest the PA plans at the highest diplomatic levels. But not enough, because, according to reports, the threats were vague. What unilateral actions? Originally there was talk about applying Israeli civil law to all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Would that this might happen without delay! But as far as I can tell, the protests at the highest diplomatic levels didn't mention this or anything else specific. Vague threats carry considerably less weight. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are plans in the works for the Quartet to meet in mid-April, with senior officials in attendance — US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Special Envoy Tony Blair. It is anticipated that in the course of this meeting the Quartet may issue a proposal for final parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Reportedly, Britain, France and Germany have been urging that this proposal say that an agreement would be based upon the 1967 lines "with agreed upon land swaps," and would reach a "just, fair and agreed solution to the refugee question." Maddening is what it is. Worse than maddening: this one-sided meddling. Herb Keinon, in an article about this in the JPost at the beginning of the week, wrote that Israeli "government sources" said that if the Quartet feels the need to propose final-settlement outlines, it needs to take into account Israeli demands and not just Palestinian ones. Fine. True. But to whom did government sources say this? Just to Herb Keinon? Keinon's piece in no way suggests that this was also said to the representatives of the Quartet or the relevant EU nations. But why not? This is no time for tip-toeing. The Israeli position must be stated unequivocally. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, my friends, it's time to contact your representatives in Congress. Tell them that there are reports of a Quartet meeting to be held in mid-April, at which time a proposal for the final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be issued, suggesting that an agreement would be based upon the 1967 lines "with agreed upon land swaps," and would reach a "just, fair and agreed solution to the refugee question." Advise them that this is a one-sided approach attending only to Palestinian concerns. Let them know that: --The 1967 line was only a temporary armistice line arranged between Jordan and Israel and is not sacrosanct. In addition, suggest that if specifics are going to be mentioned, they should include the Israeli demands that a Palestinian state be demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. ~~~~~~~~~~ For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ Quarter Envoy Tony Blair wrote a major piece in US press ten days ago, emphasizing the importance of moving on with the negotiations: "...we ignore the importance of the peace process...at our own peril. This absolutely must be revitalized and relaunched. I know it is said (it is said ??) that this wasn't the issue behind the uprisings. Methinks that Tony Blair is profoundly deluded. Either that or he's repackaging the same pap for a new situation. The Middle East is on fire, and the issue of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations probably doesn't even show up on the radar screen of most of the nations in turmoil right now. ~~~~~~~~~~ Keinon writes, finally, that there are those suggesting that the Quartet might be considering proposing an "end game" so that the PA will be enticed to return to the table. Poppycock! This simply gives the PA the sense that it can get what it wants from the international community. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see Bret Stephens piece, "Egypt--The Hangover." "'The West seems to be convinced that the revolution was led by secular democratic forces,' says Mahmoud. 'Now that myth is shattered. Which means that either the old order' — by which he means the military regime — 'stays in power, or we're headed for Islamist dominance.'" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870447 1904576228473270290208.html Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Posted by Avodah, March 29, 2011. |
|
This was written by Martin Kramer. It appeared March 3,
2008 in Sandbox
|
|
Samantha Power is the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, and she has a professorship at Harvard (in something called "Global Leadership and Public Policy"). She is also a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. This isn't an honorific: she has worked for Obama in Washington, she has campaigned for him around the country, and she doesn't hesitate to speak for him. This morning, the Washington Post has a piece on Obama's foreign policy team, identifying her (and retired Maj. Gen. Scott Garion) as "closest to Obama, part of a group-within-the-group that he regularly turns to for advice." Power and Garion "retain unlimited access to Obama." This morning's New York Times announces that Power has an "irresistable profile" and "she could very well end up in [Obama's] cabinet." She also has a problem: a corpus of critical statements about Israel. These have been parsed by Noah Pollak at Commentary's blog Contentions, by Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr at American Thinker, and by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line. Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question: Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let's say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide? Power gave an astonishing answer: What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line. It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state — all in the name of our "principles." This quote has dogged Power, and she has gone to extraordinary lengths to put it behind her. Most notably, she called in the Washington correspondent of the Israeli daily Haaretz, Shmuel Rosner, to whom she disavowed the quote: Power herself recognizes that the statement is problematic. "Even I don't understand it," she says. And also: "This makes no sense to me." And furthermore: "The quote seems so weird." She thinks that she made this statement in the context of discussing the deployment of international peacekeepers. But this was a very long time ago, circumstances were different, and it's hard for her to reconstruct exactly what she meant. It must be awful, at such a young age, to lose track of why you recommended the massive deployment of military force, and not that long ago. So let me help Samantha Power: I can reconstruct exactly what she meant. Power gave the interview on April 29, 2002. This was the tail end of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Israel's offensive into the West Bank in reaction to a relentless campaign of Palestinian suicide bombings that had killed Israeli civilians in the hundreds. The military operation included the clearing of terrorists from the West Bank city of Jenin (April 3-19). At the time, Palestinian spokespersons had duped much of the international media and human rights community into believing that a massacre of innocent Palestinians had taken place in Jenin. It had not, but the name of Israel had been smeared, particularly in academe. At Harvard, pro-Palestinian activists canvassed the faculty for support of a petition calling on Harvard to divest from Israel. (It was published on May 6.) Power at the time was executive director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, which she founded in 1999. In 2001, she had recruited a celebrity director for the Carr Center: Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian intellectual and journalist who, like herself, had come to prominence writing about atrocities in the Balkans and Africa. A profile of Ignatieff in March 2002 described the division of labor in the Carr Center: "He shares administrative responsibilities with Samantha Power, the center's executive director. The division of labor works wonderfully, he says: 'She does all the work.'" Power later told a Canadian journalist that "their social relationship was based on three Bs: baseball, bottles and boys. They talked about the Boston Red Sox, of whom she is a fanatic supporter; they spent evenings together 'yelling and laughing' over bottles of wine, and she found him a kind and sympathetic confidant when it came to affairs of the heart." The Carr Center under this management team generally steered clear of the Middle East. But in that spring of 2002, the pressure to come up with something was very great. Ignatieff, who had been to the Middle East a few times, took the lead. On April 19, 2002, only ten days before Power emitted her "weird" quote, Ignatieff published an op-ed in the London Guardian, under this headline: "Why Bush Must Send in His Troops." I wrote a thorough critique of this piece over five years ago, so I won't repeat my dissection of its flaws. As I showed then, the op-ed includes every trendy calumny against Israel. More relevant now are Ignatieff's policy conclusions. "Neither side is capable of making peace," he determined, "or even sitting in the same room to discuss it." The United States should therefore move "to impose a two-state solution now." The time for endless negotiation between the parties is past: it is time to say that all but those settlements right on the 1967 green line must go; that the right of return is incompatible with peace and security in the region and the right must be extinguished with a cash settlement; that the UN, with funding from Europe, will establish a transitional administration to help the Palestinian state back on its feet and then prepare the ground for new elections before exiting; and, most of all, the US must then commit its own troops, and those of willing allies, not to police a ceasefire, but to enforce the solution that provides security for both populations. Ignatieff ended with a grand flourish: Imposing a peace of this amplitude on both parties, and committing the troops to back it up, would be the most dramatic exercise of presidential leadership since the Cuban missile crisis. Nothing less dramatic than this will prevent the Middle East from descending into an inferno. So this was the thrilling idea that swept the Carr Center that April: a "dramatic exercise of presidential leadership," through a commitment of U.S. troops to impose and enforce a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Middle East would be saved. The "amplitude" of this notion made divestment seem small-minded. Samantha Power did not misspeak ten days later in her Berkeley interview. She was retailing a vision she shared with her closest colleague. Power went a bit further than Ignatieff, when she spoke about how this show of presidential courage "might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import." Ignatieff would never have written that. But it was implicit in his text anyway. So Ignatieff's op-ed was exactly what Power meant. That she should claim no recollection of any of this context seems... weird. Or perhaps not. Remember, Ignatieff wasn't talking about deploying "international peacekeepers," the context Power now suggests for her words. He specifically proposed United States troops, followed by anyone else who was "willing." Their job wouldn't be to keep the peace, but to "enforce the solution." Far better today for Power to have some kind of blackout, than to tell the truth about the "dramatic exercise" she and Ignatieff envisioned. ("Iggy," by the way, left Harvard in 2005 to plunge into Canadian politics, and he is now deputy leader of Canada's opposition Liberal Party. He still has strong views on what Americans should do. "I've worn my heart on my sleeve for a year," he recently announced. "I'm for Obama.") Is there a conclusion to be drawn from this genealogy of a truly bad policy idea? Ignatieff himself may have hit on it. Last year he published a reflection on what he'd learned since experiencing real (as opposed to academic) politics. "As a former denizen of Harvard," he wrote, "I've had to learn that a sense of reality doesn't always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what's what than Nobel Prize winners." Just substitute Pulitzer for Nobel. Update: The Israel-relevant segment of the Power interview is now on YouTube. Click here. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
250 THOUSAND STUDENTS STUDY TORAH FOR POLLARD AND SHALIT
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, March 29, 2011. |
|
This was written by Elad Benari and it appeared today in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). |
|
(Israelnationalnews.com) About 700 students and hundreds of excited parents gathered on Monday in Jerusalem's Great Synagogue to mark the end of one of the largest Torah studies projects in Israel, dedicated in its entirety to the release of Jonathan Pollard and kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. The ceremony was attended by Israel's chief rabbi, Rabbi Yona Metzger, as well Tzfat Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. The project is part of the Religious Education Week currently being held in Israel. Six-year-olds Hadas Wolfson and Noam Yanai, students in the first grade at Kol Yaakov School in the eastern Negev city of Yeruham, were both very excited when they were called on to finish, on behalf of all the first-grade students, the study of the Book of Genesis. Yehuda Ohayon was called to complete the book of Leviticus on behalf of fellow third-graders and said: "I'm sure our learning will help bring Jonathan Pollard and Gilad Shalit home. They have been in prison too long." Approximately 250,000 religious education students throughout Israel took part in the nationwide project and were asked to memorize verses from the Bible after school hours, altogether covering the entire Five Books of Moses. Erez Ohayon, Yehuda's father and Vice Principal of Kol Yaakov, noted that the students took the matter very seriously and each of them tried to learn verses at least 100 times. He explained that this is because they understand that the completion of the study of the entire Torah throughout the country depends on each and every one of them doing his part. To view video of students at Jerusalem Great Synagogue being addressed by HaRav Shmuel Elqiyahu at the nation-wide study event for Jonathan Pollard and Gilad Shalit, click here. Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:
|
|
APPEASEMENT'S OSCAR
Posted by Daniel Mandel, March 29, 2011. |
|
The King's Speech has just walked off with Oscars aplenty, including Best Picture and Best Director for Tom Hooper. Why quibble with the success of a widely-praised piece of entertainment? Even some historians seem satisfied by the film. Ben Macintyre, for example, writing in the London Times, contends that Hooper has "gone to extraordinary lengths to remain faithful... to the historical record." Were it only true: The King's Speech tells a significantly false story that sadly — and unnecessarily — sanitizes the record of King George VI. George VI, the shy, stuttering Duke of York, Bertie as he was known in family circles, succeeded to the British throne in December 1936 because his older brother, Edward VIII, preferred abdication to renouncing his intention to marry the American divorcée, Wallis Simpson. Only a bland hint is given of Edward VIII's partiality for Hitler and National Socialism, which did not dim with the coming of war, nor even with the Battle of Britain in the second half of 1940 — the attempt to bomb Britain into submission and enable a German invasion. To the contrary, Edward thought the campaign of bombing might cause appeasers to prevail in Whitehall over the unshakable defiance of prime minister Winston Churchill. Churchill too, strangely enough, is a beneficiary of distortion for, despite being the lion of anti-appeasement, the Cassandra warning vainly about the perils of Hitler, he was also an ardent monarchist whose romantic temperament impelled him to champion Edward and oppose those driving him to abdication. This disastrous misjudgment, a fateful prioritizing of sentiment over policy that foiled Churchill's comeback from the political wilderness for three vital years, is erased and replaced by a scene in which Churchill bemoans to George Edward's behavior. A minor matter in the scheme of this film? Perhaps. Not so the depiction of its protagonist, George himself. To judge by the film, George shared Churchill's prescience in foreseeing German aggression. This is not the George known to history. While lacking Edward's fascist predilections, George was nonetheless a thorough-going appeaser who heartily approved of Neville Chamberlain's policy of propitiating the dictators and cutting off defenseless targets in their path. George concurred with Chamberlain's skepticism about trying to draw the United States into European affairs as a counter to the dictators, as foreign secretary Anthony Eden attempted unsuccessfully to do in 1937. When in 1938, Eden's successor, Lord Halifax, negotiated the agreement with Mussolini that recognized Italy's conquest of Abyssinia, the King personally wrote to Halifax to applaud the "energy and skill" of his work in procuring the agreement. Later that year, when Chamberlain flew to Germany to negotiate away Czechoslovakian territorial integrity and, ultimately, independence, George greeted his return with effusive words about his "courage and wisdom" In the short-lived euphoria that followed, he did what no king had done before by inviting Chamberlain, a commoner and politician, to appear at his side on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, completely associating himself with the government's policy even before the Parliament had voted on it. In February 1939, George wrote to Halifax regarding the flow of European Jewish refugees to Palestine, saying that he was "glad to think that steps are being taken to prevent these people leaving their country of origin." George also distrusted Churchill, approved of Chamberlain's opposition to bringing him into the government, and only reluctantly agreed to Churchill's succeeding Chamberlain after the fall of Norway in May 1940. George even once told President Franklin Roosevelt that he could consent to Churchill being prime minister only in "very exceptional circumstances." George came to change his mind about Churchill and delivered the call to arms that gives the film its title (albeit without the approving throng outside the Palace that appears in the film). All that is missing is the appeaser that he was. The King's Speech is primarily a personal story which is under no obligation to rehearse George's record on appeasement beyond the little attention it devotes to the subject by way of necessary background. But it is under some obligation to provide a background that is truthful, not deliberately falsified. Yet, in the desire to tell a heart-warming story of George's courageous battle to overcome his impediment, the filmmakers decided that the public could not deal with shades of gray and his actual record is given a royal flush down the memory hole. Far from having "gone to extraordinary lengths to remain faithful ... to the historical record," The King's Speech is a case of history made to order — and that is a bad thing. Successful films reach where the scholarly tome does not. In rewriting history, they do a greater disservice to truth and public knowledge than a biased textbook. The King's Speech's string of Oscars ensures it will continue to do so. From: Richard M. Langworth CBE
Your review of The King's Speech is unquestionable on its facts but highly informed by hindsight. The entire British establishment favored appeasing Germany until very late; and in 1939, nobody knew what was happening to the Jews inside the Reich, or what fate was planned for them. Even Churchill didn't find out until two brave escapees arrived to inform the West; horrified, he did what he could, but hundreds of thousands, as Martin Gilbert has pointed out, were already dead. Churchill's political eclipse after his championing of Edward VIII was very brief, as events proved him right over Hitler; but so also was George VI's reputation as an appeaser. Churchill later admitted, "Thank God I was wrong" about Edward, while saying of George, "We couldn't have had a better King." A little perspective is in order. King George VI was scarcely alone in supporting Chamberlain and appeasement. A whole generation had been wasted in World War I, as Alistair Cooke elegantly put it during the 1988 Churchill Conference: "The British people would do anything to stop Hitler, except fight him. And if you had been there, ladies and gentlemen — if you had been alive and sentient and British in the mid-Thirties — not one in ten of you would have been with Churchill." If anything, this magnifies Churchill's courage in persisting to tell the truth at his own political expense — in those "wilderness years" that were perhaps his true "finest hour." ---------------------- Daniel Mandel replies: I hold to the view I expressed that "The King's Speech is primarily a personal story which is under no obligation to rehearse George's record on appeasement beyond the little attention it devotes to the subject by way of necessary background. But it is under some obligation to provide a background that is truthful, not deliberately falsified." As it didn't, I wrote my piece. Mr. Langworth correctly points out that George's views on propitiating the dictators were commonplace and indeed indistinguishable from that of much of the British establishment. But he also says, I think mistakenly, that only with hindsight was it obvious that these views were perilously defective. That might apply to the general British public. But it cannot apply so easily to the establishment — if by this we mean the King, the government, the diplomats, the intelligence services and so on — which suffered from no shortage of relevant information (much of it excluded from the press) even before 1939. Contrary to Mr. Langworth's view that "in 1939, nobody knew what was happening to the Jews inside the Reich," a good deal was in fact known, even though the full-scale policy of extermination lay in the future. The Nuremburg racial laws; the expulsion of 15,000 Polish-born Jews en masse without their property or resources; the establishment of prison camps for Jews and political dissidents; the exclusion of Jews from commercial life and the professions and so on, all occurred before 1939. George's observation to Halifax approving the Chamberlain government's efforts to stem the flow of Jewish refugees to Palestine, to which I referred in my piece, was made after the nation-wide Kristallnacht pogrom of November 1938. I don't think George or anyone else by this point could have been in any doubt about the desperation of the situation. Mr. Langworth says Churchill's eclipse as a result of his championship of Edward VIII during the abdication crisis was "very brief, as events proved him right over Hitler." Much might depend on how we define "very brief." As Churchill could not summon a substantial opposition to Munich and remained excluded from office until the actual outbreak of war, it seems to me fair to say, as I did, that his misjudgment over Edward helped cost him three vital years. I don't think it can be said that George's partiality for appeasement was "brief," however defined, since it subsisted throughout the entire pre-war Nazi period and — though I didn't dwell upon this — into the war itself. As late as May 1940, when the possibility of coming to terms with Hitler was under discussion in Whitehall, George offered to intercede with the Labor Opposition Leader, Clement Attlee, to urge him to join the government in a bid to preserve Chamberlain in office. When Chamberlain resigned three days later, George "of course, suggested Halifax," the pro-appeasement Foreign Secretary, to succeed him. Had Halifax not refused, George would have handed him, not Churchill, the seals of office. "We couldn't have had a better King," said Churchill — but only after the war, when George had changed his mind about Churchill's leadership and worked to assist him in preserving British morale. But I certainly agree with Mr. Langworth that Churchill's courageous anti-appeasement, in a time of widespread delusion and blindness, "magnifies Churchill's courage in persisting to tell the truth at his own political expense — in those 'wilderness years' that were perhaps his true 'finest hour.'" Daniel Mandel (PhD Melbourne, 1999) is a Research Fellow in the
Department of History at Melbourne University and author of H.V. Evatt
and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist (Routledge,
London, 2004).
This article is archived at
|
|
ZOA AND FEDERATION DISAGREE ON MUSLIM-JEWISH BRIDGE BUILDING
Posted by Barbara Sommer March 29, 2011. |
This was written by Alan:
This below is called "Groups clash over public discussion of Olive Tree Initiative"
and was written
by Lisa Armony, Contributing Writer, The Jewish Journal. It
|
|
The Orange County chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), after being denied a venue at two local synagogues, is claiming Jewish community leaders have sought to prevent ZOA from generating public discussion critical of a controversial student program. The events leading to the claim began in December 2010, when the Orange County ZOA, which was established in 2009, invited the Jewish Federation and Family Services of Orange County to present its perspective on the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI), an interfaith student initiative at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). When ZOA officials were told that Jewish Federation CEO Shalom Elcott would be out of town on the date scheduled for the event, Orange County ZOA President Jesse Rosenblum invited Irvine Rabbi Dov Fischer, an outspoken critic of OTI, to address the group. OTI was developed in 2007 by students concerned about longstanding tensions between Muslim and Jewish students at UCI in the hope of improving Muslim-Jewish relations by promoting informed dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Jewish Federation and Orange County Hillel have supported OTI programs since the group's inception. Federation has also provided scholarship funds for Jewish students to participate in OTI trips to Israel and the West Bank through earmarked donations to its Rose Project, a privately funded initiative to promote Jewish life at UCI, according to Elcott. OTI came under attack last fall when critics, led by Irvine resident Dee Sterling, alleged that it exposes students to Palestinian activists, in both Israel and the United States, who support efforts to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. The critics claimed students met with members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a grass-roots group alleged by the Anti-Defamation League and others to have ties to terrorist organizations. Sterling and others, including ZOA National President Morton A. Klein, have called on the Orange County Federation and Hillel to disassociate from OTI. Sterling has also stated in past correspondence to Federation executives that she would encourage donors to withhold financial support for Federation and Hillel until those ties are severed. OTI faculty adviser Paula Garb said that none of the three OTI trips to Israel have included ISM speakers. "The ISM has not been represented at all, and speakers haven't brought up ISM," Garb said. "At the end of each day [of the trip], we have a formal discussion about what we all heard. I don't remember an occasion when the group got a different message than what we thought was going on." On Jan. 10, ZOA rented a room at Congregation Shir Ha-Ma'alot in Irvine in order to launch a forum to explore the issues surrounding OTI, Rosenblum said. The program was scheduled to take place on Jan. 25. "OTI became something that many of our members and the community started to talk about," Rosenblum said. "Our chapter hasn't taken a position one way or the other, but our members are certainly skeptical of it and are asking critical questions." Rosenblum said he notified area rabbis of the upcoming program with Fischer, only to be informed several days later that the synagogue was canceling the room reservation. In a letter to Susan Tuchman, director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, which she provided to The Jewish Journal, Shir Ha-Ma'alot Rabbi Richard Steinberg cited a rabbinic protocol that a rabbi speaking at a synagogue not his own should do so only at the invitation of the host rabbi. He added that Fischer's views on OTI were not consistent with his own or those of the synagogue's lay leadership and that he wanted to avoid its appearance as such. Rabbi Steinberg declined requests for further comment, stating that his letter had been intended as a private correspondence. Rosenblum said the ZOA then booked a room at Temple Bat Yahm in Newport Beach. Two days later, the group was told its reservation had been canceled. Rosenblum calls the matter an attempt to stifle criticism of OTI, and Fischer points the finger directly at the Jewish Federation. "The amazing thing is how there has been a clamp-down by The Federation to prevent any speech or dissent in the community against The Federation's program. The idea that two different temples in the community, who have all kinds of speakers, canceled this program is profoundly shocking." Jewish Federation officials have denied involvement in the synagogue's actions. "Federation doesn't have control over what decisions the synagogues make regarding what programs they host," Federation CEO Elcott said. Rosenblum said that the community's concern over OTI makes it incumbent upon The Federation to explain its position on the program and how decisions regarding its role at UCI are being made. For now, the ZOA has decided to host programs about OTI outside of the Jewish community. Fischer's talk was rescheduled for March 22, after press time for this issue of The Journal, at the Irvine Ranch Water District, a public facility where the subject should prove less controversial. "Right now, we have moved on," Rosenblum said. "That isn't to say that there can't be dialogue in the future. We would look forward to an opening where all sides can be heard." Letter: UC Irvine Olive Tree Initiative Students Met with Hamas Leader in 2009 trip (Sent in by MrLa): A letter linked here — jewish-federation-letter-08102009.pdf — and obtained from UC Irvine via the Freedom of Information Act, was forwarded to the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism: We encourage you to read this revealing letter. According to the letter dated October 8, 2009 and addressed to UCI Chancellor Michael Drake from Orange County Jewish Federation leaders, students on the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI) trip met with Aziz Duwaik , a "notable Hamas figure", in a non-scheduled "unapproved" meeting on September 16, 2009. The letter reveals that Duwaik is considered by Hamas to be the leader in the West Bank. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States State Department. Furthermore, the students were allegedly told by OTI officials not to tell anyone of this meeting with Duwaik, ostensibly: (1) "in order to avoid being detained upon entering Israel from the West Bank or being held at the airport before leaving the country." (2) " to avoid confrontation with anyone who would have disagreed with this meeting had they known about it in advance...". The Letter note that "As it's largest funder the Federation has strongly supported the concept and development of the OTI from it's inception." However, it suggested that Federation officials were "deeply troubled" by the Duwaik incident. On December 28, 2010 The Orange County Independent Force on Anti-Semitism issued an Open Letter Concerning the Olive Tree Initiative at UC Irvine to leaders of the Orange County Jewish Community. In the letter we urged the Jewish Federation, The Rose Project and and Hillel to adopt the The Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties Funding Guidelines. As of this date, that letter has gone unanswered. Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism
Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
THE BASHAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION (BLO)
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 29, 2011. |
|
1. In recent days we have been reading about the Baathist repression in the southern Syrian town of Daraa (spelled some other ways as well). As you know, the riots there began when Asad's stormtroopers opened fire on teenagers who were engaged in writing graffiti on walls. After they were murdered, their clans and families took to the streets and attacked the stormtroopers. From there the violence spread elsewhere in Syria. But what about that town, Daraa? It turns out that Daraa has some interesting history. In the Book of Numbers in the Bible there is a detailed description of how Moses and the Israelite tribes were challenged by two Canaanite Kings east of the Jordan river and how the good guys defeated the Canaanites in bloody battle. The stronger of the two pagan kings was Og the King of the Bashan. His capital was a city in Bashan (the area that encompasses southern Syria and northern Jordan) named Edrei or Edrey. That city was taken by the Israelites and then held and populated by them even after the 12 tribes (or to be more precise the 9 and a half tribes) settled on the west bank of the Jordan river. The tribes of Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Menasha then returned to the Bashan and the city of Edrei. They fortified the town and made it their home. Edrei is Daraa. Its name changed, but it is the very same city conquered by Moses and the tribes, before Joshua took over command. And it belongs to the Jews. Maybe Israel is not laying claims to it. Maybe it never will. Even so, it is still ours. We have a rightful claim to it, far more legitimate than Bashar Asad has. Our rights are documented in the Bible itself. These are rights OLDER than our claims to Jerusalem itself. And under the circumstances transpiring this week, I can imagine there could be quite a few residents of Daraa who would be happy to have Israel exercise its legitimate sovereignty over Daraa!! Bashan Liberation Organization (BLO), anyone? Bashin' Bashar in Bashan??? 2. The Creative "Logic" of David Newman, BGU Dean of Social Sciences
and Humanities
The South African Boycott of Ben Gurion University is all the fault of
BGU's Own Donors and Zionist students from Im Tirtzu!
blurb: Meanwhile Ben-Gurion University will continue to develop. Its 20,000 students and almost 1,000 teaching and research faculty will continue to push the frontiers of science. Its politically aware (meaning leftist — Isracampus) faculty will continue to take part in the vibrant debate about the nature of Israeli society. The boycotters, whether they be anti-Israel activists such as UJ, or the anti-democracy activists of Im Tirtzu and the right-wing donors, will become forgotten footnotes of history, remembered only for their attempt to manipulate science for their own narrow aims. A plague on both of their discriminatory houses. 3. Please pass on to all those fighting the "Israel Apartheid Week"
Hitlerjugend:
4. Four Cheers for the "Nakba Law":
5. From the Wall Street Journal Opinion Europe
The recent murder of a family of five in Itamar shocked Israelis to their core. A terrorist broke into the Fogels' home before stabbing and garroting to death the two parents, Udi and Ruth, and their children Yoav, 11 years old, Elad, 4, and almost decapitating Hadas, who was only three months old. There has since been very little outcry from the international community. Many nations who are so used to condemning the building of apartment units beyond the Green Line remained silent on this sadistic murder. Meanwhile, the few international correspondents to have covered the massacre have placed it in the context of ongoing settlement-building and Israel's so-called "occupation." However, regardless of one's views on which people have greater title to Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, it is a historically inaccurate distortion to claim that the occupation that breeds this type of violence. If this mantra were true, then it must be the case that before the occupation there was no violence. This defies the historical record. In 1929, the Jewish community of Hebron — which stretches back millennia, long before the creation of Islam and the Arab conquest and subsequent occupation of the area — was brutally attacked. The Jews who had been living peacefully with their Muslim neighbors were set upon in a bloody rampage, inspired by Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later became notorious as Hitler's genocidal acolyte during the Holocaust. In two days, 67 Jews were hacked or bludgeoned to death. Jewish infants were beheaded and Jewish women were disemboweled. Limbs were hacked off the dead as well as those who managed to survive. On visiting the scene shortly after the massacre, Britain's High Commissioner for Palestine John Chancellor wrote to his son "I do not think that history records many worse horrors in the last few hundred years." This and other similar pogroms happened, not only before the "occupation" of Judea and Samaria, but even two decades before the state of Israel was reestablished. From 1948 to 1967, Judea and Samaria were illegally occupied by Jordan, which renamed the area the West Bank, in reference to the East Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan that fell beyond the Jordan River. Not one Israeli was allowed into this area, yet nor did Israel know one day of peace in that time, during which it saw brutal attacks launched from the West Bank against Israeli civilians. Further evidence against the mantra that the occupation breeds violence can be culled from Palestinian sources. Take Hamas's founding charter, for instance, which does not mention occupation or settlements. What is does contain are calls for the complete destruction of Israel, down to its last inch, such as: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The charter goes even further, aspiring to a point in time when there will be no Jews left anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, the Palestine Liberation Organization, currently headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, notes in its founding charter that "this organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank," while still calling for a "liberation of its homeland." This was written in 1964, fully three years before Israel conquered the West Bank during the Six Day War. It's safe to say that the violence and terror visited upon Israelis has little connection to "occupation" or settlements. This myth has no historical foundation, but is easy to proclaim for those who have little understanding of the conflict. Yet these fatuous canards only make our conflict harder to solve. The recent massacre in Itamar highlighted the Palestinian Authority's ongoing incitement to violence through its media, mosques and educational system. At this point, the basic parameters of the peace process need an overhaul. If our aim is to reach a peaceful resolution, then merely ending the "occupation" would far from guarantee that, as history has shown. Israel was assured in the past by the international community that if it just retreated from Gaza and Lebanon, peace would flourish and violence would come to an end. In both cases, this hope proved deadly wrong, and millions of Israelis have been subjected to incessant attacks from these territories since the retreat. This is not about "occupation" or territory; it is about meaningful
coexistence. Only when the root ideological causes of our conflict are
solved can Israelis and Palestinians make the painful concessions
necessary for peace.
6. (from the Wall St Journal) Norway to Jews: You're Not Welcome Here Anti-Semitism doesn't even mask itself as anti-Zionism. By Alan M. Dershowitz I recently completed a tour of Norwegian universities, where I spoke about international law as applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the tour nearly never happened. Its sponsor, a Norwegian pro-Israel group, offered to have me lecture without any charge to the three major universities. Norwegian universities generally jump at any opportunity to invite lecturers from elsewhere. When my Harvard colleague Stephen Walt, co-author of "The Israel Lobby," came to Norway, he was immediately invited to present a lecture at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. Likewise with Ilan Pappe, a demonizer of Israel who teaches at Oxford. My hosts expected, therefore, that their offer to have me present a different academic perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be eagerly accepted. I have written half a dozen books on the subject presenting a centrist view in support of the two-state solution. But the universities refused. The dean of the law faculty at Bergen University said he would be "honored" to have me present a lecture "on the O.J. Simpson case," as long as I was willing to promise not to mention Israel. An administrator at the Trondheim school said that Israel was too "controversial." The University of Oslo simply said "no" without offering an excuse. That led one journalist to wonder whether the Norwegian universities believe that I am "not entirely house-trained." Only once before have I been prevented from lecturing at universities in a country. The other country was Apartheid South Africa. Despite the faculties' refusals to invite me, I delivered three lectures to packed auditoriums at the invitation of student groups. I received sustained applause both before and after the talks. It was then that I realized why all this happened. At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics. This boycott is directed against Israel's "occupation" of Palestinian land — but the occupation that the boycott supporters have in mind is not of the West Bank but rather of Israel itself. Here is the first line of their petition: "Since 1948 the state of Israel has occupied Palestinian land . . ." The administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics, so the formal demand for a boycott failed. But in practice it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott. The first boycott signatory was Trond Adresen, a professor at Trondheim. About Jews, he has written: "There is something immensely self-satisfied and self-centered at the tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews. . . . [They] as a whole, are characterized by this mentality. . . . It is no less legitimate to say such a thing about Jews in 2008-2009 than it was to make the same point about the Germans around 1938." This line of talk — directed at Jews, not Israel — is apparently acceptable among many in Norway's elite. Consider former Prime Minister Kare Willock's reaction to President Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as his first chief of staff: "It does not look too promising, he has chosen a chief of staff who is Jewish." Mr. Willock didn't know anything about Mr. Emanuel's views — he based his criticism on the sole fact that Mr. Emanuel is a Jew. Perhaps unsurprisingly, fewer than 1,000 Jews live in Norway today. The country's foreign minister recently wrote an article justifying his contacts with Hamas. He said that the essential philosophy of Norway is "dialogue." That dialogue, it turns out, is one-sided. Hamas and its supporters are invited into the dialogue, but supporters of Israel are excluded by an implicit, yet very real, boycott against pro-Israel views. Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is "The Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010). 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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
SEX SLAVERY CONTINUES IN EUROPE IN SPITE OF PROGRESSIVE ATTITUDES
Posted by Jim Kouri, March 29, 2011. |
|
International human trafficking, especially sex-slavery, appears to continue unabated despite law enforcement operations, government studies and even politically-correctness. There are several scholars and organizations in the United States who have advocated the legalization of prostitution in order to remove the crime from the sex trade. But, as with most programs dreamed up by the American elite, there may be a downside to the legalization of prostitution and the sex trade. If one removes the profit motive for an illegal activity, organized crime will always subvert the system in order to maintain their profits. For example, in the Netherlands, the recent arrest of pimps and "window brothel" owners in Amsterdam's red light district revealed the continuation of organized crime gangs involved in the sex trade. And this is almost 11 years after the legislature in the Netherlands passed the so-called Brothel Law. The rationale for the law, at least in past, was legalizing prostitution would reduce the presence of organized crime in the sex trade. Brothels were licensed, opened for health inspections, and both owners and prostitutes would be taxed as would any other legitimate business and worker. The progressives hoped the new legislation would curtail the involvement of criminal organizations in prostitution by legalizing the sex trade and allowing sex workers to form part of the legal economy. Unfortunately after more than a decade the Brothel Law is at best limited in its success, at worst another exercise in liberal futility. Organized crime gangs did what organized crime gangs usually do: adjust their operation and search for loopholes in order to achieve illegal profits from criminal activity. For example, the Brothel Law stipulates only those able to legally work in the Netherlands could seek employment in the sex trade. This opened the door to "exotic" women and those exotic women were usually illegal aliens being forces at times into participating in the sex trade. These illegal alien women — some still in their early teens — are from outside the European Union or from those countries in the EU not eligible to work in the Netherlands. As a result, criminal groups are able to exploit the potential of
trafficking women from outside the EU to work in the sex trade,
allowing them to profit from prostitutes working outside the legalized
sex trade.
Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National
Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).
This is archived at
|
|
SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF US CITIZENS BORN IN JERUSALEM
Posted by GWY, March 29, 2011. |
| This comes from the National Council of Young Israel |
|
Support the Right of US Citizens born in Jerusalem to list
Israel as their place of birth on their Passports!
Write to your local Member of Congress and urge them to endorse Congressman Weiner's brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the Zivotofsky case!!!This is a letter from the office of Anthony D. Weiner, Congressman from New York, to his colleagues on Capitol Hill, encouraging them to endorse his efforts to end a discriminatory practice in passport policies in the United States Embassy in Jerusalem, which has affected thousands of Jewish Children born in Jerusalem. From: The Honorable Anthony D. Weiner
Current Co-signers: Weiner, Schilling, Burton, Lowey Dear Colleague: Whenever a United States citizen is born abroad, the State Department lists his or her country of birth (e.g. France Italy Poland) on his or her passport. An exception to this rule applies to American citizens born in Jerusalem. For them, instead of listing Israel as the country of birth on their passports, US officials list only Jerusalem as the place of birth. The inequity of this policy is compounded by another related policy. If an American citizen is born in Haifa, Jaffa, or Tel Aviv, and does not, for political or ideological reasons, want Israel listed as his or her place of birth, the State Department will breach the usual rule and designate only the city of birth such as Haifa Jaffa or Tel Aviv on the passport. American citizens born in Jerusalem who request that their passports specify Israel as the place of birth are denied that designation even though it would make their passports indistinguishable from passports issued to other American citizens born in Israel. In fact, if a passport applicant's date of birth precedes 1948, the applicant can even choose to have "Palestine" listed as his/her birthplace — even if the birth took place in an area that's unquestionably under the sovereignty of Israel. It's more evidence of how arbitrary and capricious the government's passport policies are when it comes to Israel. In 2002, Congress passed a law to correct this injustice. Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Pub.L.No. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1350, relates to United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. Subsection (d) directs that For purposes of the issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizens legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel. President Bush signed the law on September 30, 2002, but issued a signing statement declaring that Section 214 impermissibly interferes with the Presidents constitutional authority to conduct the Nations foreign affairs. Consequently, the State Department has refused to comply with the law. Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born in Jerusalem 8 years ago to parents who were born in the United States, is the first plaintiff to have brought a lawsuit to enforce the 2002 Congressional enactment. His case was first dismissed, but that dismissal was reversed by the Court of Appeals. It was then dismissed again, and this time the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the lawsuit presented a political question. The US Supreme Court is now considering whether or not to hear the case. United States citizens born in Jerusalem should be treated no differently from American citizens born elsewhere in Israel. The Supreme Court should also permit the lower courts to decide the constitutionality of the Presidents effective veto of a law through signing statements. The case involves straightforward enforcement of a Congressionally enacted law; it does not require the court to decide any political question. I have authorized the filing of an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to grant the petition for certiorari and hear the Zivotofsky case. Please join me by endorsing this brief and permitting me to tell the Supreme Court that you, too, urge the Supreme Court to review this important case. Sincerely, Rep. Anthony Weiner
Contact the Poster at National_Council_of_Young_Israel@mail.vresp.com |
|
SHALEV: UNGA 'PALESTINE' RESOLUTION MAY HAVE REAL IMPACT
Posted by Jake Levi, March 29, 2011. |
|
Palestinian Terror State Resolution Allows U.N. To Use Force Against Israel This was written by David Horovitz, editor of the
Jerusalem Post
|
|
Shalev: Israel "only just found out" about Resolution 377; same process used in 1981 to advance Namibian independence, delegitimize S. Africa. Israel failed to realize until recently that the Palestinian bid to win United Nations General Assembly endorsement for statehood in September might not be merely declarative, but could have profound practical consequences under the provisions of a little-known UNGA resolution, Gabriela Shalev, the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, has told the Jerusalem Post. UNGA Resolution 377, also known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, was passed during the Korean War in 1950, at the initiative of the US, because the Soviet Union was vetoing UN Security Council action to protect South Korea. It permits the General Assembly to recommend a range of "collective measures" to supportive states, including sanctions and even the use of force, in cases where the permanent members of the Security Council cannot reach unanimity and where "there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." The existence of UNGA Resolution 377, and the precedents for its use, said Shalev, mean that "those who believe that the UN General Assembly's deliberations are of a solely declarative importance are mistaken." If the Palestinians can gain General Assembly recognition for statehood under a "Uniting for Peace" resolution, she warned, "it would be a real obstacle... not just a public relations setback. This would seek to impose on us some kind of Palestinian state." Shalev said that Israel only "just found out about this" — thanks, she said, to research done by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi's _The Israel Project_ (http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/Israel_Project) . Palestinian officials have said repeatedly that they intend to seek UN recognition for "Palestine" by September. It is widely assumed that a resolution to that effect would not receive the binding approval of the 15-member Security Council — where it might not gain the nine "yes" votes it would need, and where, even if it did, the US would likely use its veto. In the General Assembly, by contrast, a resolution recommending a state of Palestine would easily receive two-thirds support, diplomatic sources say. But the assumption in Israel until recently was that while such a vote might further dent Israel's international standing, it would have no practical consequences. By invoking the non-binding "Uniting for Peace" resolution, however, the GA could then recommend that "collective measures" be taken by individual states in support of the statehood resolution. Richard Schifter, a former US assistant secretary of state, noted a 1981 precedent in which the General Assembly utilized Resolution 377 to advance the struggle for Namibian independence. That resolution called upon member states "to render increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to the South West Africa People's Organization to enable it to intensify its struggle for the liberation of Namibia." And it urged member states to immediately cease "all dealings with South Africa in order totally to isolate it politically, economically, militarily and culturally." Its passage, said Schifter, who now chairs the board of directors of the American Jewish International Relations Institute, "was a significant step in the process of imposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa and delegitimizing the country." 2 SEE ALSO:
How Palestinians will use the GA to advance statehood
Up to reading this, we had thought that the US, as one of five members of
UN Security, could veto a unilateral declaration of the Palestinian
State. This appears not to be the case.
Gil Hoffman informed us that the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Negotiations headed by Saeb Ereket, where the 30 top Palestinian negotiators worked is being shut down as of March 31st. These are the experts who negotiate. This means there can be no negotiations for peace. There is no peace process and it appears that the Arabs are intending to declare a Palestinian State unilaterally UNGA Resolution 377 is the mechanism. "AS ISRAEL'S most recent ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, explained to me this week, the existence of UNGA Resolution 377, and the precedents for its use, mean that "those who believe that the UN General Assembly's deliberations are of a solely declarative importance are mistaken." Gil Hoffman, also, told us that Israel now needs to defend its southern border which is something it has not had to do for more than 30 years. Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
THE NEW YORK TIMES AND ITAMAR
Posted by CAMERA, March 29, 2011. |
|
This was written by Andrea Levin and it appeared in March 26, 2011 in CAMERA.
|
|
The murders of the Fogel family, including three children stabbed to death in their beds, obviously posed a dilemma for the New York Times. Fixated as it is on a story line in which Israel, and especially Israeli settlers, bear central responsibility for ongoing tensions with the Arabs, the Times covered the killings with the strained circumlocutions, omissions and colored language typical for the paper's editors and reporters when addressing peril to Jews and the Jewish state. The first major account of the carnage by reporter Isabel Kershner appeared on March 13 — on page 16 with no photo. A day later, updates on the story appeared closer to the front of the paper, on page 4, as the focus turned to Israel's announcement of renewed construction in several settlements. Two photos ran that day of the Fogel funerals. A telling caption read: "About 20,000 attended the funerals for the Fogels, whose deaths outraged settlers." Did the Times think only "settlers" were outraged over slitting the throats of children in their beds? Israel's leading columnist, Nahum Barnea, who's not a settler, had written: "The murder in Itamar is so shocking, so horrible, that it makes the debate over settlements irrelevant. Against the murderer, who pulls out a knife and butchers in cold blood three children in their sleep, the difference between Tel Aviv and Itamar is erased." The Fogel horror had to be reported, of course. But what to call the killings and how much to communicate about their instigation rooted in relentless dehumanizing of Jews throughout Palestinian culture — in media, mosques, schools and political discourse — were the question. Alterations in wording of the Times account on its Web site over the first hours after the event suggest editorial interventions to mute even minimal references to the Israeli Prime Minister's strong language denouncing Palestinian demonizing of Israel and to the appalling terrorist attack. A version posted at 23:02 GMT included Benjamin Netanyahu's statement: "A society that permits such wild incitement is one that eventually brings about the murder of children." That charge, expressing the core of Israel's belief about the consequences of the pervasive, bigoted assault on Jews by Palestinian leaders and their social, religious and political institutions, was excised. What remained was language that reverted to the paper's characteristic distancing from the realities of anti-Jewish incitement. The final text read: "Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pointed a finger at the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, blaming it for what he described as incitement in the schools, the mosques and the news media it controls." Omitted is the strong connective tie between anti-Jewish propaganda and killing children and inserted is the reference to the Palestinian Authority as "Western-backed." The message shifts; a finger-wagging leader of Israel, seemingly out of step with the West, is "blaming" the PA leadership — not for demonstrably instilling Jew-hatred, which is a moral outrage — but only for what the Israeli leader "described as incitement." On March 15, the Times was seemingly compelled to touch fleetingly on the issue, as Israeli leaders pressed their denunciations of the Palestinian Authority's incitement to violence and muted condemnations of the murders. Once again, though, the information was minimal and colorless, subsumed in a story strenuously emphasizing and repeating that PA leaders condemned the Fogel atrocity. Moreover, the reporter hastened to interject what is likely a partial underpinning of the Times agenda in whitewashing Palestinian incitement: "The new focus on incitement against Israel, together with Israeli dissatisfaction over the Palestinian response to the brutal attack, seemed to pose a question about the Israeli government's readiness to deal with Mr. Abbas as a serious peace partner — even though Mr. Abbas and Mr. Fayyad are widely considered moderates who have repeatedly said they would never resort to violence." That is, if Israel insists on drawing attention to the demonization of its people by its peace partner, what might this portend for their "readiness to deal with Mr. Abbas," who is, after all, "moderate" and "would never resort to violence"? For Times writers, "resort to violence" seemingly does not include raising generations imbued in the belief they're honor-bound to destroy Israel and in which even babies like the Fogel's three month old Hadas are deemed targets. In the category of what's newsworthy and what's not, the naming of summer camps, sports events, streets and public squares in honor of terrorists such as Dalal Mughrabi, Wafa Idris and Yeyhe Ayyash prompts no serious, focused attention on the part of the Times. As it happens, Mughrabi's murderous rampage along the Tel Aviv coastal road in 1978 included the killing of at least ten toddlers and children, ages 2-14. Is it surprising that her elevation to icon status for killing demonized Jews would encourage others to seek similar fame by a similar route? But any formulation that casts deep onus on the Palestinians is essentially foreign to the paper's story line, centered, as it is, on faulting Israel. Kershner's original account of the Fogel murders included another editorial modification of note. A quote by Israeli military officials about their determination to apprehend the killers originally included the following: "The military called the killings a terrorist attack, indicating that it held Palestinians responsible." A few hours later all mention of the "t" word was deleted — even as an indirect quote from the Israeli military. Nowhere in the coverage were the killings of the parents and three children characterized as a terrorist attack or even an apparent terrorist attack. To put this in the context of other use of the term "terrorist" by the Times, just four days earlier on March 9, a story about Arid Uka, who shot two American military men in Germany, referred to the event as a "terrorist attack." On March 4, a story about the arrest of New Jersey men seeking to join a radical Somali group referred to "terrorists born or raised in the United States." A February 21 story about an attack on an Islamabad bank referred to a perpetrator as part of a "terrorist group." A February 18 story referred to "Somali terrorists" who had bombed crowds in Kampala. On February 11, a story referred to "terrorist groups that threaten India." On January 29 and 25, multiple references were made to "terrorist" acts in describing a bombing at a Moscow airport. A January 24 story about an attack on an Alexandria, Egypt, church referred to "the terrorist strike." And so it goes. "Terrorists" kill people across the globe, civilians and military, and are rightly called what they are by the Times. But those who entered the Fogel house and stabbed to death sleeping children were termed "intruders" in the bizarre logic and language of the Times. A follow-up story on March 16 returned to Itamar, focusing on the fervent religious attachment of the residents to the area and noting the communities are deemed a violation of international law by "most of the world" — but not mentioning the traditional counter-view of the United States that they are legal. And, of course, rather than finally probe the malevolent forces in Palestinian culture that nurture and drive actions such as the stabbing of babies, and inspire Gazans to distribute candy and rejoice on hearing of the killing, that whole subject was left untouched. Again. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
(CAMERA) monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in
reporting on Israel. The website address is www.camera.org.
This is archived at
|
|
THE PALESTINIANS: WHY IS ABBAS RUNNING AFTER HAMAS?
Posted by Khaled Abu Toameh, March 29, 2011. |
|
Instead of searching for ways to revive the peace process with Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been busy seeking permission from Hamas to visit the Gaza Strip. However those who think that Hamas would one day agree to cede control over the Gaza Strip are living in an illusion. It would be better for Abbas if he invested his energies in reviving the peace process instead of courting Hamas. Abbas, who has not been able to visit the Gaza Strip ever since Hamas drove the Palestinian Authority out of the area in the summer of 2007, says he would like to travel to the Gaza Strip to talk with Hamas leaders about the establishment of a new Palestinian government that would prepare for presidential and parliamentary elections and pave the way for reconciliation between his Fatah faction and the Islamist movement. On March 15, thousands of Palestinians took to the streets in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a Facebook campaign inspired by the current wave of popular uprisings sweeping through the Arab world. In response to the campaign, Abbas immediately announced that he was prepared to go to the Gaza Strip to talk with Hamas about ways of ending the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip: he launched his initiative to travel to the Gaza Strip after calls from many Palestinians to Fatah and Hamas to end their power struggle. His announcement, however, is seen by many Palestinians as an attempt to absorb popular discontent with the ongoing power struggle between Hamas and Fatah. Abbas's initiative is aimed at showing Palestinians that — contrary to Hamas allegations — he is interested in putting an end to the dispute. Abbas's critics argue that his initiative is nothing but a ploy intended for local consumption because he does not want to be held responsible for obstructing "national unity." But other Palestinians say that Abbas's plan is also designed to send a message to the Americans and Europeans that unless they step up pressure on Israel he will have to join forces with Hamas. The Palestinian leader wants the US and EU to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, including a complete cessation of construction in West Bank settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods. The message he is sending to the Americans and Europeans is: Get me all that you can from Israel or else I will go to Hamas. Abbas's initiative could also be directed against Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, whom he asked a few weeks ago to form a new government. Abbas's offer to discuss with Hamas the formation of a new government came while Fayyad continues to negotiate with representatives of various Palestinian political factions about the formation of a new cabinet. Some Palestinians are wondering whether Abbas is trying to bypass or marginalize his prime minister. In the meantime, Hamas leaders also appear to be suspicious of Abbas's true intentions. Many Hamas leaders have dismissed his initiative as a "conspiracy" aimed at undermining the Islamist movement's authority in the Gaza Strip. Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Kassam, has even gone as far as threatening to assassinate Abbas if he dares to set foot in the Gaza Strip. Whatever his motives are, it is obvious that Abbas is just wasting precious time. Khaled Abu Toameh is a columnist for Jerusalem Post. |
|
SECOND GENERATION
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 29, 2011. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il |
|
ISRAEL BOOSTS P.A. STATEHOOD
Posted by Richard Shulman, March 28, 2011. |
|
Israel Protests Against Formation of P.A. State It Builds The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is gathering international support for a UN order outlawing Israeli authority and presence in the Territories and parts of Israel and for conferring P.A. statehood. From PM Netanyahu down, Israeli politicians protest against such statehood. Netanyahu had demanded that first the P.A. recognize the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty within the State of Israel and agree to be demilitarized. Abbas rejects Israeli conditions (Arutz-7, 3/25/11). First the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) conducted a successful campaign to defame Israel. This campaign was almost entirely unopposed by Israel. Israel merely tried to show that it is "nice" to the Arabs. But that does not impress the international antisemites, because they oppose the Jewish people no matter what it does. Israel also did not assert Jewish rights. Neither did it expose the criminality of the P.A. nor tie it in with international jihad afflicting many other countries. Then PM Netanyahu agreed in principle to formation of a second Palestinian Arab state within the Jewish homeland, provided it met the pair of conditions. Once he agreed that those Arabs were otherwise entitled to sovereignty, there was little he could do to stop its arrival. The world doesn't pay attention to security for a nationality, the Jewish nationality, that it hates. Did Netanyahu really think he could head off the movement for statehood with reasonable conditions? Actually, those conditions were not reasonable. How can one demand that fanatical jihadists recognize non-believer sovereignty? How can one make statehood conditional on a demilitarization that sovereignty is not bound by? How could he expect the P.A. jihadists, who specialize in deceit and war, who have broken the Oslo accords not to militarize, to demilitarize? Was Netanyahu deceiving himself or was he deceiving his people? Compare Netanyahu's protests with his actions. His actions are not consistent with his protests. They are consistent with his appeasement of the anti-Zionist state Dept. and its goal of P.A. statehood. This is no different from his first term as premier. Netanyahu claimed to be making just a temporary freeze on Jewish housing in certain areas but not eastern Jerusalem. Even a temporary and limited area freeze would be discriminatory in favor of the enemy that was building illegally, and against his own people whose building had been legal. But Netanyahu's imposition of a building suspension wasn't temporary and wasn't limited. Secretly, Netanyahu continued the freeze beyond its declared expiration period and beyond its limited area into eastern Jerusalem. He was able to do this by virtue of excessive government power, whereby the leftist Defense Minister Barak just doesn't approve more building permits for Jews. Arabs build mostly without permits and even without land ownership. The Arabs build like that in Israel, too, but the so-called Jewish state is afraid to enforce its own law on this lest the antisemitic international "community" criticize it. The secret freeze puts the lie to Netanyahu's reputation of Zionism. Nevertheless, it does not change his reputation. The media prefers keeping him believed to be an alleged Zionist, so it can criticize him and keep the people from perceiving his deception. While, Netanyahu curbs Israeli Defense Force allocations, he sends excise taxes on good shipped from Israel to the P.A.. The P.A. turns half the funds over to Hamas in Gaza. The other half continues indoctrination in terrorism among residents of the P.A.. Netanyahu also reduces Israeli checkpoint defenses, as demanded by President Obama, and undertakes many other measures to boost the P.A. economy. He claims that a better economy would bring peace. There is no evidence he is right. The evidence is that P.A. efforts to build its economy persuades people that it is ready for statehood. Thus Netanyahu brings P.A. statehood nearer. If Netanyahu declared war on Gaza, even if he did not fight it much, he could shut off most goods to Gaza. Instead, he had a partial boycott with an entity he did not claim to be at war with. That was an untenable stance. He failed to explain to the world why it is not Israel's duty to keep up the standard of living of an enemy state whose supposedly innocent people support the destruction of Israel. If Netanyahu undertook measures to degrade the P.A. economy, it would move further from statehood. Why shouldn't the UN declare a Jewish presence in the Territories Illegal? Israel does not explain the legitimacy of such a presence. It does not make a Zionist case. It does not cite its legitimacy for the various reasons, including religious ones. Yes, if it cited religious justification, secularists would reject it, but then they could be asked by they don't reject Islamic religious justification for the territory as stated by the Arabs. Israel also does not deny accusations that it is occupying "Arab territory." All it does is state Israel's need for security. What do foreigners care about Jews' security? Didn't the Holocaust demonstrate that? Oh, Is the world more advanced now, or is it more antisemitic? Sure, the Jews adopted the slogan, "never again." But the Arabs have a policy, "again." The more concessions Netanyahu makes in doctrine and in diplomacy, the more difficult it becomes to assert Israeli needs against such concessions. The greatest impediments to realistic policies are the collusion between Netanyahu, the media, and Israel's foreign enemies and the international antisemitism that the Muslim world is fomenting. 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. |
|
SURRENDER OF SOVEREIGNTY TO INTERNATIONAL BULLYING; YOYO GAMES MUST
END; DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL AS USUAL; DOUBLE-TALKING SNAKE
Posted by Steven Shamrak, March 28, 2011. |
|
Surrender of Sovereignty to International Bullying Nobody can say, after many years of propagating Zionism and the rights of the Jewish people to live on their ancestral land, that I am a Qaddafi sympathizer. During decades of his reign in Libya he has proven himself as an egomaniac dictator who has skillfully combined, as all Arab rulers do, brutality with tribal autonomy in order to stay in power. He used terror and Islamic terrorism, as most of the Muslim despots are guilty of this 'cultural behaviour' and have been sponsoring Islamic terrorism openly or in stealth, in order to raise his status among Muslim leaders! But a recent resolution of the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and the UK government statement that "Qaddafi is a legitimate target" is highly suspicious, given current international law must respect sovereignty of all countries. Firstly, Libya is an independent country and the conflict between Qaddafi and rebels, who knows what is their political agenda, in the East of the country is an internal matter. It should not be used as an excuse for international involvement and aggression, regardless of how we feel about the regime. For example, for 10 years the UN and the 'willing coalitions' did not interfere in Sudan, They watched the killing of tens of thousands of Sudanese citizens and the displacement of many millions of refugees from the Southern Sudan and Darfur region. The UN did nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda or bring to an end bombings of Grozny in Chechnya by Russian plans and artillery! Why was this resolution adopted so fast and implemented even faster without proper debate and planning? Libya is experiencing a civil war, which is an internal matter! Why is France the country, which is usually so reluctant to participate in conflicts like this such an eager accomplice and even took a leading role? Why are there already talks about a regime change, rather than just enforcing the no-fly zone? The UN has not authorised it! And most importantly, why isn't anybody asking these questions? Secondly, some would say, "it is all about money" —in this case supply of oil to Europe. Libyan has oil and gas and in my opinion that is the major factor why European members of the Security Council eagerly supported the resolution. At the same time Russia did not veto it because it makes a fistful of money each time a conflict sparks in the Middle East. In addition, the UK was holding a big grudge against Qaddafii over the Lockerbie bombing and the recent humiliating deal it made with Libya, releasing the perpetrator of the attack from jail! The United States is always willing to show Saudi Arabia and other gulf oil producing Arab states that it is still a super power and is able to inflict pain on any 'undemocratic' ruler at any time, regardless of the international laws. This action against Libya will keep Arab rulers in line and allow the coalition to continue unchecked control and enforcement of international policies as it deems fit. Like I said, I am not a friend of Qaddafi but international bullying and disregard for the rules of the international law must be stopped. The rights of any sovereign state must be respected and protected! Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak Most current Jewish self-haters usually do not care about the opinion of Zionists. They have a deep and unresolved need to 'fit in' anti-Semitic surroundings and be 'accepted'! Demolition of Fictitious Muslim Graves in Jerusalem The Israel Lands Administration (ILA) announced that it intends to continue the destruction of fictitious Muslim graves in Jerusalem. The operation started in the Mamilla area, just west of the Old City in an effort to gain control of the area and expropriate the land from Israel, insisting it is a holy site. There are hundreds of fictitious Muslim graves that have to be removed. Hamas Rocket Attacks on Israel Ignored by Press With all eyes on the disastrous events unfolding in Japan, with Japanese triple-disaster, and the battle against the regime of Libya's dictator Moamar Qaddafi, a massive rocket attack on Israel practically went unnoticed this weekend. Terrorists launched more than 50 rockets which landed in southern Israel last week with the aim of causing maximum — and indiscriminate — death and destruction, according to Israeli government officials. This was the heaviest barrage in two years. (This is further proof that, in addition to traditional anti-Semitism, international press uses anti-Israel reporting as a filler when there is nothing else to report.) YoYo Games Must End The Hamas's armed wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, which lobbed about 50 mortar rounds into Israel, made a truce offer in a statement released after Israeli aircraft raided Gaza. (How many useless cease fires with enemies who want to destroy Israel must Jews endure? Israel has the military capability to end this conflict once and for all. Where is the will?) Why are British not Outraged by Bombing in Jerusalem? A British national, killed after an explosion ripped through a bus stop in Jerusalem, was an evangelical Christian who was studying Hebrew. Mary Jean Gardner, 59, Bible translators, originally from Orkney in Scotland, was killed by the blast and about 50 people were injured in the attack, which was blamed on Palestinian terrorists. (Why is boycotting of Israel is more important to the British than Islamic terror? Have they forgotten the 7/7 London bombings already?) Hypocrisy of the Headlines: UN slams Israel's demolition of 96 Palestinian homes since start of 2011... — There was no UN condemnation of Israel when Jewish homes were demolished and 8,500 Jews were deported from Gaza! "Useless Nothing" is only good in one game — anti-Israel bigotry! Small Steps in the Right Direction The Knesset approved the second and third reading of the law, which has come to be known as the "Nakba Law". The law stipulates that the Minister of Finance may withhold or reduce budgets from government-funded bodies that deny the existence of Israel. (Any anti-Israel group, individual, or org anisation must be declared illegal and deported from the Jewish state! The only democracy in the Middle East should be able to defend itself.) Dangerously Delusional as Usual U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday that the latest spike in Middle East violence must not derail the peace process and he urged bold diplomatic action by Israelis and Palestinians. Gates agreed that no sovereign state can tolerate having rockets fired at its people. But, he added, that "we don't want to do anything that allows extremists or others to divert the narrative of reform that's going on in virtually all the countries of the region." (Would he say this if the United States was under rocket attack and Americans were terrorized? Why are Jewish lives cheap? The only 'reform' that the region is experiencing is a perfect opportunity for Islamists to take over the countries of deposed dictators!) Nobody Won Defensive Wars The IDF is considering deploying The "Iron Dome" anti-missile defence system in the towns around Gaza on Sunday. This is despite the fact that the system is not operational yet. It is claimed that the system can target Kassam and Grad rockets, as well as mortars. Quote of the Week: "We must wait to see what kind of new regimes will rise in Arab countries. I estimate that some of the new regimes would not be comfortable with the state of Israel , even among those countries, which made peace with us. It would be a great mistake to present a political program. It would be more logical to wait and see what changes will take place in the Arab countries." — Professor Moshe Sharon of the Hebrew University The UN's in Compliance with anti-Semitic Tradition The United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva denounced the Israeli presence in the Golan Heights on Thursday. The resolution on the "Syrian Golan," which calls for an immediate cessation of any "settlement" construction in the Golan, is the first of six resolutions on Israel. (Almost 60% of all UN resolutions are directed against Israel, the only Jewish state! The Golan Heights were part of the land allocated by the League of Nations for creation of the Jewish state, Eretz-Israel. It was won back from Syria by Israel after defensive war. This is another example of disregard for international law where Israel is concerned!) Double-Talking Snake At the time when a woman was killed and more than 50 other people were wounded in a blast near Jerusalem's central bus station and 15 more mortar shells hit the Negev, Hamas stated on Wednesday that it wants to "restore calm" and indicated it is backing off from escalation in attacks it initiated, as Israel makes it clear it will not tolerate terror. The de facto Hamas government in Gaza stated, "We stress that our constant position in the government is to protect stability..." (The Israeli government does not have a coherent policy on how to end relentless terror inflicted on Jews by Arabs. Only a complete removal of the cancer , terror-infested population from Jewish land, can cure this disease — Fake retaliations are not enough — they just mask the problem!) Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
MADNESS AND DESECRATION
Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, March 28, 2011. |
|
Beyond Words
"Beyond Words" is a newly-published seven volume collection of Rabbi Meir Kahane's writings that originally appeared in The Jewish Press, other serial publications, and his privately-published works. "Beyond Words" also includes a number of extra features: Chronology of Rabbi Kahane's life. If you are interested in buying this new collection of Rabbi Meir Kahane's writings, write to Levi Chazan at: Levi1@hotmail.com If you did not receive this article personally and would like to be on my weekly Rabbi Kahane article e-mail list, contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com To view previously e-mailed Rabbi Kahane articles go to: www.barbaraginsberg-barbara.blogspot.com |
|
Let me tell you what is even worse than a Jewish mother burned alive in a car after a firebomb was thrown through the window. Let me tell you what is worse than this attack near the Arab town of Kalkilya that also tragically burned 80% of the bodies of her children Tal and Adi, five and eight years old respectively. Let me tell you of Arab cruelty and Jewish madness — the two partners in the murder of Ofra Moses and the cruel disfiguring of her small children — so that you will be furious enough to do something and prevent the deaths and mutilations of other Ofra Moseses and other Jewish children. In the years following the creation of the State of Israel, the town of Kalkilya was one of the worst vipers' nests of Arab terror. Lying less than five minutes from the Jewish city of Kfar Saba, Kalkilya became a symbol to the Jews of Arab terror and murder and, for years, Jews dreamed of the day when they would take vengeance on the town and its Arab inhabitants. And then the miracle occurred: the Six-Day War erupted and Jewish soldiers drove across the Green Line into Samaria — into Kalkilya; the entire Arab population fled. Knowing what they deserved, fearing that they would get precisely that from the long suffering Jews, they fled in terror towards the Jordan River, hoping to cross into Jordan. The town was deserted, free of the terrorists and the terror they carried into Israel. The Jews of Kfar Saba and the surrounding area were ecstatic as they poured into the deserted Kalkilya, walking freely and securely for the first time. And then. And then, there occurred a thing so incredible that no normal person could ever hope to believe it. Moshe Dayan, Minister of Defense and hero to the UJA-Israel Bonds-Hadassah jet set, issued orders to the Israeli paratroopers to rush to the Jordan and bring the Arabs of Kalkilya back. Yes, I know that the words are almost inexplicable, let along believable. Bring them back? Bring back Arabs who fled? Bring back the vipers to their nest? How is that possible? It is not possible? It could never have happened! Was Dayan mad? No, he was not mad; not in the clinical sense. But yes, it did happened. Because as Dayan himself said: "G-d forbid that the world should think that there is another wave of refugees." No, he was not "mad." Merely the product of a gentilized lack of any faith and trust in the G-d and destiny of Israel. The same Dayan who objected to the capture of the Golan Heights in 1967 because there were Soviet advisors there and this would "surely" bring in the Soviets. And the tragedy of madness and desecration as Israeli troops forced the Arabs of Kalkilya to return. They did and prospered. They did and turned the area once again into a vipers' nest. Jews fear to ride through the area where a new breed and generation of Arab has arisen, thanks to the insanity of Dayanism. And Ofra Moses is dead and her children disfigured and Jews frustrated and frightened and appalled. We are a people that took the miracle of 1967 and threw it away. We are afflicted by a sickness of soul that is the very essence of that ghetto and Galut that the Hellenists of Dayanism so contemptuously attacked. But they the secular Zionists who fear world opinion and who question their real right to be in Judea and Samaria, are the most intense of the ghetto-ites, the most extreme of the Galut Jews. Kalkilya must be wiped off the face of the earth as a lesson, the clearest and most brutal lesson, to the Arabs. Its inhabitants must be thrown across the river into Jordan and every building leveled, as a permanent example of what will be done to every other Arab town in whose region terror strikes at Jews. And that, of course, is only a prelude to the real Jewish, Zionist and logical step — the removal of all our enemies from Eretz Yisrael. A government that is incapable of or unwilling to take any and all actions to protect the lives of its people loses all legitimacy or right to exist as legal authority. The only right that any government has to regulate and restrict and rule over human beings rests on the premise that individuals give up their totality of freedom in exchange for the protection and security of life and property that the government promises them. When governments cannot or is not prepared to fulfill its share of the covenant, it loses all right to rule over the lives of citizens. It becomes illegitimate, a bandit authoritarian. The government of Israel stands, today, at that political red line. Years of failure — either through helplessness or haplessness, or worse, deliberate political decision — contributed to the deaths of hundreds of Jews and the wounding of thousands of others in terror attacks that could have been prevented by the removal of the Arabs from the land, or at the very least, by a powerful fist that would have struck terror into the hearts of the Arabs — people who are, at least in heart and in mind, all terrorists. Written May 1987 Contact Barbara Ginsberg by email at BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com |
|
WHEN GERALDINE FERRARO SAID NO TO U.N. ISRAEL-BASHING
Posted by Anne Bayefsky, March 28, 2011. |
|
From 1994 to 1996, Geraldine Ferraro was the American ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. I was an adviser to the Canadian delegation to the commission and had the opportunity to watch Ferraro in action behind closed doors in meetings of the "Western European and Others Group" (WEOG). At WEOG meetings, Western states hammered out shared policy on issues of common interest before stepping into the full morass of the U.N.'s top human-rights body. At that time, one quarter of all the resolutions adopted by the commission that were critical of specific states condemned Israel alone, while the commission remained silent on almost all egregious violations of human rights around the world. For 25 years, the formal agenda of the commission, which governed every meeting, had contained one item devoted to demonizing Israel and one item to human rights on the almost 200 other U.N. members. This was the environment into which Ferraro stepped. In addition, she found herself in the middle of an attempt at U.N. "reform." The reform effort of that era came to a head in one memorable meeting of WEOG when it became clear that the Europeans had caved to Arab and Muslim states and were prepared to agree on proposals for "reform" that left the Israel-demonization agenda item exactly as it was. In walked Geraldine Ferraro. I don't remember her staying long or saying much. She just said no. Such a reform sham was not consistent with American values and the United States would not be part of it. She couldn't be bullied by the multilateral pressure to appear "cooperative." With extraordinary poise and straight talk she put everyone else in that room to shame. I remember having to restrain myself from jumping up and clapping in that stuffy chamber, composed almost entirely of men who had spent their careers clawing to the top of foreign offices by being exactly the opposite of Geraldine Ferraro. In a twist of fate, only a day before she died, virtually the same scenario played out in Geneva 15 years later. A "reform" package was before the Human Rights Council. Again it was a sham. And again it left the same demonization-of-Israel agenda item in place. Only this time, President Obama and Eileen Donahoe, a former fundraiser and his ambassador to the council, desperate for the approval of an un-American audience, waved it through by consensus. Today among Democrats the moral courage necessary to withstand the U.N. hordes is in short supply. Ferraro will be missed.
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on National Review Online.
|
|
DO-GOODERS IN A LAND WITH NO GOOD GUYS
Posted by Susana K-M, March 28, 2011. |
|
This was written by Mark Steyn. |
|
It is tempting and certainly very easy to point out that Obama's war (or Obama's "kinetic military action," or "time-limited, scope-limited military action," or whatever the latest ever more preposterous evasion is) is at odds with everything candidate Obama said about U.S. military action before his election. And certainly every attempt the president makes to explain his Libyan adventure is either cringe-makingly stupid ("I'm accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also somebody who aspires to peace") or alarmingly revealing of a very peculiar worldview: "That's why building this international coalition has been so important," he said the other day. "It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally." That's great news. Who doesn't enjoy volunteering other people? The Arab League, for reasons best known to itself, decided that Col. Gadhafi had outlived his sell-by date. Granted that the region's squalid polities haven't had a decent military commander since King Hussein fired General Sir John Glubb half-a-century back, how difficult could it be even for Arab armies to knock off a psychotic transvestite guarded by Austin Powers fembots? But no: Instead, the Arab League decided to volunteer the U.S. military. Likewise, the French and the British. Libya's special forces are trained by Britain's SAS. Four years ago, President Sarkozy hosted a state visit for Col. Gadhafi, his personal security detail of 30 virgins, his favorite camel and a 400-strong entourage that helped pitch his tent in the heart of Paris. Given that London and Paris have the third- and fourth-biggest military budgets on the planet and that between them they know everything about Gadhafi's elite troops, sleeping arrangements, guard-babes and dromedaries, why couldn't they take him out? But no: They, too, decided to volunteer the U.S. military. But, as I said, it's easy to mock the smartest, most articulate man ever to occupy the Oval Office. Instead, in a nonpartisan spirit, let us consider why it is that the United States no longer wins wars. OK, it doesn't exactly lose (most of) them, but nor does it have much to show for a now-60-year old pattern of inconclusive outcomes. American forces have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for a decade: Doesn't that seem like a long time for a noncolonial power to be spending hacking its way through the worthless terrain of a Third World dump? If the object is to kill terrorists, might there not be some slicker way of doing it? And, if the object is something else entirely, mightn't it be nice to know what it is? I use the word "noncolonial" intentionally. I am by temperament and upbringing an old-school imperialist: There are arguments to be made for being on the other side of the world for decades on end if you're claiming it as sovereign territory and rebuilding it in your image, as the British did in India, Belize, Mauritius, the Solomon Islands, you name it. Likewise, there are arguments to be made for saying, sorry, we're a constitutional republic, we don't do empire. But there's not a lot to be said for forswearing imperialism and even modest cultural assertiveness, and still spending 10 years getting shot up in Afghanistan helping to create, bankroll and protect a so-called justice system that puts a man on death row for converting to Christianity. Libya, in that sense, is a classic post-nationalist, post-modern military intervention: As in Kosovo, we're do-gooders in a land with no good guys. But, unlike Kosovo, not only is there no strategic national interest in what we're doing, the intended result is likely to be explicitly at odds with U.S. interests. A quarter-century back, Gadhafi was blowing American airliners out of the sky and murdering British policewomen: That was the time to drop a bomb on him. But we didn't. Everyone from the Government of Scotland (releasing the "terminally ill" Lockerbie bomber, now miraculously restored to health) to Mariah Carey and Beyonce (with their million-dollar-a-gig Gadhafi party nights) did deals with the Colonel. Now suddenly he's got to go — in favor of "freedom-loving" "democrats" from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya — which, according to West Point's Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less-attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them. Officially, only the French are committed to regime change. So suppose Gadhafi survives. If you were in his shoes, mightn't you be a little peeved? Enough to pull off a new Lockerbie? A more successful assassination attempt on the Saudi king? A little bit of Euro-bombing? Alternatively, suppose Gadhafi winds up hanging from a lamppost in his favorite party dress. If you're a Third World dictator, what lessons would you draw? Gadhafi was the thug who came in from the cold, the one who (in the wake of Saddam's fall) renounced his nuclear program and was supposedly rehabilitated in the chancelleries of the West. He was "a strong partner in the war on terrorism," according to U.S. diplomats. And what did Washington do? They overthrew him anyway. The blood-soaked butcher next door in Sudan is the first head of state to be charged by the International Criminal Court with genocide, but nobody's planning on toppling him. Iran's going nuclear with impunity, but Obama sends fraternal greetings to the "Supreme Leader" of the "Islamic Republic." North Korea is more or less openly trading as the one-stop bargain-basement for all your nuke needs, and we're standing idly by. But the one cooperative dictator's getting million-dollar-a-pop cruise missiles lobbed in his tent all night long. If you were the average Third World loon, which role model makes most sense? Colonel Cooperative in Tripoli? Or Ayatollah Death-to-the-Great-Satan in Tehran? America is teaching the lesson that the best way to avoid the attentions of whimsical "liberal interventionists" is to get yourself an easily affordable nuclear program from Pyongyang, or anywhere else, as soon as possible. The United States is responsible for 43 percent of the planet's military spending. So how come it doesn't feel like that? It's not merely that "our military is being volunteered by others," but that Washington has been happy to volunteer it as the de facto expeditionary force for the "international community." Sometimes U.S. troops sail under U.N. colors, sometimes NATO's and, now in Libya, even the Arab League's. Either way, it makes little difference: America provides most of the money, men and materiel. All that changes is the transnational fig leaf. But lost along the way is hard-headed, strategic calculation of the national interest. "They won't come back till it's over/Over there!" sang George M. Cohan as the doughboys marched off in 1917. It was all over 20 minutes later, and then they came back. Now it's never over over there — not in Korea, not in Kuwait, not in Kosovo, not in Kandahar. Next stop Kufra? America has swapped The Art Of War for the Hotel California: We psychologically check out, but we never leave. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
SYRIA'S ASSAD NO LONGER IN VOGUE: WHAT EVERYONE GOT WRONG ABOUT
BASHAR AL-ASSAD
Posted by Daily Alert, March 28, 2011. |
|
This was written by Tony Badran and it appeared in
Foreign Affairs
Tony Badran is a Research Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. |
|
Summary: It was slow in coming, but the Arab revolutionary wave of 2011 has reached Syria. Its arrival has forced a reassessment of the Bashar al-Assad regime's domestic legitimacy and prospects for survival. Over the past few months, many commentators have maintained that the regime would remain sheltered from regional turmoil. As the prominent Syrian dissident Suhair Atassi lamented, her country is "a kingdom of silence" dominated by fear. Now, the story line has changed dramatically. Events in the southern city of Deraa have challenged the conventional wisdom about Syria's stability. Protests began on March 18, after security forces detained 15 children for spraying anti-regime graffiti on walls there. Seeking to nip any ideas of revolution in the bud, Assad's security forces attacked the protesters, killing four. The next day, thousands took to the streets, torching the ruling Baath Party headquarters, several other government buildings, and the local branch of the country's main cell phone company, Syriatel, which is owned by Assad's cousin, Rami Makhlouf, whom the protesters singled out by name, calling him a "thief." They also defaced many of the ubiquitous posters of Assad that the regime, Soviet-style, hangs in public places, and tore down a statue of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's father. The regime's heavy-handed crackdown on the children lit the fuse on the Syrian people's political and economic grievances. They initially demanded an end to the emergency laws first enacted 48 years ago when the Baath Party seized power in Syria. But by March 19, they were calling for "revolution." The old regime-sanctioned chants of "God, Syria, and Bashar only" had been replaced with "God, Syria, and freedom only." The regime attempted to calm the situation by sending to Deraa a delegation headed by Faisal al-Miqdad, the deputy foreign minister, to offer condolences and promise an investigation into the deaths of the four protesters. It also pledged to release the original 15 detainees. But the delegation was not well received, and the riots continued and spread to some neighboring towns. By March 22, the regime judged the situation in Deraa to have gotten out of hand and dispatched several tanks and helicopters to seal off the city. Although they were initially repelled, the security forces subsequently made a final push against the protesters at dawn on March 23, resulting in what dissidents have called a "massacre." According to human rights activists and witnesses, more than 100 people were killed. Rumor has it that the push was undertaken by the Republican Guard — a force tasked with protecting the Assad regime commanded by Bashar's brother, Maher. Despite the bloody crackdown, the protesters continued to come out in the thousands, expressing their resolve to push ahead. In particular, the regime was clearly concerned about plans for a major rally on March 25 after Friday prayers, and about the prospect of it spreading beyond Deraa. In a desperate attempt to head it off, Assad's spokesperson, Bouthaina Shaaban, made public statements promising that the regime would "study" lifting the emergency laws. By all indications, however, her statement only increased the protesters' determination to press on. To the protesters, such gestures may simply be too little, too late. According to many observers, Assad was supposed to be immune to this kind of popular movement. His anti-American policies and enmity toward Israel were thought to boost his legitimacy in the eyes of his people. Compared the advanced age of Egypt's former president, 82-year-old Hosni Mubarak, and Tunisia's ex-president, 74-year-old Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, Assad's relative youth at 45 was also thought to be an asset. One Syria specialist, Joshua Landis, noted that unlike the aging Mubarak, the young Assad was "popular among young people" who "tend to blame [corruption] on . . . the 'old guard.'" An unfortunately timed puff piece on Asma al-Assad, the president's glamorous wife, in the current issue of Vogue, spoke of the "first lady's central mission . . . to change the mind-set of six million Syrians under eighteen [and] encourage them to engage in what she calls 'active citizenship.'" It gave plausibility to the claim that the Assads are a fresh breeze blowing through a decrepit house. Ironically, the basis for such arguments was Assad's own public relations strategy. When Assad inherited power from his father in 2000, he adopted the "old versus new guard" theme to cultivate his image as a reformer and bolster his legitimacy at home and abroad. For a brief period, he allowed dissidents to criticize corruption openly. But this so-called Damascus Spring was a cynical mirage. In the past decade, Syria has not seen a single meaningful act of reform. The truth is that Assad could not have pursued such reform even if he had wanted to, as this would have meant taking on the corruption of his immediate family. Assad's cousin, the billionaire Makhlouf, is widely considered to be the second-most powerful man in the country, even though he holds no official title. He is essentially the economic arm of the regime, using his business empire to co-opt the Sunni merchant class. (Makhlouf, Assad, and most of the ruling elite and high-ranking officers are Alawites, a minority sect.) When the people of Deraa set fire to the Syriatel office, they were not targeting the old guard; they were targeting the very heart of the current regime, or, as one Syrian activist in Deraa told Reuters, the very symbols of oppression and corruption. The idea that Assad's anti-Western ideology is popular enough to shield him from public discontent comes from him as well: in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in late January, he explained that the Mubarak regime was unpopular due to its alliance with the United States and its peace treaty with Israel. By contrast, he suggested, the Syrian regime was ideologically united with the people. As Assad put it, Syrians "do not go into an uprising," because "it is not only about [their] needs and not only about the reform. It is about the ideology." Assad's foreign policy and ideology of "resistance" may indeed be popular in Syria. But the protests are driven by concerns over domestic issues. The idea that ideology and foreign policy trump concerns about lack of freedom, economic opportunity, and political participation has proved wrong. Other commentators who dismissed the likelihood of the Assad regime falling pointed to solidarity among the Alawite elite. Unlike the Egyptian army, which functioned independently of Mubarak and broke with him at a key moment, the Syrian brass, as part of a small religious minority, views its fate and safety as inextricably linked to Assad's and therefore will not fail to crack down on protests. Still, that threat has not deterred all the protesters. And on March 22, the sectarian dimension of the conflict became explicit: the Deraa demonstrators broke a long-standing taboo, chanting, "No to Iran, no to Hezbollah, we want a God-fearing Muslim" — by which they meant, "We want a Sunni Muslim running the country." In a show of solidarity with the regime, Alawites replaced their own headshots on Facebook with pictures of Bashar. It has been suggested that the best way for Assad to deal with sectarian tensions would be to reform and democratize. But to democratize is to take the Alawite hand off the tiller. And, the bankrupt regime's latest concession to quell the unrest — the announcement of a salary increase for state employees — suggests that even Assad's supposed economic rationalization is over. With its sources of legitimacy badly undermined, brute force is the only tool left to secure the regime's rule. On March 24, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged that Syria follow Egypt's example. However, as the protests spread throughout the rest of Syria, Assad will surely follow another example: Hafez al-Assad who set the precedent, in 1982, when he pulverized Hama, a Muslim Brotherhood rebellion city, killing nearly 20,000 to secure his rule. That legacy has kept the Syrians fearfully silent — until now. The regime's concern about the Friday protests was justified. Today, demonstrations have erupted everywhere, including in major cities, such as Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Latakia, and Qamishli. Chants of "Down with Bashar's regime" have been heard regularly. The regime's response continues to be violent repression coupled with attempts at political maneuvering. It is hard to predict where the demonstrations will go after today. If unrest takes hold in the northeast (among the Kurds) and northwest (in large Sunni areas), it will be a sign that the Assad regime's grasp on power is weakening. The people of Deraa have shown that the population's barrier of fear can be broken. That is something that Assad cannot allow to persist and take root. Whether he manages to reinstill it will prove decisive for his family's rule. 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 |
|
THE KOREAN-TALMUD LOVE AFFAIR
Posted by Hillel Fendel, March 31, 2011. |
|
(Israelnationalnews.com) Reports of the Talmud being a national classic in South Korea have been floating around for several years, but it's now official: The country's ambassador to Israel, Ma Young-Sam, told the "Culture Today" TV show that Talmud study is now a mandatory part of the country's school curriculum. In addition, it is said, almost every home in South Korea boasts a Korean version of the Talmud, and mothers commonly teach it to their children, who call it the "Light of Knowledge." Why? "We were very curious about the high academic achievements of the Jews," Young-Sam explained, according to a Ynet report. "Jews have a high percentage of Nobel laureates in all fields — literature, science and economics. This is a remarkable achievement. We tried to understand: What is the secret of the Jewish people? How are they, more than other people, able to reach those impressive accomplishments? Why are Jews so intelligent? The conclusion we arrived at is that one of your secrets is that you study the Talmud... We believe that if we teach our children Talmud, they will also become geniuses. This is what stands behind the rationale of introducing Talmud study to our school curriculum." "I, for example, have two sets of the Talmud," the ambassador said. "The one my wife bought me, and the second was a gift from my mother." He also praised the Talmud and the Jewish tradition it represents for its family values, respect for adults, and respect for education in general. Korean Times, Ten Years Ago Nearly ten years ago, the Korea Times reported: "Interestingly, there are at least two different books currently sitting on Korean best-seller shelves that purport to explain the Jewish Talmud. The popularity of these books initially came as a surprise. But Koreans aren't converting to Judaism. They read those books because Jews have gained a reputation for hard work and success, two things Koreans relate to well." Reports of Korean schoolchildren reading the Talmud — or at least stories thereof — have also been known for several years. One American teacher in South Korea related that in 2005, his elementary school students told him that as children, they had all read the Talmud, which they called the "Light of Knowledge." When asked if they had also read the Koran, they burst into laughter, saying, "Of course not, that's the Muslim book." From David Alpert
Close to 50 million people live in South Korea, and everyone learns Gemara (Talmud) in school. "We tried to understand why the Jews are geniuses, and we came to the conclusion that it is because they study Talmud," said the Korean ambassador to Israel. And this is how "Rav Papa" became a more well known scholar in Korea than in Israel. It is doubtful if the Amoraic scholars, Abbaye and Rava imagined their discussions of Jewish law in the Beit Midrash in Babylon would be taught hundreds of years later in East Asia. Yet it turns out that the laws of an "egg born on a holiday" is actually very interesting to the South Koreans who have required that Talmud study be part of their compulsory school curriculum. Almost every home in South Korea now contains a Korean-translated Talmud. But unlike in Israel, the Korean mothers teach the Talmud to their children. In a country of close to 49 million people who believe in Buddhism and Christianity, there are more people who read the Talmud — or at least own their own copy at home — more than in the Jewish state. Much more. "So we too will become geniuses" "We were very curious about the high academic achievements of the Jews," explains Israel's ambassador to South Korea, Young Sam Mah, that was a host on the program "culture today." "Jews have a high percentage of Nobel laureates in all fields: literature, science and economics. This is a remarkable achievement. We tried to understand what is the secret of the Jewish people? How they — more than other people — are able to reach those impressive accomplishments? Why are Jews so intelligent? The conclusion we arrived at is that one of your secrets is that you study the Talmud." "Jews study the Talmud at a young age, and it helps them, in our opinion, to develop mental capabilities. This understanding led us to teach our children as well. We believe that if we teach our children Talmud, they will also become geniuses. This is what stands behind the rationale of introducing Talmud Study to our school curriculum." Young says that he himself studied the Talmud at a very young age: "It is considered very significant study," he emphasized. The result is that more Koreans have Talmud sets in their homes than Jews in Israel.. "I, for example, have two sets of the Talmud: the one my wife bought me, and the second was a gift from my mother." Groupies of Jews Koreans don't only like the Talmud because they see it as promoting genius, but because they found values that are close to their hearts. "In the Jewish tradition, family values are important," explains the South Korean Ambassador. "You see it even today, your practice of the Friday evening family meal. In my country we also focus on family values. The respect for adults, respect and appreciation for the elderly parallels the high esteem in my country for the elderly." Another very significant issue is the respect for education. In the Jewish tradition parents have a duty to teach their children, and they devote to it lots of attention. For Korean parents, their children's education is a top priority. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
FROM ISRAEL: HOPE AND HORROR
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 27, 2011. |
|
On Friday the first International Marathon was run in Jerusalem. It tied up the city completely, as police blocked main roads to traffic so the runners could pass through. But it was a fantastic event, because it provided press and international attention regarding something completely normal going on in Jerusalem. And it was gratifying to see that people did not refuse to run. Two days after a terror attack, no one pulled out. There were 10,000 runners from 40 countries. I think this delivers a heartening message. Said Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat before the event: "Our answer to the murderous terrorists is that we will never stop running." ~~~~~~~~~~ And not incidentally do I want to mention that it was sponsored by Adidas, in spite of Palestinian Arab PR demanding they not "run with apartheid." The "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" declared that "Israel is exploiting sports as a policy tool to Judaise the city." What else is new? ~~~~~~~~~~ Would that there were only good things to write about. What I wish to address here is the antithesis of "good news." Very very painful stuff, and I apologize for this. On the one hand, I want to be careful to present verified information. On the other hand, I want to inform my readers about precisely what we face here. The issue at hand is the recent terror attack in Itamar, in which five members of the Fogel family were wantonly slaughtered. The news that was released after the attack said that the three-month old baby girl, Hadas, had her throat slit. But then information started to come out regarding the fact that she was allegedly decapitated and I began receiving queries about this. I say quite candidly that I lost a night's sleep over this. It is beyond comprehension, but the truth must be pursued. I attempted to verify the information and was able to acquire only hearsay. Those closest to the situation were not able (emotionally) to speak to me about it. And so, while I strongly suspect the veracity of these reports, I cannot state this information as fact. But, wanting to share more with my readers — so that there IS full comprehension of what we deal with — I share a blog entry by Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, "The Muslim terrorist War Against Israeli Families": "The brutal murders of the Fogel family, including the partial decapitation of a 3 month old baby, the stabbing a 3 year old twice in the heart, and the murder of both their parents, along with an 11 year old brother who was staying up late reading in bed, have shocked the world. But the Muslim terrorist tactic of massacring families is not a new one. It has been a signature move of the PLO in its various phases, especially the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. ~~~~~~~~~~ While in "Why Do They Slaughter?" Dr. Mordecai Kedar has this to say: "What is common to Daniel Perl, Nick Berg, the Jews of Hebron in 1929 and the Fogel family? They were butchered. They were not simply stabbed to death, but were killed by an act designed to decapitate them or to cause fatal bleeding by severing their carotid artery. Another common denominator: all were slaughtered by Moslems. An endless list of Moslem girls and women can be added to them, those who were similarly slaughtered by their brothers, fathers or other relatives for 'violating the family honor.' A question that arises automatically is where does this Moslem tendency to this kind of slaughter come from? ~~~~~~~~~~ There is unrest in the nations all about Israel. An accounting of what is transpiring in each instance would not be possible in this posting. And, if truth be told, no one knows how it will all work out. Yet I must share this, which seems an indication of the fact that the Obama administration has trouble getting it right: Speaking today on CBS's "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Clinton said there would be no action taken by the US in Syria, as there has been in Libya. Qaddafi had strafed his own population in Libya, while Assad has merely sent out police to massacre people in the streets. Elaborating, Clinton indicated that Congresspersons from both parties see Assad as a "reformer." Would she care to run that by us again? This is the Assad who re-armed Hezbollah, right? ~~~~~~~~~~ A US administration official was cited in the NY Times as saying, Assad "probably disqualified himself as a peace partner for Israel. You can't have a comprehensive peace without Syria. It's definitely in our interest to pursue an agreement, but you can't do it with a government that has no credibility with its population." What insights! What planning! They can't get the PA to sit down with Israel, and yet they were hoping for a "comprehensive" peace? ~~~~~~~~~~ Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was here in Israel last Thursday, and held a press conference with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Gates pointed out accurately enough that US-Israeli security relations are perhaps as strong as they've ever been, and that there is a US interest in helping Israel maintain a qualitative edge in weaponry. I am convinced, certainly, that the Pentagon is with us. But then Gates had to ruin the tone of his remarks by urging Israel to work harder to achieve "peace" with the Palestinian Arabs. "There is a need and an opportunity for bold action to move forward a two-state solution," he intoned. An opportunity? What seems to be the case is that the US administration imagines that if it provides us with assistance in missile defense we will then declare ourselves to be so secure that it will be possible for us to sacrifice strategic depth and the Jordan Valley and high places in Samaria, in order to "make peace." Gates met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who had just returned from Russia, on Friday, and moved on to Ramallah. ~~~~~~~~~~ This is cute: On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva denounced the Israeli presence on the Golan Heights. ~~~~~~~~~~ PA President Mahmoud Abbas met in Ramallah yesterday with a Hamas delegation in order to explain to them his unity initiative. His stated goal is to see Palestinian Arabs united before the September initiative to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state. Additionally he spoke of the need to confront the "continuing Israeli aggression." Right now Hamas and Islam Jihad are lobbing rockets, including Grad Katyushas, into Israel, and Israeli authorities are debating the best response. Targeting assassinations may turn out to be the action of choice. Hamas is deeply divided on the matter of unity. Abbas was supposed to visit Gaza recently, but the suggestion that he come was not well received. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu has been quite clear on this issue: "Abbas has to choose whether he wants peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. He can't have both." ~~~~~~~~~~ An Israeli medical team of 50 personnel plus 18 tons of aid have landed in Japan. They will set up in Kunhara, about six hours outside of Tokyo. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE CALIPHATE QUESTION: THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND ISLAMIC GOVERNANCE
Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, March 27, 2011. |
|
The Caliphate Question by Sean Oliver-Dee was published by Lexington Books in Lanham, Md. It is reviewed by Raymond Ibrahim
in the Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2011. It is archived at
|
|
The Caliphate Question examines the British government's actions toward the Ottoman Empire around World War I — during the dissolution of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 and after. Oliver-Dee's purpose is to "address the strengths and weaknesses of previous approaches to questions of Islamic governance with a view to furnishing present policymakers, commentators, politicians, and advisors with an evidence-based rubric for effective engagement in this vital area." The author, an associate research fellow at the London School of Theology, first establishes context by exploring whether the concept of the caliphate was theologically justified, concluding that "the scriptural basis for the Caliphate seems remarkably small," a fact that undoubtedly prompted Kemal Atatürk, Turkey's founder who abolished the caliphate in 1924, to declare, "Our Prophet has instructed his disciples to convert the nations of the world to Islam; he has not ordered them to provide for the government of these nations. ... The notion of a single Caliph exercising supreme religious authority over all the Muslim people is one which has come out of books, not reality." The bulk of the book examines primary-source texts and correspondences from the British Empire's files concerning the caliphate. Although bureaucratic in nature and dry reading, these documents make Oliver-Dee's case, namely that, because the British did not understand the significance of the caliphate, "their discussion was therefore predicated on an incomplete picture, which increased the opportunity for error." Oliver-Dee shows how Arabic words — such as din, which is routinely translated into English as "religion" — have misled the West, including the British Empire: Far from having any spiritual connotations, din means "obligation, submission, judgment." Most significant are the relevant analogies: The British made it a priority to "satisfy Muslim interests in the [British] Empire" by making, according to one 1917 governmental memo, "a few needed concessions" to the Islamic world — by placing "the concerns of all other religious and ethnic interests within the Empire beneath the necessity of securing Muslim loyalty," which was hardly secured. This, then, is the book's important message: An approach similar to that taken by today's Western governments toward the Muslim world — especially a failure to understand the Muslim worldview and a belief that appeasement buys loyalty — dramatically failed nearly a century ago. Worse, whereas British politicians operated in an epoch when many Muslims were, in fact, open to Westernizing and apathetic to Islam — excusing these politicians for not taking the caliphate's role more seriously — there is no excuse for their modern day counterparts, who seem to take it even less seriously, even though Muslims today are constantly declaring the need to resurrect it. Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College. This article is archived at http://www.meforum.org/2678/ground-zero-mosque |
|
ISRAELI REPORTER'S CAR STONING HAS KAFKAESQUE AFTERMATH
Posted by Israel National News Staff, March 27, 2011. |
|
Well-known Israeli investigative reporter for the Maariv Hebrew daily, Kalman Liebskind, had a Kafkaesque story to report this week, and the subject of the article was himself. "Driving down the road that leads to our home in Gimzu, I heard the first bang", he wrote in Hebrew in his weekly column. " My wife, Ilana, who was driving behind me with some of our children, had gotten a direct hit to the front window of her car. By some miracle, the window didn't shatter, but the rock hit the part of the window that was a little over a foot from my son's head. I could hardly believe it was true. Rocks? On our road? An asteroid hitting us seemed more probable than rock throwing 100 yards from our home." Gimzu is a middle class, religious Zionist suburban community (moshav) located near the cities of Modiin and Lod, not in Judea or Samaria. He continues: "Everyone piled into my car and we drove out of the community. The instant we reached the place where the rocks had been thrown, we heard another bang. This time the rock hit the front fender, and this time we saw who was throwing the rocks, a youth who looked around 18 and was standing about 3 yards away. He ran off with an accomplice into the wooded area nearby. We discovered only later that two other women had had rocks thrown at them shortly beforehand." Liebeskind and his neighbors called the police, who took some time to reach the community, but then went out to the wooded area with them to search for the rock throwers. They came upon a campfire with about 20 Israeli Arab young men from Lod and their bearded teachers or counselors wearing Muslim dress and headgear. "If we want to, we can burn all of Gimzu" said one of them to the shocked Israeli Jews. The Arabs informed the police that they had left a mosque in Lod after hearing a lecture on the Koran and continued on their way to make a campfire. They had vandalized the woods by spraying the trees with Arabic words. "The police did not question anyone and only arrested the rock thrower whom we could identify," LIebeskind wrote. Later in the week, Liebeskind received a call from the Lod Police Department asking him to come in to help complete the investigation of the incident. To his astonishment, within a short time of arriving there, he found himself being accused formally, under "suspicion of threatening the Arabs with a weapon" and heard an officer tell him "you don't have to respond. Anything you say may be used against you." "Where did this ridiculous idea come from?" he asked the police officers. It turned out that the Arab who had thrown the stones and his friends had filed a complaint claiming that Liebeskind threatened them. The journalist suggested asking 50 people in Gimzu to serve as character witnesses for him. "That's useless, they will be your friends and not objective," was the response. "And these Arabs who threw stones at me and know that I filed a complaint against them are objective?" he rejoined. To no avail. After an hour of questioning, he found himself measured, photographed, fingerprinted and freed under personal recognizance. Humiliated, the journalist described himself as shocked by the possibility that the poice might believe the offender's version of what had occurred to him. He had found himself in a situtation that has happened often to residents of Judea and Samaria, who often find themselves falsely accused in the mainstream media, including the newspaper for which Liebeskind works, of crimes perpetrated by Arabs, from stealing and destroying olive trees to burning sheep and throwing rocks. |
|
WHAT ARE WE DOING IN THE MIDDLE EAST?
Posted by David Warren, March 27, 2011. |
|
As the days pass, and the intervention in Libya grows longer, my alarm also grows. The West digs itself into a position that is contrary to western interests, and can only advance the interests of our worst enemies in the Middle East. If I were to characterize the effect of the intervention — the actual as opposed to the stated effect — it would be, "Making the world safe for Islamism." On Saturday I had space to flag the basic difficulty of the allied Libya "strategy," namely, that it is no strategy at all, and we don't know what we're doing. We cannot articulate what we want to achieve, beyond preventing the "humanitarian disaster" to which we are now substantially contributing. Western statesmen can't even agree if they want Gadhafi to be gone. Nor, apparently, have their generals been briefed coherently on the purpose of this war. They could not even explain if missile strikes on Gadhafi's compound were intended to hurt him. This is another liberal, push-button war, from the Bill Clinton era; one intended to produce very few allied casualties. Twelve years ago I described the NATO attack on Serbia as a form of "experimental bombing." See what the techies can come up with, working from satellite photos. Hit anything that looks mean on the other side, and spare the rest of the landscape. Just "tilt that playing field" against Milosevic, or whichever nearly defenceless dictator we have decided to seriously dislike. Note that liberal wars are never conducted against our more lethal enemies. Every argument for going into Libya counts 10 times for going into Iran, the one place where the opposition is secular and pro-Western. But it is taken for granted that we can't "do" Iran, because the ayatollahs might already have serious weapons up their sleeves. And besides the humanitarian crisis there has been going on for decades; the Iranian demonstrations are no longer "breaking news." An air force isn't a "touchy-feely" thing. Contemporary weapons systems allow much greater precision than in the past (at a price: cruise missile barrages at more than $1 million a pop). But without matching accuracy in live-time intelligence, we still cannot know what we are hitting. And intelligence out of Libya is almost a contradiction in terms. Russia and China waived their vetoes on the Security Council, granting us permission to score an own goal, then immediately launched their rhetorical opposition. The Arab League has said it never approved of bombing, just "no fly." And throughout the Arab world, we find that Gadhafi had friends. Also in Tripoli, surprise. And among terrorist cells in Europe. But it is Gadhafi's enemies that disturb me more. As Niall Ferguson points out, when the allied intervention was announced, it was proclaimed from the minarets of Benghazi. And the cry throughout the city was not "God bless America," but rather, "Allahu Akhbar!" Our media insist on spotlighting a small unrepresentative minority of Westernized, middle-class people with cellphones and Facebook accounts, when the primary, organized opposition to the Arab world's autocrats are Islamist imams. In Afghanistan, it was fairly argued, by opponents of the Bush invasion, that the CIA and our rich Saudi friends had sponsored the Taliban, to resist the previous Soviet occupation. We helped create the lethal enemy we were facing. As 9/11 showed, our former allies of convenience retained no sentimental feelings of obligation towards the West. The history of CIA and other semi-secret Western support for the Muslim Brotherhood and similar Islamist factions — as allies against a common Soviet enemy — goes back to the early years of the Eisenhower administration. It was even understandable in the context of the Cold War. The enemy of my enemy is my friend; and after all, we once supported Stalin, against Hitler. But now we are doing something more profoundly senseless. In the name of a "humanitarianism" that is not thought through, we are subtly joining forces with so-called "moderate" Islamists against isolated secular tyrants. We have foreign services sending feelers out to Islamist opponents of every Arab regime, in the name of "democracy" and "inclusivity." From Obama down through the liberal intelligentsia we have blather about how the Muslim Brotherhood is "evolving" — as it embraces the tactical devices of modern Western political parties, from women's groups and youth clubs to electronic media and studied efforts by spokesmen to appear "cool." Yet all this remains in the service of a political ideology that is unambiguously committed to the spread of Shariah, and the destruction of us. This is a very old story: the ability of the liberal mind to delude itself by confusing appearances with realities; by embracing the comfortably plausible in preference to the uncomfortably true. And finally, expressing genuine surprise when the whole effort blows up in our faces.
Contact David Warren by email at otiosus@sympatica.ca
|
|
ITAMAR, HELP PREVENT MORE DEATHS
Posted by Lee Caplan, March 27, 2011. |
|
Since the Fogel family was killed in Itamar, numerous Knesset members has visited and urgently investigated the status of this community. It turns out that the community building plan (Taba, in Hebrew) that Itamar submitted was never approved by government — although the Itamar community was established by government decision 27 years ago! It also turns out (see links in the Hebrew section above for more information about these facts, Hebrew only unfortunately) that the deaths of the parents and their three small children might have been prevented if the poor quality electronic anti-terrorism barrier surrounding the community had been properly upgraded. However, again, because the Taba community building plan had not been approved, legal advisors get queasy about approving even the upgrading of a potentially life-saving anti-terrorism barrier. This situation obviously requires each of us to take urgent action. Here's how: On Friday, Makor Rishon (Hebrew weekly) reported that 45 of Israel's
120 Knesset members petitioned the government to immediately approve
Itamar's Taba community building plan. However, the 45 signatories did
not include a single minister, since Israel's ministers have
traditionally claimed they should not be expected to sign petitions or
letters (although US Senators do so all the time) since they are "too
senior". This is fine, but let's contact the ministers just to check:
are using their senior powers and authorities in order to be MORE
helpful to Itamar than the 45 signatories — not LESS helpful. A sample
letter you can send to the ministers is below. Best of all (even
better than email!) is to telephone or fax the ministers, using the
telephone/fax information here:
Example fax or email: Email addresses: sar@moch.gov.il; roeil@moin.gov.il; minister@most.gov.il; ministerts@most.gov.il; sar@tourism.gov.il; sar@mfa.gov.il; sar@mof.gov.il; sar@mot.gov.il; sar@mops.gov.il; yedelstein@knesset.gov.il; gerdan@knesset.gov.il;bbegin@knesset.gov.il; myaalon@knesset.gov.il; mcachlon@knesset.gov.il; yiskatz@knesset.gov.il;llivnat@knesset.gov.il; gsaar@knesset.gov.il; ypeled@knesset.gov.il;ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il; sshalom@knesset.gov.il; iaharon@knesset.gov.il; aliberman@knesset.gov.il;ulandau@KNESSET.GOV.IL; slandver@knesset.gov.il; smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il; dhershkovitz@KNESSET.GOV.IL; mnahari@knesset.gov.il; aatias@knesset.gov.il; eyishay@knesset.gov.il; ymargi@knesset.gov.il; yakovm@dat.gov.il; sar@sviva.gov.il; Sar@justice.gov.il; sar@moc.gov.il;sar@moia.gov.il;sar@environment.gov.il;sar@mni.gov.il; Text: re: Itamar, Help Prevent More Deaths. Dear Minister, In the aftermath of the horrific Itamar terror attack, it is my understanding that failing to get Itamar's community building plan approved — 27 years after it should have been approved!! — has already endangered the people of Itamar, whose 200 families have suffered terribly: 22 terrorism-caused deaths over the last 2 decades! Also, I understand that the murdered children's school is housed in huts to this day, since it is "illegal" to build even a school building in Itamar without first getting this Taba building plan approved. Finally, I understand that 45 Israeli legislators, NOT including yourself, have signed an appeal to have the Itamar Taba community building plan approved immediately, after a 27 year (!) wait. This is obviously a blatant human rights issue, and the Government of Israel, of which you are a member, should immediately get this plan approved and immediately afterward, get the electronic barrier upgraded and a proper school built for the little children. Mr. Minister, you have personal responsibility here. I understand that by virtue of the Government of Israel's Takanon Regulations, you as a minister are personally entitled to submit an urgent call to the Government to vote THIS WEEK on the Itamar community building plan and I urge you to submit the necessary one-page document TODAY. I look forward to hearing from you IMMEDIATELY on this shocking issue. Thank you very much. (name and contact particulars) Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com |
|
REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS' INFLUENCE GROWS IN IRAN AS OPPOSITION FALTERS
Posted by Susana K-M, March 27, 2011. |
| This was written by Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall, an expert on strategic issues, with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East. |
|
On March 8, 2011, Ayatollah Mohammad-Reza Mahdavi Kani, 80, was elected Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, the body that will elect the next Supreme Leader of Iran. The election was called after the incumbent, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, fearing defeat, withdrew his candidacy, stating that he did not want to hurt the standing of the assembly. Rafsanjani served as President of Iran from 1989 to 1997. In 2005 he ran for a third term in office but lost to rival Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Relations between Rafsanjani and members of the assembly who support Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his regime sharply deteriorated over the last year. The Assembly of Experts, which consist of 86 senior Islamic scholars, represents one of the most powerful and important center's of Iran's religious and Islamic establishment. Failure to Stop Ahmadinejad During the September 2007 elections for chairmanship of the assembly, Rafsanjani, nicknamed "the shark," beat Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a hardliner even by Iranian standards. The defeat of Jannati, a member of the Assembly of Experts who is very close to Ahmadinejad's mentor, Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, was perceived as a blow that could weaken Ahmadinejad. Yet today the star of Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards continues to rise, and the power base and influence of Rafsanjani, who could (still) constitute a challenge to the current regime, is fading. In the June 2009 elections, Rafsanjani hesitantly supported the reform camp and even called for the release of the demonstrators in a Friday sermon (July 17, 2009). But by refraining from giving sermons in Tehran since then, his influence has shrunk greatly, even while he continues to publish occasional statements on his website. A former president of the Expediency Discernment Council (1989-1997), Rafsanjani still holds on to power as chairman of the council, and in the West he is often regarded as the "good conservative" — someone who can initiate changes. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, he has been trying to contain the growing influence of the Revolutionary Guards. The division between him and the elite under the leadership of Ahmadinejad continues to deepen. Rafsanjani's family members are under government surveillance, particularly his daughter, Faezeh, and her son. Faezeh, a member of the Green Movement, was arrested on multiple occasions. Revolutionary Guards spokesmen and other senior Iranians claim that they incited against the regime before, during, and after the June 2009 elections. The perception that Rafsanjani advised Khomeini to stop the war against Iraq also plays into the rivalry with the Guards. Article 150 of the Iranian Constitution establishes that "The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, organized in the early days of the triumph of the Revolution, is to be maintained so that it may continue in its role of guarding the Revolution and its achievements." The Guards are interpreting this article very broadly. Today, the Revolutionary Guards are gradually completing their takeover of Iran, as Rafsanjani and other senior figures of the first generation of the revolution are being pushed out of positions of power and are being replaced by the Guards and their allies in positions of religious leadership. Despite international sanctions and growing international attention to the political developments in the Middle East, the Iranian regime is still confident enough to act against those, among them Rafsanjani, who played a central role in the history of revolutionary Iran. Additionally, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, Mohammad Khatami, and other leaders of the reform movement have felt the regime's noose tightening around them in the past few weeks. While in the past the Iranian regime avoided cracking down on them harshly, it seems that today they are showing less restraint. The Constraints on the Revolutionary Guards Are Eroding Since its establishment, the Revolutionary Guards have built up their role to "guard the Revolution and its achievements." Ahmadinejad's presidency represents a golden opportunity for the organization, which is attempting, now more than ever, to recreate in practice the first days of the revolution — expressing revolutionary passion through the support of terrorist groups and "liberation movements" in the Middle East and beyond. The Revolutionary Guards see in the current developments in the Middle East fertile ground to expand its activities in order to gain influence among Islamist elements in Arab countries that are experiencing great historic changes. Currently, the Guards can easily activate sleeper cells in the Arab countries and increase assistance to the rising Islamist elements (especially to Shiites). This happens at a time when the opponents of such an adventurous policy, like Rafsanjani, are getting weaker. In this context, the changes within the Revolutionary Guards and the appointment of Ali Akbar Salehi as Minister of Foreign Affairs indicate the eroding constraints facing the policy of exporting the revolution. The growing self-confidence of the Revolutionary Guards is displayed decisively in its continuous weapons shipments to terror groups in Africa and the Middle East. For example, most recently, the ship Victoria carried advanced weaponry including C-704 anti-ship missiles and mortars (like those that are fired at Israeli towns) to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Gaza. This also testifies to the strengthening of Iran's strategic cooperation with Syria. Taking Revenge Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards are taking revenge on the old guard of the revolution and are turning towards the outside world — the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. They aim to turn Iran into a world player that can influence global events. Weapons smuggling to the Middle East and Africa, and drug trafficking in Latin America present opportunities for changing the playing field. In the shadow of the changes in Middle East and the catastrophe in Japan, Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program. The missions undertaken by the Revolutionary Guards since its establishment, and even more so since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, have changed the organization and its role in Iranian society. Since its foundation at the time of the revolution as scattered groups in various Iranian cities with loose ties, the Revolutionary Guards have developed into an economic-military-political powerhouse, in practice, the central power and influence in Iran. All those who were able to oppose this process — Rafsanjani and others — have been pushed aside in order for the Revolutionary Guards to slowly complete their takeover of Iran. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
INTIFADA MEANS WAR
Posted by Asaf Romirowsky, March 27, 2011. |
|
The Arabic term Intifada connotes awakening or uprising and was first used during the 1987 uprising against Israel. It is also used in the Palestinian narrative in the sense of "to shake up or wake up" the world and Israel to all the wrong that was done to the Palestinians as a result of the Israeli "occupation." Practically, this idea, that any means including violence may be used in the face of "occupation" has given Palestinians the carte blanche to do whatever they want whenever they want with no consequences for their actions. Yasser Arafat's ultimate goal in his day was to make the Palestinian cause the flagship for the Arab world at large. Until the Palestinians receive the justice they are divinely owed, the theory went, the Arab world should not rest. Over the years, the Palestinian cause has been used by many Arab regimes and Islamist groups like al-Qaeda and others as a public relations tool to galvanize their respective causes without really intention of helping the Palestinians. Historically, the first Intifada began in 1987. The second so-called al-Aqsa intifada took place in 2000, and now according to a Facebook page the third Intifada is scheduled to erupt on May 15 — the Palestinian Nakba Day — the catastrophe day. This is the Palestinian interpretation of Israel's creation in 1948. With the ongoing upheaval in the region from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and now even Syria, the Palestinians have no plan to sit idly by and not join the party. In the past, the Intifada was the vehicle to unite and bind Palestinians to their Arab/Muslim brethren. Recently, Hamas praised Tunisia's Intifada and the overturning of the corrupt Ben Ali regime. Hamas went as far as saying that the Tunisian Intifada was a "milestone in contemporary Arab history", and asserted that injustice can only be countered with sacrifice. This language is an excellent illustration of Arafat's legacy, the Palestinianization of the Arab/Muslim world. Intifada in academia Intifada is not limited to the Middle East but has penetrated the halls of US academia. This is demonstrated by individuals like Hatem Bazian, an Arabic lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley who following the War in Iraq stated that "it's about time that we have an Intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here." There is also Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, a professor of the History of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Georgetown University, who explained simply that, "Intifada is something that Muslims and Palestinians all approve of. It means 'just get off my back'." No one should doubt that Intifada has violent terroristic goals that have been demonstrated by the level of violence used against Israelis since the first and second Intifadas. As a mechanism that justifies all violence in the name of "resistance," the Intifada has allowed continued violence, including the latest rampage of killings of innocent Israelis in Itamar and now in Jerusalem. One of the mistakes Israel has made is adopting the phrase itself to describe its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. By adopting an Arabic phrase with clear goals into Israeli political and cultural vernacular Israel has, in effect, legitimated the Palestinian point of view. One result is that the violent asymmetrical war Israel has been fighting for the past 24 years has been relegated to an "uprising," which implies that the means are justifiable, instead of a full blown war. Internally, Israel's government understands that Palestinians are conducting a war but for unclear reasons it simply declines to call it what it is. Even now, key Israeli government figures like former Shin Bet chief and now Knesset member Avi Dichter have been warning against a third Intifada. Dichter is wrong. "Shaking up" does not include cutting children's throats; terrorist wars do. The cycles of Intifada have been more beneficial to Palestinians than their so-called quest for Palestinian statehood. Intifada allows Palestinians to use and justify violence whenever necessary, and to use the victimhood card as needed. By continually harping on "occupation," Palestinian victims automatically explain and justify moral depravity of violence as not only exceptional but legitimate. In turn, regional Intifadas only validate the ongoing Palestinian one. Whether or not the increasing violence against Israel will be called a "third Intifada" or something more honest, until Palestinians choose a different vehicle Israel will be forced to combat their violence in a way that leaves no room for interpretation. Asaf Romirowsky is a senior fellow at EMET (the Endowment for Middle East Truth) and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum
This appeared today in
YNet News
|
|
ANTI-ISRAEL INCITEMENT IN THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY CONTINUED IN THE LAST QUARTER
Posted by Bryna Berch, March 25, 2011. |
|
This below comes from Prime Minister's Media Adviser. They've taken to monitoring Palestinian Arab incitement. We know incitement by more familiar terms: bad-mouthing Israel every where in every way while expecting Israel to defend them, give them jobs, free and state-of-the art medical care when the PA hospitals aren't up to the job, electricity, water, etc. Incitement includes denying the connection between Jews and Jewish historical and holy sites. The saddest-funniest bit below is "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to establish an index designed to assist in professionally and transparently monitoring the level of incitement, within the Palestinian Authority, against the Government and citizens of Israel. This was in order to motivate the Palestinian Authority to halt the incitement and promote a culture of peace." Motivate the PA to halt the incitement. Like maybe they don't know what they were doing. And if you just tell them it isn't nice, why of course they'll stop. Isn't the Media Advisor clever to use such an effective way to stop the Arab hate campaign against Israel? |
|
Strategic Affairs Ministry Director-General Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Yossi Kuperwasser today (Sunday), 13.3.11, briefed the Cabinet on Palestinian Authority incitement against Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to establish an index designed to assist in professionally and transparently monitoring the level of incitement, within the Palestinian Authority, against the Government and citizens of Israel. This was in order to motivate the Palestinian Authority to halt the incitement and promote a culture of peace. The index of the last quarter of 2010 indicates a continuation of incitement against Israel in the PA. Familiar patterns of incitement reappeared, including — inter alia — the glorification of terrorists and jihad as part of the national ethos, severe libels against Israel, anti-Semitic stereotypes in the official Palestinian media and the denial of any connection between the Jewish People and the holy places. The index checks — on a quarterly basis — the Palestinian media, education system curriculum, leaders' remarks, sermons, advertisements on the Internet, basic documents, etc. The examination assesses the relative weight of the foregoing in the incitement and in building a culture of peace. The index is divided into four main areas: Explicit incitement towards violence and terrorism, encouraging an atmosphere of violence and terrorism, incitement towards hatred and demonization, and not preparing hearts for peace. Among the findings were revealed several examples of the extreme demonization of Israelis and the use of anti-Semitic motifs. Prominent among these is a guide for a program on PA television that purports to show methods of torture used by the Israel Prison service, such as burning prisoners with irons and amputating organs. Official Palestinian television broadcast a children's program in which viewers were told that, "The Jews are our enemies," and that, "Israeli soldiers are wild animals." At the start of today's Cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that we are witnessing severe incitement. "We know that there is supposed to be a soccer game there in memory of a suicide terrorist who murdered and wounded dozens of people on Jaffa Road, in Jerusalem. Regrettably, we see the PA awarding scholarships to the families of murderers. We see that they name squares after terrorists who murdered dozens of Israelis. These do not jibe with education for peace," the Prime Minister said. |
|
ISLAMOFACISM MAKES A MUTUAL CHRISTIAN-JEWISH-ISRAEL DEFENCE PACT A NO BRAINER
Posted by Bill Narvey, March 25, 2011. |
|
This Open Appeal to Rabbis and Jewish Interfaith/Community Leaders Is NOT politically or ideologically Based Dear Rabbis and Jewish Community Leaders in Canada and the U.S. Whether one is for or against a 2 state solution, Israeli rights to Judea and Samaria or Israeli expansion into and right to live in Judea and Samaria, Palestinian claimed rights vs. Israeli claimed rights, pressuring Israel to make greater concessions for peace, singularly blaming Israel for the peace process being off the rails and the like, there is one glaring fact that all should readily admit is beyond dispute. The primary, if not most significant impediment to peace between Jews and Arabs for almost the past century and between Israel and Arabs/Palestinians since 1948, is intractable Jew/Israel hatred rampant throughout the Middle East and Palestinian society. That Jew/Israel hatred finds expression in the Hamas Charter and while more moderate language is found in the PLO/Fatah charter, both charters call for the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel. Jew/Israel hatred is also found in the rhetoric of Palestinian leaders, especially in Arabic, in their glorification of Palestinian terrorists who have murdered Israeli civilians, including children, in the intransigent Palestinian demands on Israel, far too great for Israel to agree to without committing national suicide and in the culture of Jew/Israel hatred that both Hamas and Fatah nurture in all levels of their society. We have just borne witness to yet another manifestation of that Jew hatred in seeing the joyous reaction of ordinary Palestinians who screamed and danced for joy in the streets, passing out candies to their fellow Palestinians to celebrate the heinous murders of the Fogel family. This scene is a repeat of ordinary Palestinians' reaction on hearing word of 9/11 where 3,000 Americans were murdered by al-Qaeda. That memory is still vivid and we cannot afford to lose sight of it. All the foregoing should be instructive to both Jews and Christians, not the least of which lesson is that this Palestinian Jew/Israel hatred, is no different than the unbridled intractable hatred that Islamofacists exhibit towards Jews and Israel. Islamofascists, be they leaders, supporters or sympathizers do not however, reserve their intractable hatred for Jews alone, though Jews top the list. Christians along with Westerners generally, come in 2nd. In the past 15 years or so especially, there has been a growing number of reports of increasingly frequent, intense and even lethal Muslim persecution of Christians in Muslim nations, not just by leaders, but by ordinary citizens. These reports, if they make it into the main stream media, are usually on some back page. The recent New Year's day lethal attack by Egyptians on their Copt Christian fellow citizens was an exception. This persecution against Christians has also been evident not just in Muslim nations, but in Palestinian society which for instance, has resulted in a decline of Christian numbers in Judea and Samaria including, a well reported marked decline of Christians in Bethlehem from about 80% down to below 20%. Add to that, home grown Islamofacist/Jihadist rhetoric and agit-prop advocacy/activism in North America and the EU, while being anti-Israel and anti-semitic, has also been anti-Christian and anti-Western. The Jihadist sympathizing Muslim activists in the West, have used our own freedoms of speech and religion and our multiculturalism against us, along with the fear factor of their potential violent actions if they do not get their way, to gain not only tolerance for, but appeasement of their incessant intolerant demands that we conform to their sensitivities, sensibilities, wants and views. It is worse than that however. Authorities in the EU, Canada and the States are increasingly finding, charging and prosecuting Islamofacists that have secretly raised funds for Islamofacists in foreign lands, plotting and even carrying out terrorist plots and individual actions on our own Western soil. The transformation of Europe into Eurabia is happening before our eyes and its completion seems at this juncture, to be inevitable. That process is already underway here in North America. If we Westerners do not draw a line, not in the sand, but in the bedrock of our culture against these homegrown Islamofacists and sympathizers, we here in North America will soon find ourselves drawing ever closer to the Eurabic fate of the EU, unless something stirs the EU to rise up and fight back before their transformation is complete. The home grown Islamofacists however, are not acting on their own initiative. They are being guided, inspired, galvanized, and fueled by the hatred and intolerance of Islamofacists for Jews/Israel/Christians and the West and which Islamofacists operate in the Middle East, including the Jew/Israel hating Palestinians. The over 17,000 terrorist attacks in the world, just since 9/11 are almost all inspired by the Islamic beliefs of the Islamofacists, of which al Qaeda is just one of a great many Islamofacist organizations. While we Jews, Christians and Westerners, be they religious or secular but, nurtured on Judeo-Christian values, see these 17,000 plus terror attacks as the manifestation of evil, the Islamofacists, their supporters and sympathizers see it as proof of their success in advancing Islam's march to dominate the world and subjugate all non-believers. It is that perception of success that inspires all the Islamofacists of all stripes, to re-double their efforts to carry on their dar al Islam fight against the infidel dar al Harb. Christian evangelicals, regardless of their end of days beliefs and some other Christian churches and organizations, support Israel because of their other Christian beliefs that make Israel's continued existence a religious imperative for them. They also see however, that the Palestinians, some Arab nations and numerous Muslim terrorist organizations are all hate filled Islamofacists in their own ways and as such, they are the very same persecutors and enemies of Christians and Westerners as they are persecutors and enemies of the Jews and Israel. All this leads one to the no brainer conclusion that Jews and Christians are natural allies against anti-semitic and anti-Christian Islamofacist bigots, whoever and wherever they are. So why has there not been a mutual defence pact entered into between Jews and Christians thus far, where they are joined at the hip to aggressively defend against the beliefs, views and heinous actions of these Islamofacists that hurt them both? You would think that because Jews of their relatively small number and Israel as a tiny country surrounded by so many enemies, that they would be reaching out to Christians to form such pact. If Christian-Jewish interfaith meetings are any indication, Jews have been loathe to raise any issues regarding anti-Jewish/Israel hatreds in parts of the Muslim world including North American communities. Jews are even loathe to raise in interfaith meetings, the issue of anti-semitism that still marks some churches and Christian organizations, some of which are active members of the BDS movement. On this point, see: Daring to Ask Where Interfaith Relations Are At and Where It Must Get To? http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=13985 To be sure there are many Christians who do speak out against anti-semitism, be it coming from Islamofacists or fellow Christians and who do give support to Israel that is much appreciated. One such Christian is Laurie Cardoza Moore, President of Proclaiming Justice to the Nations (PJTN) who has recognized the need for this obvious alliance to exist between the Jewish and Christian communities and she is trying to do something about it. Ms. Cardoza Moore also readily admits that there is still anti-semitism in Christendom and she has been daring to speak out against it. I recommend you visit her website and read what she has to say:
I mention her however, for another reason and one pertinent to this appeal to our Rabbis and interfaith/community leaders. Ms. Cardoza Moore is distributing PJTN's own Telly Award winning
documentary The Forgotten People — Christianity and The
Holocaust. The trailer for the documentary is available at:
Based on this trailer, this documentary has a 3 fold message. 1. An unequivocal admission of Christian responsibility for anti-semitism these past 2 millennia, that anti-semitism is still alive and well in some Christian quarters and it is up to Christians to fight against not only Christian based anti-semitism, but all anti-semitism; 2. The Palestinians and Arab nations that support the Palestinians in their ongoing low grade war with Israel, evince the same beliefs and share and act on the same Jew/Israel hatred as Islamofacists who are also enemies of Christendom; 3. Christians must join in support and defence of Israel for in so doing they are joining Israel in defending against the war that the Islamofacists of varying names, be they nations, societies or organizations have declared against Jews, Christians, non-Muslims and the West. Ms. Cardoza Moore however is not just distributing this documentary video through her PJTN organization. She is getting various Christian congregations and organizations to host events to show this video and engage in discussion in that regard , which events are open to Christians, Jews and all others who wish to attend. I ask all of you, if Ms. Cardoza Moore can do all this, why in the world can't you Rabbis and Jewish interfaith and community leaders not seek her and others like her out, to partner with in establishing a pro-active mutual defence pact organization that will vigorously go after gaining support from both Christians and Jews throughout North America in order to vigorously defend and fight against anti-semitism and the Islamofacists who threaten all of us and to support and defend Israel? Why not order the PJTN full documentary and then approach Christian churches and organizations to co-sponsor and hold events to show the documentary, engage in discussion that is sure to follow and use the opportunity to sign up members to a new mutual defence pact organization? Please do not tell us that you fear offending some in the Muslim community and drawing an angry reaction from some agit-prop activists in the Muslim community who could accuse you and any Churches that co-sponsor such events, of being bigots, racists or Islamophobes. The large majority of Muslims in our communities and many friends of Jews and Christians will know that such Christian-Jewish mutual defence pact organization is not directed against them, but only against the Islamofacists, their supporters and sympathizers that disseminate and incite hatred against and actively persecute and attack Jews/Israel/Christians and the West. Its time to stop being afraid of being falsely accused of being bigoted and instead have the courage to unequivocally call those Islamofacists who would call you down, for being the bigots that they are. I am not just asking why you cannot partner with the Laurie Moore Cardozas to form a strong Christian-Jewish mutual defence pact organization. I am challenging you to do just that. It is a no brainer, but it will take guts to do that. Do you have the guts? Bill Narvey P.S. I encourage discussion on the foregoing, not only amongst the Rabbis and Jewish community leaders, but amongst all the ordinary grass roots Jews whom I have included in this e mail, including their families, friends and e mail contacts. Contact Bill Narvey by email at wpnarvey@shaw.ca |
|
YOU'RE A "FOOLISH" MAN, CHARLIE BROWN
Posted by Norma Zager, March 25, 2011. |
|
As Charlie Brown runs toward the waiting football held aloft by Lucy, he lifts his leg anticipating a kick that will hurl the ball into space when suddenly, Lucy grabs the ball and regales with laughter as poor Charlie Brown once again falls flat on his face. Watching terrorist events unfold in Israel leaves me with an unsettling feeling the United States is not far behind. One often ponders the acceptance with which Israelis move ahead so quickly following murder and mayhem, and yet we are beginning to see the very same mindset embedding itself into US society. Is this a bad thing? Absolutely. Will it weaken us as a nation? Most definitely. It obviously already has. Them's pretty strong words, Norma, some might say. I stand by them and I have proof. When Israel began its journey into nationhood, it was born out of dedication, blood and violence. The Arabs, like the British at Concord, refused to accept a new reality without shedding as much enemy blood as inhumanly possible. I am not equating Israel with the United States, who fought against British rule and confiscated land from the Indians, the rightful owners. Israel's situation was unique in that its return to nationhood came after numerous claims and legitimate titles had been ignored and disregarded for centuries. However, it is not the legitimacy of the state I am addressing, only the mindset. As someone pointed out last evening in a lecture, when one battles for a cause, there must be a victorious agenda. George Washington's armies had no thought of surrender, only total victory and the demise of British rule. The goal was clear, their blood was boiling, their dedication unfaltering. In 1948, statehood and death were the only two options Jews entertained. After the Arab League was formed and they chose as their first task war against the new state of Israel, the Jewish choice seemed predetermined, death or freedom. Now both countries have become fat, lazy and cavalier about their own freedoms and history. There is a difference of course in the fact Israel chooses to ignore its truth, and the United States is fervently rewriting ours. Our forefathers and their struggles are barely recognizable any longer. In Israel, the words of former leaders are carefully buried and ignored as a new politico emerges. They have been worn down by constant attacks, murder and tragedy. Their former fighting spirit is dulled by the memory of atrocities against their children, bombs exploding constantly in their schoolyards and innocent victims blown to bits in public places or modes of transportation. This has been their legacy and it has exacted a great toll. The ploy has worked brilliantly. Israelis care more for achieving peace, at any cost, than maintaining statehood and strength. Israel is the abused wife who believes perhaps a good dinner will prevent a nightly beating from a brutal husband. But it isn't about her. It isn't about anything she can do or any meal she can fix. It isn't about Israel and any land they can give. Land for peace is simply Charlie Brown kicking one more football held by Lucy. She will always ensure Charlie lands on his tush, weakened and dispirited. And now we have the United States slowly converting and morphing into a victim mentality. The World Trade Towers, the Underwear Bomber, Fort Hood, multiple attempts we have seen fail and the unknown hundreds or thousands the government hides from view daily are evident in our new collective psyche. We have become a battered woman, seeking to appease our abuser. The Muslim World has been battling for domination since its inception ions ago and they have learned one thing well. Wearing down an enemy will always work. Slowly and meticulously they are fighting us daily on numerous fronts. They are in no rush and exhibit enormous patience. Simply put, they are on a different timeline. They use our courtrooms and our own government to distort our laws and destroy us. On the battlefields of the Middle East and in our own schoolrooms and college campuses liberalism enables their agenda. Eric Holder defends a Muslim woman who wants time off to visit Mecca; college campuses welcome programs like the Olive Tree Initiative that sends students to Palestine for brainwashing against Israel. Teachers in public schools push liberal agendas to young students against their will. Observers would wonder at our stupidity to allow this war to rage unanswered. It is not that we are stupid; Israelis and Americans are far from stupid. It is that we are human beings and the enemy is not. A man against a tiger is no match. Especially when that tiger is hungry for blood and sustenance. A prey, less or most tasty, must find safe haven, else he be devoured alive. It is amusing at times as one watches in wonder at the absurdity of allowing an enemy so obvious and transparent to win battle after battle with no resistance. Is it our leaders? Yes, that is much of the reason for the latest abundance of victories we witness. However, in the end, it is only "We the People" who must ultimately stand and fight. For when they come for us, and they will come, there will be only ourselves standing between evil and our children. The mistake Israelis make is in believing the enemy wants their land. It is their lives and the lives of their children for which evil is battling. And winning. Americans are no less naïve. Handing over the keys to a kingdom will only ensure death to the ruler. King Louis and Marie Antoinette learned that lesson too late. Ignoring a war does not nullify its consequences. Israel will soon have to succumb and accept their options are exhausted. The United States is not far behind. We have chosen a path that also leads toward destruction. We must examine once again the words Hope and Change and ask ourselves, as though our lives depended on the answer, because it does: Hope for what and Change for whom? There is no meal we can make that will stop the beatings. A victim must fight back, change the mindset from victim to victor, and attack the problem to bring about a change. Have we suffered enough black eyes to get up off the floor, pick up a weapon and fight to win? I wonder. Th The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century. The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover. Contact: bussel@me.com |
|
THE GRAND MARCHING SONG OF THE CRUSADERS AGAINST ISRAELI APARTHEID
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 25, 2011. |
|
We are fighters against Israeli apartheid. We support BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) against Israel. We are progressive, caring, socially advanced, egalitarian and freedom-loving Anti-Zionists. Here we present to you our Grand Marching Song. Set to John Philip Sousa music. All together now: We despise apartheid.
We believe in enlightened government and progress.
We believe in peace.
We believe in democracy.
We believe in freedom.
We believe in the freedom of speech and of the press.
We believe in self-determination and self-definition for all.
We oppose violence.
We believe in human dignity.
We believe in human rights.
We believe in fraternity and the brotherhood of nations.
We favor equality.
We favor minority rights.
We believe in freedom.
We believe in a free press.
We believe in freedom to practice religion.
We believe in affirmative action preferences for those who suffered
from past discrimination.
We believe in progress and enlightenment.
We believe in egalitarianism.
We love children and living things.
We hate it when people blame the victims.
We believe in education.
We believe in multiculturalism.
We believe in prosperity.
We believe in equal citizenship.
We believe in freedom of expression.
We believe the human rights of Arabs must be protected.
We are upset by illiteracy.
We believe in women's dignity and equality.
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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
MK MICHAEL BEN-ARI FORCES POLICE TO PROMISE RETURN OF STOLEN SHEEP
Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, March 25, 2011. |
|
This was written by Gavriel Queenann for Arutz-7 (Israelnationalnews.com), It appeared on www.michelbenari.com |
|
Realizing an ultimatum made by MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) to unilaterally act against Arab sheep thieves if police continue to look the other way, a group of several dozen Jews Thursday tried to recover a herd of sheep that was stolen from Jewish shepherds in Tel-Zion. At about 2:00 A.M., a group of Arab rustlers entered the Jewish community of Tel-Zion and stole a flock of sheep worth 50 thousand dollars, smuggling them back to their own village of Qalandiya. In an conversation with Israel National News, the flock's owner said, "Last night the Arabs stole 30 sheep. Just two years ago I suffered a similar theft and it took me a long time to recover. I built that herd myself and everything went down the drain." "I went to the army and the police and they arrived at the scene and just told me 'don't worry,'" he continued. "I simply feel helpless. Nobody lifts a finger, I told the commander of the sector: if you are silent about the theft today it will cost human life tomorrow." MK Michael Ben Ari then turned to Israel's Ministry of Public Security, and said: "If within three hours the security forces do not enter the village, I'll go to Qalandiya myself to pull out the herd. Today it's sheep, tomorrow it's slaughtered children. I will not allow an Itamar II." At about 7:00 P.M. a group of several dozen Jews flocked to the entrance of Kochav Yaakov near Tel-Zion and, led by MK Ben-Ari, and his parlimentary aides Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Gvir, headed for Qalandiya to liberate the sheep. MK Ben-Ari said, "Where the police will not act, we are forced to act to bring back our lost sheep." According to Baruch Marzel, who spoke with Israel National News by telephone, the activists managed to evade police and army officers until they were within a few hundred meters of Qalandiya. Marzel said, "The officers promised us they would go in and return the sheep tonight. This is what we wanted... to force their hand. Before we did this they would not even speak with us." Israel National Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld refused to discuss the incident itself, telling Israel National News, "I'm not going to deal with this right now because right now we're dealing with much more important things like heightened security and the marathon. This isn't important. Just to put things in perspective for you." The problem of theft — and sometimes outright robbery — targeting Jewish farms by Arabs in southern Israel has been pervasive for many years, with losses to rapine rising to tens of millions of shekels per annum. Such incidents sometimes have tragic endings. In January 2007, Jewish farmer Shai Dromi was aquitted of manslaughter after he was put on trial for killing one of four Bedouin men who poisoned his dog and came in the night to steal his flocks. Dromi, who feared for his life, shot at the men's legs in self-defense, but one of them died of bloodloss after the incident (Dromi did attempt to administer first aid at the time). Dromi's case garnered national attention and resulted in the Dromi Law, which allows farmers to protect themselves and their property. Contact Barbara Ginsberg by email at BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com |
|
JUDGE GOLDSTONE VS. THE GOLDSTONE REPORT?
Posted by Gerald M. Steinberg, March 25, 2011. |
|
During last week's Israel Apartheid Week (IAW), the now infamous Goldstone Report on the 2008-2009 Gaza war was the basis for much discussion. Since its release in September 2009, anti-Israel activists have pointed to the report's conclusions as evidence for Israeli "war crimes" and "apartheid," and to bolster their boycott campaigns. However, in a series of public appearances in California, the author of the report, Judge Richard Goldstone, seems to be slowly distancing himself from his United Nations report, which wrongly condemned Israel for alleged war crimes. At the same time, Goldstone continues to repeat many of most damaging accusations against the Jewish state, despite evidence that they are based on false claims. In a talk at Stanford University in January, Goldstone acknowledged that the U.N. Human Rights Council, which appointed him to head the so-called investigation, was biased against Israel. "They repeatedly rush to pass condemnatory resolutions in the face of alleged violations of human rights law by Israel, but fail to take similar action in the face of even more serious violations by other states," he acknowledged. This was an important admission — albeit two years too late. Logically, the inherent bias at the UNHRC should have led Goldstone to refuse to partake in the investigation of Israel, first launched in January 2009. The disrepute of the UNHRC led Mary Robinson, who had served as the U.N. commissioner of human rights, to decline the position when offered. Goldstone was subsequently chosen, in part because the UNHRC sought to appoint "prominent Jews known for their anti-Israel views to head their investigations," as was reported by Human Rights Watch founder Robert Bernstein in a November 2010 speech at the University of Nebraska. From the start, the 2009 UNHRC resolution targeted only Israel; as usual, the war crimes of Hamas and the Palestinians were entirely ignored. As a result, the Israeli government refused to provide Goldstone and the UNRC any assistance. In Goldstone's confused attempts to both acknowledge this bias and continue to act as if it did not exist, he expressed "dismay" that Israeli officials had denounced his farce. Recently, during an event at the University of California at Berkeley, Goldstone declared, "I pleaded with [Israel] to meet with me. ... I had nurtured the hope that the Israeli government would take this opportunity to have a U.N. platform to put its version into the commission. It didn't." Attempting to justify his decision to proceed with the report, Goldstone has claimed to have been given a revised mandate by the rotating UNHRC president. This is clearly false. Of the "36 incidents" investigated by Goldstone, not one relates to the thousands of Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza, each a war crime targeting Israeli citizens. The second fatal flaw is Goldstone's reliance on unsourced and unverified claims, many of which were made by ideologues closely aligned with both the UNHRC and Hamas. Hundreds of "references" in this report (often contradictory) are copied from unverifiable claims that were made by anti-Israel political groups. Although Goldstone now recognizes Israel's right to defend itself, he continues to reference unsupported allegations against the Jewish state. For example, Goldstone has continued to repeat erroneous civilian casualty statistics, which were used as evidence to justify the war crimes charge. He's also rejected the public statement by Hamas interior minister Fathi Hammad indicating that false claims were made in the report. The combination of a totally biased mandate and the reliance on false or unverifiable allegations from equally biased groups should have led to the immediate dismissal of the Goldstone report. But the powerful coalition led by these groups continues to exploit both false claims and Goldstone's own reputation, thereby compounding the damage. In his Berkeley presentation, Goldstone reportedly stated that "the powerful don't like to be looked at and judged." Goldstone is a powerful individual, and in failing to address the overwhelming and substantive criticism — and moving far too slowly, if at all, to correct the enormous damage that he has caused — Judge Goldstone continues to abuse his power.
Professor Gerald M. Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution that tracks NGOs that claim to protect human rights, particularly in the Middle East.
This article is archived at
|
|
UNDERSTANDING THE THIRD TERROR WAR: The aftermath of the Jerusalem bombing
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 25, 2011. |
|
This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jewish
World Review
|
|
What are we to make of the fact that no one has taken credit for Wednesday's bombing in Jerusalem? Wednesday bombing was not a stand-alone event. It was part and parcel of the new Palestinian terror war that is just coming into view. As Israel considers how to contend with the emerging onslaught, it is important to notice how it differs from its predecessors. On a military level, the tactics the Palestinians have so far adopted are an interesting blend of state-of-the-art missile attacks with old fashioned knife and bomb-in-the-briefcase attacks. The diverse tactics demonstrate that this war is a combination of Iranian-proxy war and local terror pick-up cells. The attacks are also notable for their geographic dispersion and for the absence thus far of suicide attacks. For the public, the new tactics are not interesting and the message they send is nothing new. With our without suicide bombers, Israelis understand that we are entering a new period of unremitting fear, where we understand that we are in danger no matter where we are. Whether we're in bed asleep, or our way to work or school, or sitting down on a park bench or at a restaurant, whether we're in Rishon Lezion, Sderot, Jerusalem, Itamar or Beersheba, we are in the Palestinians' crosshairs. All of us are "settlers." All of us are in danger. The military innovations are important for IDF commanders who need to figure out how to answer the public's demand for security. They will have to draw operational conclusions about the challenges this mix of tactics and strategic architecture poses. While the military rationales of the various Palestinian terrorists are important, like its two predecessors, the new Palestinian terror war is first and foremost a political war. Like its two predecessors which began in 1987 and 2000, the new terror war's primary purpose is not to murder Jews. Killing is just an added perk. The new war's primary purpose is to weaken Israel politically in order to bring about its eventual collapse. And it is in this political context that the various terror armies' refusal to take responsibility for Wednesday's attack in Jerusalem, and their moves to shroud in ambiguity much of responsibility for their recent terror activity is noteworthy. In the past, Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were quick to take credit for massacres. Initially it seemed as though that standard practice was being continued in the newest round of murder. Fatah's Aksa Martyrs Brigades for instance were quick to take credit for the massacre of the Fogel family in Itamar on March 12. Hamas seemed to be competing for credit when its forces held a public celebration of the atrocity in Gaza City on March 13. But then Fatah withdrew its claim of responsibility and Hamas never claimed credit. As for the rocket and missile barrages from Gaza, Hamas took credit for the 58 projectiles shot off on southern Israel last Saturday. But then it let Islamic Jihad take credit for the longer range Katyusha attacks on Rishon Lezion, Beersheba, Gedera and Ashdod this week. And again, no one took credit for the bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday. What does this sudden bout of modesty tell us about how the Palestinian terror masters view the current onslaught against Israel? What does it teach us about their assessment of their political challenges and goals? In the two previous terror wars, the terror groups had two motivations for taking credit for their attacks. The first reason was to expand their popularity. In Palestinian society, the more Jews you kill the more popular you are. The main reason Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections was because the Palestinians believed that Hamas terror was responsible for Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005. Even though Fatah actually killed more Jews than Hamas did between 2000 and 2005, Hamas reaped greater rewards for its attacks because its record was unblemished by political engagement with Israel. The second reason the various groups have always been quick to take credit for attacks was because they wanted to show their state sponsors that they were putting their arms, training and financial support to good use. Saddam Hussein and the Saudi royals paid handsome rewards to the families of killed and captured terrorists. Over the past several decades, Iran, Syria and Hizbullah have spent hundreds of millions of dollars arming, training and financing Palestinian terror cells from Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike. The fact that today neither Hamas nor Fatah is interested in taking credit for Wednesday's bombing in Jerusalem or for massacre of the Fogel family is a signal that something fundamental is changing in the political dynamic between the two factions. Before considering what the change may be, a word of explanation about Islamic Jihad is in order. Islamic Jihad was by Iran in 1988. Unlike Hamas and Fatah, Islamic Jihad has no political aspirations. It has no political operatives and it is content to limit its operations to terrorism. After the much larger and more powerful Hamas subordinated its command and control to Iran in 2005, Islamic Jihad has served as nothing more than a Hamas sub-contractor. It carries out and takes credit for attacks when Hamas doesn't wish to do so. There are two plausible internal Palestinian explanations for Fatah's and Hamas's newfound reticence and they are not mutually exclusive. The first explanation of their silence is that the recent talk about Fatah and Hamas forming a unity government is serious. Fatah's announcement Thursday that it has arrested two Islamic Jihad terrorists in connection with the Jerusalem bombing is notable in this vein. It signals that after four years of fighting Hamas forces in Judea and Samaria, Fatah is looking for a more politically convenient group of usual suspects. The second reason that Hamas and Fatah may be keeping mum about who is responsible is because they both know who did it and they are using the terror to gain leverage against one another at the negotiating table. If Hamas is carrying out the attacks, it leaders may simply be using them to strengthen their bargaining position in the unity talks. Fatah knows that if Hamas takes credit for the attacks its mass popularity in Judea and Samaria will grow. And if Fatah is carrying them out, its leaders may be using them to show Hamas that they are serious about burying the hatchet with the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. While the internal political dynamics of the various Palestinian terror groups is interesting, it is not the main game in town. For both Fatah and Hamas, the most important target audience is Europe. But before we discuss how the Palestinians' assessment of Europe is connected to their move to obfuscate organizational responsibility for terrorism, it is necessary to consider the concrete political goal of their new terror war. Fatah is in the midst of a global campaign to build international support for a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence in September. From Israel's perspective, the campaign is threatening for two reasons. First, a unilaterally declared Palestinian state will be in a de facto state of war with Israel. Second, if the Palestinians secure international recognition for their "state" in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the move will place 500,000 Jews who live in these areas in the international crosshairs. Much of the discussion about this goal has centered on whether or not US President Barack Obama will veto a UN Security Council resolution endorsing such a declaration. And based on Obama's behavior to date, the Palestinians have good reason to believe that he may support their move. But in truth, the discussion about how the US will respond to the planned Palestinian declaration is largely beside the point. The point of the threatened declaration is not to get a UN Security Council resolution supporting it. The point is to get the EU to enact further sanctions against Israel. And this brings us back to the new policy of not taking credit for attacks on Israel, and to the decision to launch a new terror war in general. On the face of it, at such a sensitive time for the Palestinians diplomatically, it would seem that they would want to keep their traditional good cop-Fatah, bad cop-Hamas routine going and have Hamas take the credit for the recent attacks. Indeed, it would seem that the Palestinians would want to hold off on attacks altogether until after they declare independence. The fact that Fatah and Hamas have neither waited until after September to attack nor sought to differentiate themselves from one another as the attacks coalesce into a new terror campaign indicates strongly that the Palestinians no longer feel they need to pretend to oppose terror to maintain European support for their war against Israel. The Palestinians assess that Europe is swiftly moving towards the point where it no longer needs to pretend to be fair to Israel. The British, French and German votes in favor of the Palestinians' anti-Israel Security Council resolution last month were the latest sign that the key European governments have adopted openly hostile policies towards Israel. More importantly, these policies are not the consequence of Palestinian lobbying efforts and so Israel cannot hope to change them through counter-lobbying efforts. Europe's abandonment of even the guise of fairness towards Israel is the product of domestic political realities in Europe itself. Between the rapidly expanding political power of Europe's Muslim communities and the virulently anti-Israel positions nearly universally adopted by the European media, European governments are compelled to adopt ever more hostile positions towards Israel to appease their Israel-hating publics and Muslim communities. Take British Prime Minister David Cameron for example. When Cameron called Gaza "an open air prison" last year, it wasn't because he had just spoken to Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. And he certainly wasn't acting out of conviction. Cameron surely knew that his statement was an utter lie. And he also surely knew that Hamas is a jihadist terror group that shares the ideology of its fellow Muslim Brotherhood spin-off al Qaida. But for Cameron, far more important than Gaza's relative prosperity and Hamas's genocidal goals was the fact that in the last British elections, the UK's Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC-UK) successfully ousted six members of parliament who expressed support for Israel. The Palestinians recognize that they don't need to pretend to be good to get Europe to support them. After the people of Europe have been brainwashed by their media and intimidated by the Muslim communities, they have developed a Pavlovian response regarding Israel whereby every mention of Israel makes them hate it more. It doesn't matter the story is about the massacre of Israeli children or the bombing of synagogues and nursery schools. They know that Israel is the guilty party and expect the governments to punish it. What the Palestinian silence on who committed what atrocity tells us is that in this new terror war, the Palestinians believe they cannot lose. With Europe in tow, Fatah and Hamas feel free to join their forces and advance both militarily and politically. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
THE PALIN DOCTRINE
Posted by Ted Belman, March 25, 2011. |
|
Greta van Susteren interviewed Sarah Palin yesterday following her return from India and Israel but before her speech in Naples. Greta grilled her on Obama's policies on Libya, Israel and Obamacare. Greta was relentless and Palin handled everthing Greta threw at her. Palin didn't duck and weave. She was firm and decisive and articulate. She took Greta on in many issues and dominated her. I say this after I being dissappointed with her performance in India arguing her speech wasn't polished and her answers to questions were not articulate. In this interview, Palin articulated many of the policies and principles that would guide her presidency. The Palin Doctrine, if you will. What surprised me was how informed she was on the issues in Libya, given the fact that she has been very busy with her trip to India and Israel. On the peace process, she said that the US should pressure the Palestinians instead of Israel and shouldn't tell Israel where she can or cannot build. I was impressed. See the VIDEO here. Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
A PLACE OF SUPPOSED SAFETY
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 24, 2011. |
|
This was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared in Jerusalem Post and is archived at http://www.sarahhonig.com/?p=807. Honig is senior editorial writer for the Jerusalem Post. She previously served as the paper's long-time political correspondent. |
|
The gory butchering in Itamar of three sweet-faced youngsters (one of them three months old) and their gentle parents is unfortunately far from unique in the history of our land. The names of Udi, Ruth, Yoav, Elad and Hadas Fogel are tragically added to too long a list of names of Jewish families slaughtered in their homes by Arab marauders. There obviously were other victims in some 150 years of Arab terror — on school buses, in classrooms, in kindergartens and nurseries, in markets, near shopping malls, in hotels, at airports, in public conveyances, on city streets, in pizzerias and ice-cream parlors, in playgrounds, at the movies and wherever else folks routinely gather. But somehow the home is seen as sacred, a place of supposed safety, one's castle, one's nest. Homes weren't sanctuaries, however, on August 24, 1929, when at the instigation of a supposed man of God, infamous Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini (later Hitler's wartime accomplice in Berlin), hordes of Arabs descended on the tranquil and ancient Jewish community of Hebron. At the end of their rampage 67 Jews — men women, children, babies — lay dead. They weren't neatly assassinated. Some were decapitated and disemboweled. Limbs were severed, eyes gouged and all manner of ghastly unthinkable mutilation practiced. A preteen girl was raped by 13 heroes of the Palestinian revolution (before there was a State of Israel or occupation to rage against) and then hung upside down over an open flame to roast slowly to death. Hebron's was the most notorious massacre, but others were simultaneously perpetrated elsewhere. In the Jewish community of Safed, 21 were butchered as gruesomely (a cat was stuffed into one elderly woman's disemboweled stomach). In Motza, near Jerusalem, the Maklef family was slain, but nine-year-old Mordechai survived after he jumped from a second-story window. In 1952, at the age of 32, General Maklef became the country's third Chief of IDF General Staff. The mobs rioted countrywide for a week, discontinuing many centuries of uninterrupted Jewish life in Hebron, as well as in smaller Jewish enclaves like Gaza, Tulkarm and Nablus. On the ill-fated evening of August 13, 1936, several Arabs invaded the humble Unger dwelling in Safed's old Jewish Quarter, just as the family ate supper. They murdered the father, Alter — a 36-year-old Torah scribe — his daughters Yaffa and Hava (aged nine and seven) and the six-year-old son, Avraham. In his book Safed Annals, author Natan Shor includes the following eyewitness account from one of the first neighbors who chanced by: "We heard groans from the house. We entered and in the middle of a dark room — furnished only with a table, a broken chair and a bookcase crammed with mostly religious volumes — lay a man's body. His skull was bashed in. "Half the head was missing. We saw only a beard, part of a nose and the right eye... The corpse lay in a pool of blood and brain matter... In the next room amid the dishes, lay three little bloodied lifeless children. The above carnage and much more occurred before a Jewish state came to be, before Arabs created and perpetrated their own refugee problem, before Israel could be accused of occupation and before the advent of beyond-Green-Line settlement. Incited Arabs went on the warpath even without any dubious casus belli like mass aliya, Jewish independence or 1967's Six Day War. Significantly, their earliest targets were mostly members of the pre-Zionist "old community," comprised of religious traditional Jews who had resided for many generations particularly in the holy cities, passively awaiting the messiah. Just as Zionism was a false pretext for homicide, so is settlement. The Fogels of Itamar weren't knifed because they lived outside the Green Line. There was similar heartbreak inside the green-colored 1949 armistice demarcation. On April 11, 1974, Arab terrorists raided an apartment building on Kiryat Shmona's Rehov Yehuda Halevi 15. They went from flat to flat in a barbaric killing spree. Iris Sheetrit, then nine, who hid behind a closet, was her family's sole survivor. Her mother Fanny (30), sister Yocheved (11) and brothers Aharon (eight) and Mordechai (four) were all shot at point-blank range. In neighboring apartments the dead included Esther Cohen (40) and her children David (17) and Shula (14); Miriam and Ya'acov Guetta (both 30); Shimon Biton (30) and his children Avi (five) and Anat (two); Anissa Stern (47) and her daughter Rahel (eight); Shaul Ramjerkar (64) and Esther Wazana (60). Two soldiers who came to help were also killed. On November 19, 1974, another apartment house — in within-Green-Line Beit She'an — was likewise attacked. On April 22, 1979, terrorists broke into the within-Green-Line Nahariya apartment of Smadar and Danny Haran. They marched Danny and four-year-old Anat to the beach, where they smashed the child's head and shot her father. Smadar hid in a loft with the couple's two-year-old daughter, clamping her mouth to muffle the toddler's cries lest they be detected by the invaders, only to discover she had smothered Yael to death. The grim affinity of fate between Jews on both sides of the Green Line was lamentably demonstrated in 2002. On June 21 Fatah stalwarts burst into the Szabo home in Itamar and murdered the mother, Rachel, and her sons Avishai (five), Zvi (12) and Neria (15). Two other children, Avia and Asael, were wounded. Several months later, on November 10, this time inside the hallowed Green Line, in the very left-wing Kibbutz Metzer (of the Hashomer Hatza'ir movement), Fatah terrorists murdered two kibbutz members — Tirza Damari and Yitzhak Dori — outdoors. Earlier they broke into Revital Ohayon's quarters, as she was reading bedtime stories to her boys — five-year-old Matan and four-year-old Noam. All three were cold-bloodedly executed, with the mother found hugging/protecting her children. Bottom line, our enemies' chilling bloodlust isn't the product of recent events, of geography or of ideological affiliation. Nothing marked the Fogel family for death apart from its Jewish identity and the random opportunity to slaughter. The more things change the more they stay the same. All this is quite unpalatable for Israel's priests of political correctness, renowned for their impeccably refined tastes and humanitarian sensibilities. The mention of Arab bestiality is off-putting and may, heaven forefend, even serve the dastardly purposes of the left-wing's real enemy — Jewish political rivals. Conversely, sanitizing disagreeable details allows, for example, to depict the renewed Jewish presence in Hebron — Judaism's second-holiest city — as a reprehensible colonialist settlement. Moreover, remembrance can call attention to undesirable truths about the Arabs' genocidal Judeophobia and offer a clear glimpse into what would happen to this country's Jews were their self-defense to fail.
Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net
|
|
THE SECOND TIME AS FARCE
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 24, 2011. |
|
This below was written by Daniel Greenfield and it appeared on his website: SultanKnish.com "Best Analysis we've read!" Can any nation stand this exposure? The following article by Daniel Greenfield: "The Second Time as Farce" delivers right between the eyes. Read it twice — because once is insufficient. |
|
It was Hegel who said that history repeats itself because nations and governments fail to learn from it, but it was Karl Marx who added that history repeats itself a second time as farce. Which makes it all too appropriate that Obama is repeating the Bush era as farce. For years American liberals accused George W. Bush of being dumb and unserious — only to elect a man who actually is dumb and unserious. Who announces a war in between his NCAA picks and a trip to Rio. Who has spent more time playing golf, than directing the war effort. Who spends more time in front of the mirror and the camera, than on policy. They accused Bush of running an imperial presidency — and that is exactly what they got the second time around. A war without even the thinnest facade of congressional involvement. Without Dick Cheney being anywhere in sight. They accused Bush of having a Nazi collaborating grandfather, and their own grass roots efforts to elect an Un-Bush were funded by a philanthropic Nazi collaborating billionaire. They falsely insisted that Bush went to war for oil. And now their Great Hope has actually gone to war for oil. For BP's 900 million dollar Libyan oil deal, which Prime Minister Cameron endangered when he precipitously rushed to back the Libyan rebels who seemed on their way to victory, only to crumble at Gaddafi's pushback. After all those years of calling Blair, Bush's poodle — Obama turned out to be Cameron's poodle. They're no doubt laughing about it in London. Back when Gaddafi was securely in power, BP lobbied to free the Lockerbie bomber to avoid Gaddafi's threat to cut all commercial ties with the UK. What a difference a year makes. Now the only thing that will save BP is a good old fashioned war. Gaddafi had already called on Russian and Chinese oil companies to replace Western oil companies. Not to be left out, the Libya rebels quickly created their own oil company reminding everyone of what this is really about. History repeats itself as farce. But who's laughing now? There is a reason why Europe yawns at Turkey's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels, while sending in the jets when Gaddafi bombs rebel positions. Why the genocide in Sudan was not interrupted by a No Fly Zone, and top European firms still do business with Iran through proxies in Dubai. It's not about human rights. It's not even about the threat potential. If it were, North Korea or Iran would be in our bomb sights. Right now Syria is massacring protesters, but don't look for military intervention there either. That's not what it's about. It's about the bright boys deciding that Gaddafi stands in the way of the future, just like Slobodan Milosevic once did. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism are minor crimes, compared to obstructing the emergency of a stable order and the fat profits it will bring. Obama's justification for the bombing to congress, citing, "Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League", and the "international community", as well as "the authority of the Security Council" should send chills up anyone's spine. The idea that the US has become the 'Enforcer' for the Arab League is an ugly enough idea, though it is a remarkable moment of honesty about just who's calling the shots in US foreign policy. But more meaningful still is the end of that sentence which hinges that trail of justifications on, "efforts to preserve stability in the region". Which is another unexpected moment of honesty, as long as you understand that stability has nothing to do with democracy, human rights or preventing bombs from falling on orphans. It's about keeping the trade going and the oil flowing. Keeping the violence down to a dull roar and maintaining predictable economic conditions. No oil price fluctuations, no crazy demands from a lunatic and an advancement of the new order of the January Revolutions. This wasn't an intervention in response to genocide or WMD's. Gaddafi is fighting a civil war with few blatant atrocities. Two weeks ago the UN death toll was at a mere 1,000. That would have been a slow month in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But NATO set similarly low standards for declaring genocide in Kosovo. And all the weepy reports and heartstrings tugging was meant to disguise those simple facts. Just as news reports on Libya describe massacres in vague terms and cheer on the bravery of the rebels without telling us who they are. We're told what we need to know, that Gaddafi is bad and the rebels are good. And while it's hard to argue that a world without him might be a better place, it's unclear what Libya will be like without him. The US and Europe have been encouraged to believe that they will be dealing with former members of the US governments and the Libyan human rights people they have been funding. That may or may not be the case. In Egypt, the Jan 25 twitter activists just got stomped into the ground. With enough members of the old regime around, Libya may experience a more stable transition. Most likely it will trade in one civil war for another. And the African mercenaries will be back hunting down Islamist rebels. If the Libyan air force bombs them, we won't say a thing. So long as the oil keeps flowing on schedule. 
When a panicked Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program to avoid going the way of Saddam, European oil companies fared poorly at the bidding, while US companies got the inside track. But last year many of those companies, including the influential ChevronTexaco, pulled out, tired of the corruption and the bribery. BP however remained, holding on to its 900 million dollar deal, even lobbying for the release of one of Gaddafi's mass murderers. The Iraq War had intimidated Gaddafi, but its collapse had him feeling his oats again. Irrational demands followed. And the toadying of the American and British governments to his family only fed the beast. France's Sarkozy now sees a chance to push his Mediterranean Union, by doing what France routinely does, and yet what President Chirac (now facing trial for embezzlement) lambasted the US for in Iraq — unilateral intervention. Libya was formerly under French rule, and France is fairly casual about invading its former colonies to restore order. That the new coalition to bomb Gaddafi met in Paris is an ironic concession to its Francocentric nature. This war is a French project, in partnership with the UK, with the US along to provide the brute muscle. Sarkozy needs to catch fire with French voters, almost as badly as Obama does with US voters. He is polling behind Marie LePen and his UMP party barely outdrew the National Front in local elections. He has failed to rein in domestic Islamism, but bombing Libya is easy by comparison. And gives him the illusion of placing his fingerprint on history's page. Then there's France's Total S.A. oil company which has its own presence in Libya. Between its dirty deals with Saddam Hussein and Iran, Total SA makes BP look good. Three years ago, Gaddafi was pitching his tent in the heart of Paris, on Sarkozy's lawn. Back then Sarkozy denounced "those who excessively and irresponsibly criticised the Libyan leader's visit" and his aide explained that Gaddafi's visit was a good thing because it brought billions of euros and tens of thousands of jobs to France. But now Monsieur Gaddafi is Le Monstre. And what were those jobs and billions of euros coming from? The sale of French fighter jets to Libya, from the country which took the lead in going after the Libyan air force. Considering the poor performance of Libya's air force, Gaddafi would be justified in asking Sarkozy for a refund. Two years ago, UK PM Gordon Brown was expressing his "admiration and gratitude" for Gaddafi. Now Cameron had to interrupt a Middle Eastern arms sales tour to call for a war on Gaddafi for his suppression of rioting rebels. Pity then that the UK had actually been selling some 350 million dollars worth of military equipment, including a good deal of crowd control gear. Now France and the UK are stepping in to save the Libyan rebels from the military equipment that they themselves sold to Gaddafi. Did Gaddafi dramatically change over the past few years? No. The circumstances did. In 2008, Gaddafi was being cooperative and welcoming to Western oil companies and arms dealers in a region ruled by tyrants. By 2011, he was no longer cooperative and it suddenly seemed as if a wave of democratic change was sweeping the region. That made him into an obstacle. Had Gaddafi quickly suppressed the uprising, Sarkozy and Cameron would have kept their mouths shut. But Gaddafi's real crime was to start winning, after the Europeans had decided he was going to lose. Now they intend to make sure he does. It's as cynically simple as that. Sarkozy and Cameron are committed. The price of oil is also the price of political power. Western economies rise and fall on the price of oil. Falling oil prices after the Cold War helped spur economic development, and rising oil prices will prevent any recovery. With an election in 2012, Barack Hussein Obama also stands to personally benefit from stabilizing oil prices. But that may be giving him credit for intelligence he doesn't have. What he does have is a need to be the center of attention. And given a choice between backing a fairly safe war, or standing shamefacedly on the sidelines, the choice wasn't surprising. Hillary Clinton needed to end her term as Secretary of State with a bang. It's not her husband's Kosovo, but it's the closest she can come to being Madeleine Albright. Everyone involved has now gotten their war. It's not a very impressive war, but even a small war is better than nothing. The Libyan rebels range from Gaddafi's own regime cronies to Al Qaeda, to various professional human rights activists and rebels of the sort that all Arab countries collect after a while. And they're all eager for our support, so long as we don't ask any difficult questions. Such as who besides Gaddafi was responsible for human rights abuses and whether they intend to protect equal rights for all peoples regardless of gender and religion. And of course we won't be asking any bothersome questions like that. Instead we will act as mercenaries for the Arab League, European oil companies and a trio of cynical leaders who embraced Gaddafi one minute and turn him into the world's worst criminal next. Those who wonder why Israel is constantly denounced by Europe while Muslim tyrants are pandered to, need only understand this simple fact. There is neither trust nor honesty in foreign policy. Bush's invasion of Iraq, ill-considered as it was, had a basic germ of idealism in it. That idealism is wholly and completely absent from European foreign affairs, which is precisely why it stirred so much cynicism and rage. Bush genuinely believed that Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world could be made better if we just showed them what was possible. But Bush is gone now, and this is about trade, money and power. That iron triangle whose shape is regional stability and whose name is hypocrisy. It is why we are now spending billions of dollars on regime change in Libya, while ignoring genocide elsewhere. It's why a man who denounced the overthrow of Saddam, who actually did commit genocide, is now part of a campaign against Gaddafi, who has not. We are ensuring stability. The stable order. The mold of convenience. Get your war on with Obama and see Iraq repeat itself a second time as farce. Marx would have been proud.
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
|
|
REVIEW OF NEW DOCUMENTARY: STOLEN
Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, March 24, 2011. |
|
A documentary about slavery in Western Africa |
|
Directed by Villeta Ayala and Daniel Fallshaw
In an excellent documentary called Stolen, which sets out to document a family reunion in the sole region in Africa where Spanish is spoken, filmmakers Ayala and Fallshaw uncover a bigger story than they had originally planned. What they find —in this doc that plays like a suspenser —is a pocket of the slavery still practiced in Western Sahara, Morocco and Mauritania and elsewhere in Arab African societies. The initial impetus for the film is the re-union of a generational family under UN auspices, a service the UN provides if the correct paperwork is filled out, and family members long separated are brought together for a joyous 5-day reunion and re-acquaintance visit. What the documentarians quickly discovered, without half meaning to, was the fact that the family was enslaved to the "white grandmother," Deido, a Muslim who considered herself the loving doyenne of her Spanish-speaking Christian slave family. Deido had gotten Kemil as a child to provide the nanny duties of her own son. Since that time, the little girl grew and had children of her own. I kept wondering where her husband was, but there is no husband: Kemil's children are the offspring of the slave-owner, who has unquestioned droit de seigneur with any women property. Getting married requires documentation, and few bother with marriage, as it is a corrupt process. All children from such couplings are left in the care of their indentured mothers, but may also be given away at will by the owners. In the seductively involving documentary, a celebratory rite is discussed and shown on the film: To welcome the visit of Moroccan Grandmother Embarko, a long-separated grandma from her daughter and grandchildren, the focal family buys a young camel for 4 million [local units]. I thought it was at first for riding; the young, tawny-white camel looked very much like the one I rode when I trekked around the Sahara last spring. But viewers were upset to see that this was a ritual sacrifice; a group of the local family men folk took delight in slitting the thick neck of the young camel, who screeched and guttered in rage and fear as it was being done. They then handed out pieces of the still-bloody liver (a 'rare treat') of this freshly slaughtered camel to the filmcrew, and cooked the rest of the dromedary for the gathering of Deido, the slave-owner's, friends and family. The family of the actual celebrants were notable by their absence, since they were not welcome by Deido. The slavery is of a different sort than what many associate with US slavery; no chains, but the people have been indentured since early childhood, have zero rights, cannot even have a party with their own — the mistress has her friends and family to a private family affair, and even close relatives of the celebrants are forbidden to attend the party. Slave progeny, the product of being raped casually by slave owners, are given away or sold repeatedly without permission. Such slaves cannot be freed without express permissions of various sorts. Even when documentation for freeing a slave is available, often owners will not release the documentation, and in effect continue the enslavement. Complicating matters in the current turmoil and rivalry between the government of Morocco and the ruling Polisario of the Western Sahara UN-supervised refugee encampments. Talking about the situation brings local police and threats, incarceration or in-house jailing. Government agents from the ruling Polisario are keen to surveil potential disclosures of sticky issues, as we see when the filmmakers meet with helpful informants in Paris. Though the initial purpose of the docu was to show the reuniting of long-separated relatives in Spanish-speaking Western Sahara, the topic migrated to the aforementioned conditions of servitude and stayed there. (No point burying the lede.) Even getting the tapes out safely became a several-country, several-month saga, with each of several Arab countries in turn having to be misled or misdirected in order to free the incriminating tapes for viewing anywhere. Predictably, the family that is the subject of the filmmakers' inquiry is forced by their governing bodies, in the Western Sahara's Polisario, to renounce the documentary evidence seen in a screening in Sydney, Australia, clearly under pain of punishment and possible loss of life had they not cooperated. The Polisario physically shipped the family to Australia, where they carried signs and spoke on the record to media to denounce their own spoken testimony on the tapes. Implicated in the slavery continuance is the African UN polity, as they bring relatives together, but take a stark hands-off attitude to removing vestiges of centuries' old subjugation in northern Africa. From the evidences of surveillance, instantaneous police appearances and red-tape manacling the filmmakers, it is clear that only extremely dedicated reformers can affect this situation, and the UN reps are not those daring reformers-in-waiting. STOLEN is worthwhile viewing, and covers a part of the world, a blanched topography, and customs/rituals that are almost unrivalled for their remote interest and disambiguated power to move viewers. Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at mdsdm@rcn.com |
|
ISAF: BRINGING ISLAMIC LAW... TO U.S. TROOPS
Posted by Family Security Matters, March 24, 2011. |
|
This was written by Diana West and is archived at
|
|
I wasn't even looking for this. I just went to the ISAF website to see whether the grossly underreported weekend murders of two American soldiers (and shootings of four others) by an Afghan security contractor — again — was considered newsy enough to post by the official powers that be. "The slayings bring to nine the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed by rogue Afghan security force members, whether uniformed or private security contractors, in the past two months," NBC reports. Nine? In the last two months? That whizzed by totally unaccounted for. Did any democratically elected officials even think to ask Gen. Petraeus about it? I still don't know if ISAF tallied up these latest bodies in a public count. That's because the first item to present itself to a viewer of the ISAF site is this picture (below) with the caption: "Religious Importance of the Qur'an." As a well-known sucker for the religious importance of the "Qur'an" — I prefer "Ko-ran," with Texas inflection — I just had to click and see. 
The caption tells us so-and-so holds his prayers beads during a March 2010 ribbon-cutting ceremony on an electrification project in the Farah Distriction, quoting Mr. So-and-So as saying: "If we have electricity ... we can turn on our lights, and read the Koran." What comment is appropriate here? "The jaw drops"? "The universe spins"? We must go beyond shock to assess the advanced state of psycho-masochism the US military has now attained under the suicidal ideology of COIN, a belief system of unparralleled arrogance that actually believes that a cockamamie scheme of sticks and carrots, at a staggering cost of blood (limbs, skull shards) and unrecoverable treasure, is adequate to remake Muslim Man in Petraeus's Image. But the joke is on the COINsters. For what is happening is that it is they who are remaking themselves. In seeking to win Islamic hearts and minds, a lynchpin of the non-military, social-work basis of the COIN strategy, they have themselves become de facto followers of Islamic law, and they are spreading it to our troops. This is the ISAF site tells us. To wit: "Download Religious Importance of the Qu'ran" the ISAF commands. So I did. Up pops COIN Advisory # 20100924-001 (I'm not kidding).This perfectly rancid sop to "Cultural Sensitivity" (the non-ironic title) is something for US troops to gag themselves with. Literally. "Never talk badly about the Qur'an or its contents." #2 "recommendation" says, a no-nonsense formulation of Islamic prohibitions against criticising Islam. Remember, this COIN Advisory is attached to the very first item ISAF displays, hoisted like a flag of dhimmitude to denote ISAF's adoption of Islamic law (sharia), illustrated with a year-old picture of Mr. Prayer Beads exulting over having received the technology of Thomas Alva Edison to read the Koran. But if illuminating the Koran is perfectly okay for infidels to do, touching the thing is not. Why? "It is considered culturally insensitive for any non-Muslim to touch a copy of the Qur'an," ISAF explains. Why that it is indeed the Islamic case, ISAF doesn't mention. Perhaps it would upset still-not-completely dhimmified troops to learn that this injunction exists because Muslims consider non-Muslim "najis," or unclean, and thus unfit to touch their religious book. We must appreciate the implications: Having accepted this basic supremacist divide, ISAF has also accepted dhimmitude, the cultural condition of all non-Muslim subjects of sharia, and it is imposing it on our troops. Of course, there's more: Additionally, verbal disrespect for Islam and/or the Qur'an us considered as inappropriate as physical desecration of the Qur'an. Insulting the Qur'an is an act of blasphemy. The way Islam treats women stinks = verbal disrespect for Islam. The verses of the Qur'an that call for jihad against infidels are heinous = insulting the Qur'an. Tut, tut: ISAF, veritable mouthpiece of the coming caliphate, deems such talk "inappropriate" and "blasphemy" — which just might win them an extra pillow at the foot of the caliph's throne. Furthermore: Muslims believe they have an inherest duty to stand up to injustices committed against Islam and the Qur'an. Therefore, they take any perceived disrespect to Islam and/or the Qur'an extremely seriously.... Therefore, so does ISAF, which recommends: 1. Do NOT handle Qur'ans or other Islamic relgious items. (CAPS in the original.) This kind of thing has been going on a long time — too long. It's past time to perk up and notice that our adopting the ways of Islam is in fact the objective of jihad.
Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org
|
|
INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
Posted by Albert Wendroff, March 24, 2011. |
|
Yom HaShoah — Holocaust Remembrance Day April 20, 2011 Please wait 20 Seconds before you close this e-mail. This message asks you to do one small act to remember the six million (6,000,000) Jewish lives that were lost during the Holocaust. Please send this message to everyone you know who is Jewish, and ask them to also forward this to others. If we reach the goal of reaching six million e-mail names before April 20th, we will fulfill and give back to God what He gave to us: 6 million Jews who are alive today who remember those who perished. Thank you
Contact Albert Wendroff by email at wendroff39@yahoo.com
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: HORROR UPON HORROR
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 24, 2011. |
|
Yesterday, I was planning comments I still wanted to make about the Itamar massacre — comments I will make in due course. And then came the pigua — the terrorist attack in Jerusalem: a bomb exploded next to a bus. A horror in its own right — with one dead and 39 injured. But for us here in Jerusalem it evokes the memory of what was called the second intifada of ten years ago, a Palestinian Arab terror war against us that was put down when we moved back into PA areas of Judea and Samaria in Operation Defensive Shield. And on top of this, there has been a barrage of rockets coming from Gaza into southern Israel — including two Grad Katyusha rockets into Be'ersheva. But when I went to write about all of this, I found that my computer was misbehaving and I could not. Only now has my computer been fixed, and so now I can write to my list to express apologies. Dear readers, after Shabbat I will have much to say. Now I have an obligation to a family event — a happy event! — that prevents me from doing a regular posting. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OUT FOR ISRAEL: A NEW ANSWER TO THE HATE SPEECH OF QUEERS FOR PALESTINE
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 24, 2011. |
|
They mean to kill us. They have been saying so for a long time and murdering us as well. Usually, the world stood by as Jewish blood was shed. But this time, given the rise of jihad in the Arab Middle East and the deadly rivalry between Sunni and Shia Islamists for who will control the Caliphate, it is not surprising that, as of Egyptian President Mubarak's departure, Gaza-based Islamists, possibly backed by Iran, stepped up their rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel, or that, on March 23, a bomb blew up at a Jerusalem bus station filled with civilians. So far, one passenger, a woman, is dead and 39 are wounded, three seriously so. Let us not forget — let us never forget — the recent murder of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, which the world media turned into an opportunity to condemn Israeli "settlement" policy. And now: Something closer to home but actually no less important. It must be seen as part of this same war, the war in which alleged Western progressives: leftists, feminists, anti-racists, and gay liberationists, are aiding, supporting, and funding the demonization of Israel, which they hope will lead to its demise which, in their view, will lead to world peace, even peace for the (unworthy) Jews (who have only themselves to blame if that doesn't happen). Yes, I am talking about all the self-righteous apparatchiks who call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, who view Israel as a Nazi, apartheid state, who silence truth-tellers who are pro-Israel or anti-Islam in the streets, during lectures, at the United Nations, and on campuses all over America and Europe, and who scream ugly curses and carry hateful signs, and in every way try to imitate the hoarse roars of the "Arab street." I am talking about New York City's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center. According to their website, the Center receives 6,000 visitors and hosts more than 300 groups each week. "We provide groundbreaking social service, public policy, educational and cultural/recreational programs. We also serve as an incubator for grassroots groups that meet here. Indeed, we were the birthplace of organizations such as the AIDS activist group ACT UP and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the principal organization combating homophobia and stereotyping of gays in the media." According to its website, the Center reported in its audited financial statement that the government granted them $3,618,814 for the year ending June 30, 2010. That same year, it received $2,174,655 in private contributions. Apparently, the Center runs on an annual budget of approximately 10 million dollars and has 14 million dollars in assets. It has a major presence in the gay community both locally and worldwide. Yesterday, I published a piece about a heroic Jewish gay man, Michael Lucas, who, together with other Center members such as Stuart Applebaum and Steven Goldstein, among others, actually stood up to the continued false portrayal of Israel as an "apartheid" state and the continued provision of space for the funding of possible foreign terrorist entities — and managed to have the third annual Israeli Apartheid Week party canceled at the LGBT Center. The "party" planned to raise funding for yet another flotilla to break the siege of Gaza. The leader is Sherry Wolf, a socialist activist and writer who is an editor at the International Socialist Review. The anti-Israeli Apartheid group calls itself "Siegebusters", and although they might have only 57 members, they are mainly Jewish lesbian feminists, and therefore, the Center trembles when they demand something. These are women who know how to yell, express anger, and simply persevere until they get their way. Or so I have been told.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND: FOR MORE THAN 44 YEARS, I have worked with the most noble of lesbian-feminists. Their courage and ability to make sacrifices for larger ideals has given me the greatest joy. I especially want to mention Wanda and Brenda Henson of Camp Sister Spirit who ran a bookstore, a domestic violence and rape crisis center, a woman's music festival, and faced down the most profound homophobic and racist wrath in the Deep South. I stood by their side in Ovett, Mississippi and hosted fundraisers for them here in New York City — but that is a tale for another day. My point: In addition to working with me on behalf of custodially embattled mothers and abused children, the Hensons really were anti-racists. They worked with and for African-Americans, and they held Passover sedarim each year in solidarity with the Jews. I do not know who these new kinds of "Palestinianized" lesbians are. This NYC LGBT Center is on record as a "home," a safe haven for every kind of gay group and individual. And yet, amazingly enough, they really mean the Center is a safe space only for those gays, including Jews, who toe the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli line. After the Center canceled the March 5, 2011 Siegebusters event, they demonstrated outside the Center on that very day and, on March 14, 2011, Siegebusters packed a forum at the Center in which they drowned out the pro-Israel voices. They also had their supporters sign petitions and email and call the Center. Thus, when the Gay and Lesbian Yeshiva Day School Alumni Association (GLYDSA), a gay Orthodox group which also meets regularly at the Center, requested that Michael Lucas deliver a lecture for their group at the Center — here's what happened. The Center canceled the Lucas lecture. Well, not exactly. They intimidated and guilt-tripped GLYDSA and made them feel that they would be responsible for any unpleasantness or even danger the Lucas lecture might cause. According to Lucas, they didn't cancel it outright. Not at all. Instead, they took it upon themselves to call the GLYDSA representative to say that the "meeting is inappropriate because it won't be safe...Jews will become afraid to come here. We have received so many threats, there will be protests, this is not a wise thing to do." The GLYDSA representative gamely hung in. He said: "At least, can you make sure that our meeting won't be interrupted?" He was told: "Absolutely not. The Center is open to everyone, everyone is allowed to have their equal say. I suppose if you get interrupted or it seems dangerous, you yourself can call the police and the police can decide what to do." Thus, just as the universities, the United Nations, many churches, most mosques, and most other public forums in the West have become utterly dominated by angry hecklers, silencers of anything that is pro-Israel or anti-Islam, intimidators, shriekers, haters, Nazi brownshirts (who view themselves as liberationists and progressives and view the "other side" as Islamophobic demons) — the Gay and Lesbian Center of NYC has joined their ranks. Increasingly, the only place one can speak the truth without being jeered, interrupted, silenced, and physically menaced is in the safety of one's own home. Thus, Michael Lucas will be delivering a lecture in a private home for the Orthodox gay and lesbian Jews. Here is an interview I recently conducted with Michael Lucas. Please understand: For more than 44 years, I have worked with the most noble of lesbian-feminists. Their courage and ability to make sacrifices for larger ideals has given me the greatest joy. I especially want to mention Wanda and Brenda Henson of Camp Sister Spirit who ran a bookstore, a domestic violence and rape crisis center, a woman's music festival, and faced down the most profound homophobic and racist wrath in the Deep South. I stood by their side in Ovett, Mississippi and hosted fundraisers for them here in New York City — but that is a tale for another day. My point: In addition to working with me on behalf of custodially embattled mothers and abused children, the Hensons really were anti-racists. They worked with and for African-Americans, and they held Passover sedarim each year in solidarity with the Jews. I do not know who these new kinds of "Palestinianized" lesbians are. This NYC LGBT Center is on record as a "home," a safe haven for every kind of gay group and individual. And yet, amazingly enough, they really mean the Center is a safe space only for those gays, including Jews, who toe the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli line. After the Center canceled the March 5, 2011 Siegebusters event, they demonstrated outside the Center on that very day and, on March 14, 2011, Siegebusters packed a forum at the Center in which they drowned out the pro-Israel voices. They also had their supporters sign petitions and email and call the Center. Thus, when the Gay and Lesbian Yeshiva Day School Alumni Association (GLYDSA), a gay Orthodox group which also meets regularly at the Center, requested that Michael Lucas deliver a lecture for their group at the Center — here's what happened. The Center canceled the Lucas lecture. Well, not exactly. They intimidated and guilt-tripped GLYDSA and made them feel that they would be responsible for any unpleasantness or even danger the Lucas lecture might cause. According to Lucas, they didn't cancel it outright. Not at all. Instead, they took it upon themselves to call the GLYDSA representative to say that the "meeting is inappropriate because it won't be safe...Jews will become afraid to come here. We have received so many threats, there will be protests, this is not a wise thing to do." The GLYDSA representative gamely hung in. He said: "At least, can you make sure that our meeting won't be interrupted?" He was told: "Absolutely not. The Center is open to everyone, everyone is allowed to have their equal say. I suppose if you get interrupted or it seems dangerous, you yourself can call the police and the police can decide what to do." Thus, just as the universities, the United Nations, many churches, most mosques, and most other public forums in the West have become utterly dominated by angry hecklers, silencers of anything that is pro-Israel or anti-Islam, intimidators, shriekers, haters, Nazi brownshirts (who view themselves as liberationists and progressives and view the "other side" as Islamophobic demons) — the Gay and Lesbian Center of NYC has joined their ranks. Increasingly, the only place one can speak the truth without being jeered, interrupted, silenced, and physically menaced is in the safety of one's own home. Thus, Michael Lucas will be delivering a lecture in a private home for the Orthodox gay and lesbian Jews.
HERE IS AN INTERVIEW I recently conducted with Michael Lucas. Q: What happened on March 14, 2011? A: The opponents who showed up for the meeting were just a handful of people who do not represent the gay community, but are well organized. There were people there from several different factions. The loudest group was one of about 30-50 Jewish lesbians. Some of them belonged to groups like Siegebusters and some of them didn't and were speaking for themselves. Some of them were even hissing and booing. A very old man, who founded the first gay Jewish synagogue, was told by one of the young speakers from Siegebusters, "Dude. It's enough." They were talking about their right to free speech and claiming that those who supported the Center's decision to cancel the Siegebusters event were suppressing it, which is not true. They can exercise their right to free speech, just not at the LGBT Center. That is not the appropriate venue. The real issue is the fact that this organization has nothing to do with the mission of the Center. The group is not LGBT focused. It doesn't have a gay agenda. Their agenda is to destroy Israel by making it a multiracial state, doing away with Israel as the Jewish homeland. This is very anti-Semitic since Israel was founded as a Jewish state and is the only Jewish country in the world. I think we still have not succeeded in getting our key point across — - we are not fighting "criticism of Israel" as many gay journalists wrote. We are fighting the delegitimization of the State of Israel. The stated goal of these groups is a united, multiracial Palestine. That's inevitably a Palestine with a growing Muslim majority and the end of the Jewish homeland. Q: Were Arabs involved in the protest on March 5th and in the March 14th meeting? A: Not really. I think there was one phony Palestinian, speaking without any accent, who has probably never even been to Gaza. I later read in a gay publication his ridiculous suggestion that queers in Palestine were living fine lives, and opinion that the agenda of every queer in Palestine is fighting Israel because they feel that they should "survive first as a Palestinian and then as a queer." It seemed to me that many gay Muslims do not care about gay rights in their native countries. They don't care about their gay brothers and sisters who are being hanged, beheaded and mutilated. Living in the safety of the West and not speaking on behalf of gay Muslims in Palestine, their agenda is to crush Israel, which is quite sad, because Palestinians are running to Israel for safety and are being granted asylum. The Jerusalem Open House and the gay center in Tel Aviv have meetings and programs to help queer Palestinians to find new homes in Israel. Q: Do you think that your experiences in Soviet Russia have taught you what Brownshirt fascism is really about, what totalitarianism is and can do? A: Russia taught me that Israel is incredibly important. Russia was so anti-Semitic that for many Jews, Israel is a logical answer, just as it is for European Jews and for Jews who survived the Holocaust. My experience is the opposite of some arrogant American Jews that, for the most part, don't know about anti-Semitism. That's the reason why they don't understand what Israel is about and don't know of its purpose and creation. Q: How do you answer their challenge that not being allowed to hate Israel and tell Big Lies about Israel is equivalent to squashing their First Amendment and Free Speech rights? A: As I stated before, this has nothing to do with free speech. They can exercise their right to free speech somewhere else. The Gay Center is not some lousy community Center or Columbia University, which hosted Ahmadinejad, who declared that he wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and announced that there are no gay people in Iran. Siegebusters and other anti-Semitic groups have plenty of other places to meet, but the LGBT Center is not the right place. The KKK can make the same point, saying that they have the right to excercise free speech and demanding to speak at the LGBT Center. Their event does not belong in the Gay Center, which was founded on giving space to gay focused groups who are forwarding the LGBT agenda. It's the same with Siegebusters. Hate towards Israel has nothing to do with the mission of the Center. Q: What do you think will happen next at the Center? A: It's difficult to say. During the meeting, we felt that the Center's board was crumbling under the pressure of Siegebusters. The Executive Director of the Center, Glennda Testone, said in an email to me that the Center is "focusing on creating a process to review and clarify our space guidelines going forward. And I imagine many meeting with various individuals and groups will be part of that." This is precisely the problem that I have with the Center. They don't seem to understand that it is not their mission to meet with anti-Semitic groups. They should not go out of their way to listen to or take into account what members of Israeli Apartheid Week have to say. This has nothing to do with the agenda that the Center was founded on, which is the gay agenda. It seems very peculiar to me that the Gay Center had hosting these groups for two years and were willing to let them have a fundraising campaign in which they were to raise money to break the blockade of a US ally, which is there to prevent further terrorist attacks on Israeli soil. And now the Center is still having meetings and conversations with them. I believe that gay people in New York deserve to have the full attention of the Center given to LGBT needs. We have problems with homeless gay youth, gay people suffering from AIDS, and hate crimes against gays, among many others. Glennda Testone and the Center board should not try to wrap their heads around an issue that is not their concern. Their peculiar preoccupation with this matter makes me wonder if they themselves are in bed with the organizers of IAW. I think that the board of the Center should resign and be replaced with a board that will not waste federal and donor funding and instead put their energies into helping people in the LGBT community who so greatly need their aid. There is so much in our community that desperately needs to be done. I am starting the new non-profit organization — Out! for Israel — that among many other missions will be making sure that anti-Israeli groups will not be involved in shaping the LGBT Center's policies.
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York.
This essay is archived at
|
|
JOURNALIST INVESTIGATED BY POLICE FOR REFERRING TO ARAB WHO MURDERED JEWISH FAMILY AS 'SAVAGE'
Posted by Robin Shepherd, March 24, 2011. |
|
Melanie Phillips investigated by British police |
|
Melanie Phillips being investigated by police for referring to Arab "savages" who murdered Jewish family British understatement is a wonderful thing. Here is how Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, introduced a posting on the magazine's website on Friday: "It's a funny old world," he said, "I have now been contacted by two journalists informing me that Bedfordshire Police are investigating The Spectator". The reason? Because a group called, wait for it, "Muslims4UK" took exception to a piece by Melanie Phillips on her Spectator blog in which she referred to the Arabs who had murdered five members of a Jewish family in Itamar the week before as "savages". The story was reported in the media, but if you'd blinked you'd have missed it, and the slant of the reporting was that Israel was at least as much to blame for the killings — due to settlement policy — as the killers themselves. Melanie's column was a typically robust effort to point out the moral depravity of news outlets such as the Guardian, the New York Times, CNN and the BBC who, if the situation had been reversed — if five Arabs including a three month old baby had been knifed to death in their beds in a lethal racist attack by Jewish "settlers", for example — would have given it saturation coverage. So not so much a "funny old world" as a "brave new world": a prominent British columnist does what prominent British columnists are supposed to do — she attempts to shift the terms of the debate back on to a more rational and principled footing — and the net result is that the police have been called in, with the Guardian newspaper cheerleading on the sidelines, because she has offended Muslim sensitivities. As Nelson summed it up, the train of events went like this: "1) Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, gets angry about what he reads on Melanie's blog. It isn't yet clear on what grounds the investigation is being conducted, but you can bet your boots that it is the following paragraph from Melanie's piece that they are salivating over: "So to the New York Times, it's not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised 'peace prospects' — because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages — but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick". An "Arab massacre"? What, all of them? "Such savages"? So all Arabs are "savages"? Oh, come off it. It is quite clear that she is referring to the "savages" who slaughtered a family in their beds, and it is "such savages" and those who incite them with whom peace cannot be made. It is also clear that in this instance the thrust of the argument is against the New York Times, itself being used as a proxy for the liberal left media in the West, and not the killers as such. And it is precisely because the multi-culturalist assumptions underpinning the western liberal left media lead consistently to a downplaying or sanitisation of crimes, however appalling, committed by non-white, third-world perpetrators designated as "victims" that Melanie Phillips employs such strong language to jolt western readers out of their dogmatic slumbers. Again, that's what columnists are supposed to do, and in any other situation this affair would have passed off without notice. But, as Nelson makes clear, changes are afoot in modern Britain that threaten to rip apart the fabric of one of the world's most developed free societies: "Freedom of expression is under attack in Britain, from our notorious libel laws to this new phenomenon of police forces being asked to investigate what people put on their blogs," he said. And as we know from cases involving Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and others across the continent, all of this is starting to look like a depressingly common feature of the new European politics. To those who value freedom, merely sitting on one's hands is no longer an option. We all hang together, or we all hang separately, as Benjamin Franklin is said to have averred at the signing of the American Declaration of Independence. So write to Fraser Nelson at the Spectator, or Melanie Philllips on her blog, and tell them you support their right to be heard. Surely, that's the least you can do. EDITOR'S NOTE: One reader added this: Muslims4UK take issue with references to "the moral depravity of the Arabs". Here's a list of some characteristic contemporary moral depravities: terrorism including hijacking and slamming planes into tall buildings, train-bombing, car-bombing, suicide vest-bombing, shooting, knifing; not forgetting Britain's own home-grown varieties: rucksack-bombing, shoe-bombing, drinks-bombing and underwear-bombing; internet beheading, stoning, limb-lopping, facial mutilation, public execution, lashing; subjection and sexual slavery of women: female genital mutilation, "honour" killing, forced marriage, child brides, the denial of rights to women including the right to education for girls, gang grooming and rape of "easy meat" white girls; other forms of abuse of children as their indoctrination with hatred and grooming to be suicide bombers; slavery (now in Britain); the torture and killing of homosexuals; antisemitism and the oppression of religious and other minorities generally; the naming of civic sites after terrorists and public celebrations on the deaths of their victims, including children; the killing of apostates; the destruction of cultural monuments; other acts of fascist aggression, from murder to the use of the law (lawfare), designed to intimidate and silence critics, not forgetting the taking over of the streets of western cities under the guise of prayer
Robin Shepherd is owner/publisher of The Commentator.
Visit his website at www.robinshepherdonline.com
|
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: THE GREEN OF SPRING
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 24, 2011. |
|
"Photographs arrest time and it is a good thing because time is a criminal." — Melanie Einzig HOW I GOT THE SHOT: The fleeting colors of spring — red, pink, purple, yellow, white, orange and even blue, if you look carefully — are merely a distraction from the real show. "Green is the color of spring," crooned Van Morrison, and later Kermit the frog. And it is, in fact, "not easy being green," because it is everywhere, overly familiar and dare I say, "boring?" Fortunately, the ascent from Route 90 up to Belvoir, just south of Tiberias, offers a host of interesting views. In late winter, when this photo was taken, the hillsides are a scintillating emerald green, though the colors fade quickly as soon as the rains subside. This image is an abstraction of the larger area. Using a long telephoto lens to cut through some of the haze, I honed in on a small section of the rolling hill that featured odd bumps and gullies that accentuate the contrast in light and textures of the shrubs and grass. I also kept the camera angle level to the horizon in order to convey the steep slope of the hill. Sometimes we have to fight our way through the familiarity of the visual landscape, through the things we see so frequently we begin not to notice them at all. But as the song says, "green can be cool and friendly, big like an ocean, or important like a mountain." We just have to stop and take it in. Technical Data: Nikon D700, 70-200mm zoom lens at 135 mm, f8@ 1/800th
sec., ISO 400.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, MR. EHUD BARAK
Posted by Zeev Shemer, March 24, 2011. |
|
While former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin lead our country to participate in Mr. Shimon Peres's Oslo Accords and peace process, you agreed to assist in the training of a sniper unit for the Arab -or as you termed it — Palestinian Police Force. You honestly thought, I assume, that these snipers would take out terrorists before they entered Israel's territory and strike at Jewish targets. Although the concept is laughable, it is what you did. When you became Prime Minister of this country, you agreed to hand over Judea, Samaria and major parts of Jerusalem to the so-called Palestinian people via arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. Surprisingly, he shunned your offer. You eagerly participated in Ehud Olmert's expulsion of the Jews from Gaza and northern Shomron. And today, you continue to issue orders of demolition against Jewish homes, all the while ignoring Arab land-grabs, illegal Arab building, and Arab terror. Is it because you are still hopeful that we can achieve peace with these people? Some might argue that you probably do. I find it hard to believe, but either way, that is not the question that I feel compelled to ask you. You have given orders to remove blockades that prevented Arab attacks. You have virtually tied up the arms of our soldiers and have rendered the IDF useless against Arab terror. There is no certainty that we will eliminate the nuclear threat Iran poses. No certainty that we will eliminate the threat of the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, or that we will put an end to the continuous rocket attacks being launched from Gaza. But you boast about how you have managed to limit construction of Jewish homes. Two weeks ago, a bloody attack in Itamar decimated a Jewish family. Last week 50 rockets struck the community of Sderot. Today a bomb in central Jerusalem left one Jewish woman dead and 50 people injured, and rockets fell as far as Beersheva. So the question to you sir is, how many Jews must be killed before you allow the IDF to defend Israel? How much land do we need to give away to murderers before you realize these people want you and I and every Jew in Israel, dead? How many, sir? Maybe if you tell me the number that will make you use your head for a change, I can sit and know, that as hard as it will be, there is a number that you will consider to be the last straw. So again, Mr. Barak, what is your number? Oh, and before you even think about telling me you do not have such number, and that you do what you do because it is the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, allow me to remind you that both Jordan and the Sinai are great places to push our enemies to. Iran's nuclear plants are not invincible. Southern Lebanon can be cleaned out, and if you do not believe it can be done, then please, it is time to retire and allow those that are able, to step up to the plate and do their job. Ze'ev Shemer
Ze'ev Shemer is an instructor at Western Galilee College and Ort Braude Institute of Technology. He grew up in Colombia and moved to the US where he attended college and obtained his Master's Degree. Ze'ev made Aliyah in 2004 and lives in Ramat HaGolan. Besides being an academic teacher Ze'ev is a Martial Arts instructor for adults and pre-army cadets. Contact him at zeev.shemer@yahoo.com |
|
NEW YORK TIMES, GAZA EDITION
Posted by Hadar, March 23, 2011. |
|
Double standard, mind you, holding Israel to a different set of rules, is racist. It's nothing but a new form of the old Jew-Hatred, Judeophobia, Antisemitism. Just think about the dozens protesters massacred by Syria in these last couple of days, and imagine what would the headlines, full page block characters, be saying had dozens been killed by Israel with automatic gunfire on demonstrating crowds... Yet, Obama cannot bring himself even to say "condolences" for the Jewish woman murdered in Jerusalem. He condemns the attack in Jerusalem, but in the same breath gives "condolences" to the poor Gazans not even killed intentionally. Moral equivalence at its worst! How many media mentioned the fact that Gazans have been bombarding the South of Israel with rockets and mortar bombs launched from yards and schools since January without ever getting a presidential condemnation? This below was written by Yarden Frankl and comes from Honest Reporting and is archived at
|
|
A man holds the bloody body of a young boy. He was one of three young men who were playing soccer, killed along with a 60 year old grandfather by an Israeli attack gone "horribly wrong." The caption tells us that one of the victims was only ten years old. With pictures and details like these, we must be reading the Gaza edition of the NYT. The headline: Israel Attack on Gaza Militants Kills Four Civilians. Right to the point, we know who attacked and who died. And we have a huge, graphic picture of a victim in case there is any doubt. I wouldn't have a problem with their coverage if they used the same standards when reporting about attacks where Israelis are the victims. But that's the point. They don't. When a family of five Israelis are butchered in their beds, the Times uses a completely different style. No more sensational pictures. No headlines that identify the attackers. And the victims aren't civilians, they are "settlers." The first story of the attack, which was actually an AP story running in the Times, was:
Next, when the Times ran their own story, it became:
By the third story, the headline was:
The final story gives us one more picture, but hardly one that will evoke sympathy for the victims. The headline?
Would it have been so hard for the Times to run a headline like:
Would it have been wrong to run just one picture of the victims to give the story more meaning? Apparently for the Times it would. So the double standard continues. ================================ This is what Yarden is talking about:
Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
70% OF HATE CRIMES ARE ATTACKS AGAINST JEWS, 9% AGAINST MUSLIMS.
Posted by Hadar, March 23, 2011. |
|
This is from Jihad Watch
|
|
Senate to hold hearings on "anti-Muslim bigotry" Watch for this to be an orgy of Muslim claims of victimhood and demonization of freedom fighters trying to defend Constitutional freedoms against Islamic supremacism. "Senate to hold hearings on Muslims' rights," by Stephen Dinan for the Washington Times, March 22 (thanks to all who sent this in): Just weeks after House Republicans held a hearing looking at the dangers of radical Muslims in the U.S., Senate Democrats are countering with a hearing of their own, scheduled for after Congress returns from a 10-day vacation, to examine Muslims' civil rights. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, announced the subcommittee hearing Tuesday, saying there has been a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year that demands closer attention. "Our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion for all Americans," Mr. Durbin said. "During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights."... In 2009, the latest FBi statistics available, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. That's far less than the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish. Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
|
"THE SICKNESS:'PEACE AT EVERY PRICE'
Posted by Shalom International, March 23, 2011. | |
|
This was written by Robert Kunst and is archived on Shalom International. | |
|
Dear "Chosen" Activists: Today, it's the bus bombing in Jerusalem with 1 dead and 30 injured. The first attack against buses in 7 yrs. as part of the 2nd Intifada. We pray those injured get well soon. This is one block from where we stood in 2009, when the Pope was in Jerusalem and we rallied with 200 at Zion Sq. "Hands Off Of Jerusalem" and advertised this event at the media center, near the bus depot. We got 60 media interviews regarding our rally and worldwide news. The Arabs in the West Bank 'condemned' the bus attack today, no different than Arafat had condemned the same kinds of events to the West while encouraging more deaths of Israelies and Jews to his own people and no different than Abbas encouraging the same Arab terrorists to war on Israel and the Jews, or to be 'Jew free' in any state he gets from the EU, UN, Obama/Hillary ad nauseum, while condeming the bus attack. An Israeli on CNN today, had to mention the PA's condemnation, even if they didn't get the media themselves. And this is too part of the disgusting problem and doublecross. Israel making the Arabs look good as part of this disgraceful seelout of G-d's land to those wanting all Jews dead and no Jewish State. These Israelis are still wandering and wondering since the time of Moses. In the last week, Hamas has fired 60+ rockets into Israel and Israel has managed to kill 9 including 3 children. Before that, the Fogel Family was murdered by terrorists trained by the U.S. while candy was given out to celebrate in Gaza. Bibi's reaction statement on the Fogel tragedy was "They kill, we build" and 400 new constructions. Maybe 40,000 new constructions would have sent more than this pathetic message of groveling and appeasement, no different than Bibi's CNN interview with telling Pier Morgan that he's willing to give up 'ancestral lands', that already made him a loser and all of us vulnerable to this treachery. Is it any wonder that he has only 32% support? Alan Dershowitz, also on CNN insisted that at this moment, Obama should go to Jerusalem and Ramallah and twist everyone's arms and lay down his plan to divide Jerusalem and give away Judea and Samaria. I oppsed Dershowitz publicly last year at Temple Beth Shalom on Miami Beach. What makes all of this insanity even more repelling is that this violence is never going to end with or without a state for the PA, whose only realy goal is no Jewish State and no Jews. Naturally the Jews are still in denial, no matter how many they kill and the 'peace at any and every price' gangsters keep blaming the Jews, who they insist must not be Jews, or have a Covenant with G-d, or a 5000 yr. history, or anything that stands in the way of their own suicide they are hotly pursuing, not to mention everyone elses. Obama is under direct challenge for nearly 200 missiles fired into Libya with mixed messages on protecting who: "Al Qaeda" versus Ghadaffi? So, all of a sudden they have reason to "Impeach Obama" for not going to Congress for permission to fire into Libya, as if giving 'material support' to terrorists in West Bank and Gaza is okay, totally over $1.3billion, and all in violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code, we told you about for 2 yrs. now and nobody wanted to listen, including Congress who gave that monies Obama/Hillary wanted. Somehow the PLO flag flying in D.C. is okay to the Israelies, AIPAC, etc.? Shalom International protested at PLO hdqtrs in 2008. The PLO guy on CNN a few days ago, also said, Israel will have to negotiate with whomever the people vote for, Hamas, etc . They dictate everything and Israel and the Jews have nothing to say about it, and why wouldn't the Islamic Nazis not continue their attacks, blood bath, and 'delegitimization of Israel' when the Israelis and Jews are doing it to themselves? Bibi, Barak, Olmert plans to give it all away, not only attacks our faith, but betrays everyone murdered for that faith and everyone murdered for being Jews whether religious or not. Evan Sarah Palin, visiting Israel last week urged Israelis to stop apologizing for everything. Who can stand this groveling? This sickness? AIPAC's President, last year invited Hillary Clinton and the Group of Four's head, Tony Blair to demand the division of Jerusalem, while Bibi was the only one urging to keep Jerusalem united, besides Shalom International with our table and protest on the outside. With the murder of the Fogel Family, the Obama administration condemned the 'settlements' again for the umpteenth time, instead of the Arab barbarians who committed this atrocity. Hillary and Blair were AWOL except to blame the Jews, no different than blaming the victim for the rape. Why do the Jews accept this second-class status and this continual attack upon our faith and everything Jewish? Shalom International was the ONLY Jewish group at the AIPAC Convention on the outside supporting a United Jerusalem and a United Israel while there were 75 people on the outside, protesting AIPAC and supporting the Arabs. On May 22,23,24 of this year Shalom International will be at the Convention Hall starting at 8AM on each of these days to remind AIPAC of Chamberlain and Hitler and that their politics is repeating history and who is AIPAC to divide Jerusalem, which belongs to every Jew and every Jew murdered for being a Jew. Is there anyone left in D.C. Metro area who has the conscience to join with us and against those selling our birthright and betraying every Jew slayed for being a Jew, we welcome you at the Wash. Convention Center, 8-9th St. and across from New York Ave. You know that Bibi has sold out to Obama and will be not just at AIPAC caving in, but also at the White House to give it all away. We, who led the opposition to the Olmert/Livni debale at the Annapolis Summit in 2007, will also be opposing this treachery at the White House. Stay tuned for details. G-d please give us the strength to oppose this madness that will only build a bodycount and resolve nothing anything more than Hitler's word was any better than Hamas' or 'Abbas'. You can't make peace with someone who wants to kill you. It's you or them. Bibi can't win with his appeasement politics and all infidels will suffer as he empowers our enemies, which has led to all of these tragedies. What is so mind-boggling is that the very Arabs alligned with Hitler and assisted in the Holocaust are the very ones, cowardly denying their role in it, but wanting to finish the job now through Iran's nukes, that Obama/Hillary are allowing to be built. Israel gave Arafat monies to educate and Arafat taught the Arabs then and now that there was no Holocaust. Israel gave Arafat guns to keep the peace and thousands of Jews have been murdered in Two Intifadas and the Third one is in motion, in spite of the denial. The uproar in Egypt already has women being treated as second-class besides raping those who participated and running for office is Muslim Brotherhood and El Baradei who allowed through the UN for Iran to build its nukes. How about all those Christian Coptics and Kurds and everyone being persecuted by the Islamic Nazis to be resettled in the Sinai? How about, letting the dust settle on the so-called revolutions throughout the Arab world when the Islamic Nazis take control with Iran's backing, while BIBI should be stating that we aren't giving up anything to anyone. This belongs to us, given to us by G-d and Judiasm is thousands of years older than Christianity or Islam and we demand our faith be respected as much as anyone's We paid for these lands in monies and in our blood. We have legitimacy through the League of Nations and also in winning against 5 Arab wars and 2 Intifadas. We have nothing to apologize for. If the Arabs want peace, we can have peace, which isn't a piece of Israel, our "Holyland". If they want war, then we will war against them. End of Story. If only the Israelis had leaders with a conscience. If only our so-called Jewish leaders had the same level of committments, besides fundraising for their own jobs. You trust Obama? We don't and never have and never will. You trust Hillary, who said Jews shouldn't be allowed to have babies in our holyland? Hillary has stated she wouldn't be Sec. of State in any second Obama term and is also jumping ship, being the disaster she has been through this term. If appeasement and groveling led to the Holocaust, why are Bibi and gang pursuing the same political insanity? Why did Bibi and Barak remove those security areas that has now allowed free access to those who want to kill more Israelis and Jews? You placate Obama's anti-semitism politics and leave all Israelis vulnerable to attack and this by you is peace? Yesterday was our 433 rally for Israel at the Fed. Bldg. in Ft. Laud. We had lots of support and only 2 negatives. We've also been seen by hundreds of thousands at this location and have done 1362 media interviews since Oct. 2007, that reached millions. I wish to thank everyone who prayed for me and wished me good health. I got the results of my 'freezing' operation in Jan. and the cancer in my prostate is now gone. Thank you G-d and to all of you who stood by me. There is no question that these are very dangerous times and getting worse. Bibi is weak and catering to Obama, UN, EU and doesn't have to. You who remain quiet are allowing this madness and danger to continue. Congrats to Larry Domnitch who led the reading of the Magilla at the Iranian Consulate in NY with 100 attending.
PURIM — THE LESSON OF JEWISH HISTORY! Dear friends, I wish you and your loved ones a happy and joyful Purim — the time when we commemorate the survival of the Jewish nation! Even now our over-cautious rabbis and politically correct 'leaders' do not like to emphasize the practical aspects of Purim's survival — when Jews were facing mortal danger, our ancestors united and decisively destroyed enemies of the Jewish people. Jews often talk about the lessons of history like the Exodus from Egypt and the Holocaust. It is time to learn from these lessons and transform them into action! We must get rid of the slave mentality which is destroying our own country and eroding our national identity! We must unite and remove our present enemies from all Jewish land before they destroy us! Another physical or spiritual Holocaust of the Jewish people is not an option! I'm enclosing the opinions of two rabbis.
Resist. Help us to keep doing our visibility. Please donate to www.defendjerusalem.net or to: "Defend Jerusalem, P.O.Box 402263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140. Yours in Shalom,
Bob Kunst is President of Shalom International.
Contact him at shalominternational@mindspring.com
or visit www.defendjerusalem.blogspot.com
|
|
OBAMA'S SOLUTION: AMPUTATION AND MORE AMPUTATION TO THE BODY OF ISRAEL
Posted by Stanley Zir, March 23, 2011. |
| This was edited by Susan North and Buddy Macy. |
|
OUR PURPOSE Fulfilling the mandate of the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence: Establishing the line which must not be crossed... a line which serves as a hedge of protection around the nation of Israel. 
RALLY CALL Israel can no longer be sabotaged by proposals cloaked in the name of peace and continue to survive. Our goal is the uniting of Jews and non-Jews in one purpose of mind, leaving no doubt there is a line which must not be crossed, and which we will defend to protect and secure the sovereign state of Israel. For years, pundits have been analyzing and suggesting solutions to every event that chronicles the obvious injustice Israel faces, but to what avail? It's now 2011, the free world, and, most especially, Israel, is under attack by Obama's policies. Obama's solution to the Israeli-Arab dispute — amputation and more amputation to the Body of Israel — thus bringing upon her ultimate death. Instead of submitting ourselves as a hapless victim to his knife, the Jewish People must take a proactive stance. We need to unite as one and take up the call for an immediate end to negotiations with people who have become nothing more than foot soldiers in Iran's global terrorist's enterprise. Whether it is Hamas, or Fatah, whether you label them religious terrorists or secular moderates, the DNA of hate and the destruction of Israel is the glue that binds these political parties to a common objective: Their determination is to create another terrorist Islamic state with "East Jerusalem" as its capital. (There never was a "west bank or east JERUSALEM" until the terms were invented to erase the real names which for thousands of years have been and remain JUDEA, SAMARIA and JERUSALEM). At the end of the day, to be victorious we need a Proclamation whose Declaration unites us in one purpose, one heart, when discussing the business of securing the survival of Israel. It must be one that keeps us on a steady course as we advance towards this objective, not one of half measures that keep us scattered in every direction by the winds of change and uncertainty. Never Again is Now is that proclamation; it is the inspiration for the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence. Its contents are a suitable vessel with which to directly address the issue of securing the survival of Israel, as it provides a litmus test establishing a line which cannot be crossed — the line which serves as a hedge of protection around the nation of Israel. To secure that line, we need an oath to take the necessary steps to insure a stop order on any policy which would comprise the defense and survival of the sovereign nation of Israel — an oath that upholds the tenets of the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence. With those in agreement, I urge that this Declaration be read aloud at the beginning of any meeting, setting protocol for addressing the business of securing the survival of the Jewish State — thus giving teeth to its decree that "Never Again Means Never Again." THE JEWISH PEOPLE'S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: Upholding the Mandates of Liberty's Just Cause Nathan Hale, in an act of defiance, declared: "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." Why did this proclamation have such a powerful impact on the people of his day? Because, it captured the essence of their convictions and clearly and powerfully expressed sentiments that they could rally around to defend against, and defeat, an enemy that threatened to destroy them. For all practical purposes, the baton for peace in the Middle East that has been passed down by every U.S. President has become nothing but a truncheon used for Israel's destruction. After more than 40 years of fruitless dialogue with the Arab states, the vultures of death are now circling Israel; she is boxed in on all sides. With Obama's final push to establish another terrorist Islamic state, how can we as a free people observe this act of betrayal and not scream out in disgust! Does he expect us to just sit here and watch everything we stand for be desecrated and defiled? Now, as with America's Founding Fathers, the Jewish People must declare their independence from his current policy that can only lead to the destruction of Israel. The Never Again is Now Coalition was established in 2008 for this stated purpose, as it provides a rallying point for Jews and non-Jews alike to unite against any policy that dictates that the Jewish People must again go silently into the night. The Jewish People's Declaration of Independence, as a Never Again decree, addresses this issue. Its purpose is clear, demanding that all agreements between Israel and other nations must be accountable to the core values that advance liberty's just purpose and noble cause — securing this world as a sanctuary, free from the forces that the governance of fascism, hatred and tyranny brings. Since lies are the tools that fascists and tyrannies use to complete their circuitry of deceit, all nations must abide by and honor the decrees that support the tenets of freedom as the seal to bind any and all peace agreements between Israel and all other nations. To verify if those who honor and enforce the above mandate give teeth to its demands, we authored the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence. As a never again decree, it clearly achieves this objective. Why? It demands that peace agreements offered by nations whose tyrannical protocol embraces the persecution of and/or hatred of Jews, and the destruction of Israel, be rebuked!.... while confirming that nations which champion freedom's cause stand unequivocally in opposition to any and all agreements that sanction the insidious notion that "terrorists/fascists and Israel are equal partners for peace." All Signatories Let it be known that all of the signatories to the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence support and proclaim that as a sovereign nation, Israel's right of self-determination is sacrosanct. Furthermore, Israel retains the exclusive and irrevocable right to establish the rules of engagement or disengagement from any agreements concerning the status and survival of the Jewish State. Notwithstanding, is the Jewish People's right to censure any parties, nations or international institutions which do not recognize a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — an irrevocable right that is reserved exclusively for the citizens of the sovereign nation of Israel. Please visit www.neveragainisnow.com and, if you have not signed the Declaration, add your name to the 22,000 signatories, including 800 Holocaust survivors, who support the ideals expressed in the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence. Then, pass this email on to everyone on your Twitter and Facebook lists. We also request your support by forwarding this email to Glen Beck me@glennbeck.com and news@glennbeck.com, a great supporter of Israel. Action Alerts will be forthcoming from Never Again is Now on how we can use the Declaration to consolidate our forces to put a stop order on any policy that would lead to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish People. Thank You,
Stanley Zir is co-founder with Buddy Macy of Never Again is Now,
the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence.
|
|
JERUSALEM BOMBING MARCH 23, 2011 — ANOTHER DECLARATION OF WAR
Posted by AFSI, March 23, 2011. |
|
This below is entitled "War By Every Means" and was written by Helen Freeman. |
|
We have been watching the war of deligitimization of Israel being waged throughout the world — even in Israel itself — where words have come into the vocabulary that have taken on entirely new meanings. Israel is seen as the "occupier", guilty of "apartheid", deserving of boycotts, divestments, sanctions, allowing its "settlers" to build on "ancient Palestinian lands," and creating "obstacles to peace." The whole program is one of preposterous proportions. It is Zionism and the very existence of Israel that is unacceptable to the Arabs. It is time Israel's leaders, its media, its courts, and its self-destructive delusional left-wingers face the truth and end the deceptions. Now the war has gone beyond words and print and has once again reverted to violence. On March 20, Israel was bombarded with fifty grad rockets, sent by Iran's proxy army, Hamas, from Gaza. The barrage reached as far as Beersheva and Ashkelon, where citizens were treated for shock. Today, March 23, 2011, the nightmare of bombs going off in Jerusalem has once again become a reality. The numbers of wounded keep climbing — up to 50 at this writing, with one death and others listed as critical. Israel's so-called "peace partners" — the Arabs with whom Israel is to live peacefully side by side in a blissful "two-state solution" have once again bared their true intentions. The goal that Arafat enunciated in 1996, to annihilate Israel and create a united "Palestine" under total Muslim Arab domination, has never been changed. The PA and Hamas charters calling for Israel's destruction have never been altered, despite many promises to many American administrations. Israel has tried appeasement, conciliation, denunciation, attacks on its own people, all to please the world, and none of it has been enough. No amount of debasement has been sufficient for world leaders. What should Israel's response be to this warfare — coming from all sides, in all forms? There is only one answer — and it was provided by Rabbi Meir Kahane shortly before he was murdered . — He declared: "If the only way to survive is to take the lives of people who attack us, we have no choice...There is nothing ethical about dying nor anything moral about another Holocaust. There is nothing immoral about winning and nothing necessarily noble in a loser. The greatness of Judaism is its spirit, but no spirit can survive without a living body... We in America must do what is possible to inspire courage and faith in Israel's leaders and to express our outrage against President Barack Obama for continuing to twist the arms of Israel's leaders in his pro-Muslim pursuit of the impossible "peace." Call the White House — 202-456-1111 or find the email form via: www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. Call Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: 202-6347-6575; secretary@state.gov Contact Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: 011-972-2-670-5369; memshala@pmo.gov.il; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il Contact Defense Minister Ehud Barak — 011-972-3-697-6663; pniot@mod.gov.il 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. |
|
HAMAS PRETENDS ITS ATTACKS ARE ON MILITARY; HEADING OFF ISRAELI
SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST HAMAS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 23, 2011. |
|
Hamas Pretends Its Attacks Are On Military Israeli differentiates Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians from Israeli retaliation against terrorist facilities. Hamas places its rocket crews among civilians [which is a war crime]. Then it complains that civilians sometimes get hurt, though the IDF calls it the accident of war. The distinction reiterated by Israel's PM Netanyahu is becoming widely understood. Hamas is losing standing in world public opinion. Now Hamas communiqués claim that its targets are Israeli military bases. But Hamas fired at civilian cities such as Ashdod and Beersheba, not military bases (IMRA, 3/23/11 http://www.imra.org.il/). Some Westerners complain that Israel is killing civilians. They do not complain that Hamas commits aggression against Israeli civilians and that it puts its own civilians in harm's way. How thoughtful is their complaint against Israel, not accompanied by a complaint against Hamas? How genuine is their concern for Arab civilians. They just want excuses to condemn Israel. War is not mathematically precise, and Westerners should not expect sit to be. They should be pleased at having greatly reduced the proportion of civilian casualties, and not expect war without mistakes. The media should emphasize Netanyahu's distinction, for it casts the conflict and the foes in a different and clearer light. Commentators should note Hamas' deception and mention its being authorized by Islam in jihad. They should go on to question what else coming from Islamist sources is deception. How sincere are Abbas' claims to want peace while he is praising those who make war? Does it occur to journalists to question why Palestinian Arabs are fighting after having signed agreements pledging not to? They also pledged to negotiate, but do not or do not in good faith. That leads to the question, can they negotiate peace with an enemy they describe as sub-human ("sons of apes and pigs" and inherently evil), an enemy whom they wish to conquer and kills (as they say, find and kill every Jew)? If they cannot negotiate genuine peace, why should Israel make any concessions for unobtainable peace? If the Muslim Arabs are bent on religious conquest, expulsion, and perhaps genocide, then the conflict is not based on alleged grievances. The allegation of grievances is further deception. Hamas had claimed before to be attacking military bases. As Fiamma Nirenstein reported in Terror: The New Anti-Semitism and the War Against the West (2005, Smith & Kraus, NY), indoctrinated Palestinian Arab terrorists call all Israelis "soldiers," aged and infants alike. She finds such Islamist terminology absurd, but most journalists ignore it. Why? If the journalists focused on what the Radical Muslims do and say, as this article does, how long would European public opinion favor the Arab side? Western journalism is biased, Ms. Nirenstein finds. Reporters assume that Israel has no right to defend itself. Although Radical Islam is the greatest menace to civilization since the Nazis and Communists, Western journalism fails to recognize evil. It is too bound by old and evil feelings of antisemitism. Ms. Nirenstein visited Jenin shortly after the combat there, and found that most residents had fled, but many who remained and did not themselves bear arms, nevertheless performed military functions. They were lookouts, resupplied combatants, and provided shelter. Are they civilians? The same question may be asked of Tripoli residents who voluntarily flock around Ghadaffi as human shields. To keep that inhumane tyrant in power, they play upon Western humanitarianism. We should not be duped and neither should our media let our decency be exploited by Islamist indecency. America is getting the same unfair reputation for wantonly killing innocent civilians that the Arabs have succeeded in pinning on Israel.
Heading Off Israeli Self-Defense Against Hamas Hamas has been stepping up its rocket bombardment of Israeli cities: Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza belt towns. Several Israelis have been injured — the trend is upward. One expert suggests that the escalation is due to Egypt's increasing placation of Iran and accommodation with the Muslim Brotherhood. In other words, Hamas feels that Egypt supports it. But others think the increase is an attempt to divert attempts at popular uprisings. Hamas now uses more of the longer-range and better aimed Grad rockets. It also fired 10 mortars on 3/23/11. What is the reaction? PM Netanyahu boasts of prior retaliation have brought "quiet." The IDF Home Front command tells Israelis to go about business as usual and refuses to raise an alarm. It explains that otherwise Israelis might think they are at war, which the Home command denies. Otherwise, Israelis might be confused by the rockets and mortars into thinking this is a war. [But commentators remark that Israel will have to clear Hamas out of Gaza before it is too late.] Beersheba residents are advised to take to the air raid shelters. One resident said there is no point to. Half of them are locked, and residents would have too little time to find the unlocked ones. Many of them have not been refurbished for years, leaving residents in doubt of their adequacy. How much money did neglecting them save? Egypt warns that new "aggression," by which it means Israeli self-defense against Hamas aggression, would be dangerous. Jordan condemns violence by both sides, but urges Israel to show restraint. Meanwhile, a couple of current and former British intelligence officials suggest discussions with Al-Qaida and Hamas, as if those fanatical groups, which killed thousands of innocent people, can be reasoned with to desist. In Europe, even non-Radical Muslims suggest that Islam recapture Spain and that it take over Britain. President Obama has not yet commented, but as usual, he favors regimes hostile to the U.S. and disapproves of regimes relatively favorable to the U.S. He considers the U.S. an imperialist menace that needs to be hobbled by disavowing world leadership and subordinating itself to international organizations and treaties (Arutz-7, 3/23/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ and IMRA, 3/23 http://www.imra.org.il/ and Commentary Magazine). We have been through these approaches before, and found them all wanting. Some people never tire of attempting appeasement of evil ideologies, despite its constant failure. The Arabs refer to Israeli self-defense as "aggression," and Arab aggression as "resistance." The media does not correct them but it gives time and space to their distortion. The Israeli government fails to protect its people but boasts that it does so. Meanwhile, the enemy builds up ever greater forces menacing Israel, without Israeli hindrance. Instead, Israel neglects civil defense. Only when Israel is about to retaliate, after having taken a beating, do foreign leaders demand restraint. Hypocrisy rules. 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. |
|
INTERVENTION IN LIBYA: A RECIPE FOR A BIG MESS
Posted by Seth J. Frrantzman, March 23, 2011. |
|
The central problem with the intervention in Libya is the lack of a clear goal. |
|
Take two parts Muammar Gaddafi. Add one part rebellion and a pinch of African and Eastern European mercenaries. Season with UN and NATO air strikes and let simmer. That is the dish being brewed in Libya. Every day, more news of nonsense comes out of that country. It's worth summing up some of it and contemplating the chances for failure in light of this half-hearted foreign intervention. "War in the desert is warfare in its purest form." Such were the words of Gen. Kress von Kressenstein upon observing the 1917 battle of Gaza, in which the British used tanks against the German defenses. But the rebellion in Libya is far from pure warfare. The battle for Libya is between feeble rebel units that display much bravado to reporters but little in battle, and Gaddafi's wishy-washy army. Like the current conflict, World War II in Africa was a seesaw affair. In 1940 Italy — which occupied Libya — invaded British-occupied Egypt. But, like the Libyan rebels, the Italian army, despite its bravado, became bogged down and the British quickly beat it back toward Tripoli. In March 1941 the Axis forces, now reinforced with Erwin Rommel's German units, overran the British and forced them back to Egypt, much like Gaddafi rolled back the rebels. The Germans surrounded several British units in Tobruk, near the Egyptian border, and laid siege to them for 240 days. In June 1942 Rommel once again defeated the British, this time forcing them to within 70 miles of Alexandria. But as we know, the war did not end there; the Germans were again driven back, this time for good. AS IN the desert war, the Libyan conflict has lurched from crisis to crisis. In late February, sporadic protests turned into a genuine rebellion. Rebels captured arms in Benghazi, capital of eastern Libya. For two weeks it seemed that the Libyan regime was finished. Newspapers printed maps showing most of Libya in rebel hands. But things apparently were changing. After defections by some army units, Gaddafi brought in African mercenaries to bolster his dwindling cadre of loyalists. By March 5, his army had been reorganized, and he unleashed it against rebel forces around Tripoli. There have been reports that Gaddafi's offensive was bolstered by Eastern European mercenaries, who, unlike the African recruits, would have been familiar with Soviet equipment such as T-72 tanks. Whatever the case, by March 10 the government forces had recaptured Zawiya near Tripoli and Ras Lanuf, between Tripoli and Benghazi. By March 16, both Brega and Ajdabiya were in government hands. The rebels have repeatedly made blustery statements. Just prior to suffering a string of defeats around March 10, they had given Gaddafi mere hours to leave the country. They have made claims regarding recruitment, describing enlistment drives that armed 5,000 men and then another 8,000. But rebel spokesman Abdel Hafiz Ghoga claimed on March 20 that 8,000 rebels had been killed in fighting. The rebels have boasted of receiving defectors who have brought over tanks and airplanes. They possess at least a few warplanes, but one of them, a MiG-23, was shot down on March 19. They have fired rockets wildly and adorned themselves with belts of ammo to give the impression of being well-armed. They talk about receiving military aid from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. On March 16 it was reported that Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, a former Libyan commando officer, had returned to fight alongside the rebels. But the rebels show little military prowess. Nonetheless, they received a boost on March 17, when the UN imposed a no-fly zone over Libya. On March 19 French planes began bombing Libyan tanks in the suburbs of Benghazi. Further raids by British and American planes followed. So now the road for the rebels is once again open between Benghazi and Adjabiya.
BUT THE central problem with the intervention in Libya is its lack of a goal. It is not about killing Gaddafi: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said it would be "unwise" to kill him, and UK Gen. Sir David Roberts claims his country hasn't targeted him because the UN does not permit such action. It is not about helping the rebels: Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said there could very well be a stalemate in the aftermath of air strikes, and both President Barack Obama and British MPs have said there are no plans for ground troops. Justin Crump, a contributor to Al Jazeera on military affairs, correctly notes that airpower is not a panacea, and will almost certainly not be enough to tip the balance against Gaddafi. The rebels seem incompetent. So unless the world is incredibly lucky, intervention there seems to be a recipe for a big mess. Unending conflict in Libya is not in the interest of anyone. With uncertainty already casting a pall over Egypt, Tunisia and increasingly over Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, and chaos having given rise to Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza, it can't possibly be good to have a long stalemate in Libya which, until a few months ago, had the highest GDP per capita in North Africa, at around $14,000 (Israel's is $29,000). Egypt and Morocco were less than half that. Plunging a relatively wealthy country back into the dark ages, akin to Saddam's Iraq between 1985 and 2005, is not good either. And getting Libyans hooked on foreign aid, like Kosovo, East Timor, Haiti, Gaza and some African countries, will also spell trouble. The dish being prepared in Libya needs to be tossed out in favor of a more positive future. Seth J. Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. |
|
BOMBING IN JERUSALEM
Posted by One Family Fund, March 23, 2011. |
A bomb exploded at a crowded bus stop near the entrance to Jerusalem two hours ago, as children were leaving school for the day and the afternoon rush hour was beginning. The massive explosion rocked the area of the Binyanei Hauma convention center as a bus pulled up to the stop. At least 25 people were injured in the explosion, three seriously. 
The injured victims have been taken to hospitals in Jerusalem and OneFamily's team are on the scene to provide whatever assistance is necessary. This attack is part of a tremendous escalation in anti-Israel terrorist activity, that has also included numerous rockets fired at Beer Sheva, Ashkelon and Ashdod in the past 24 hours, as well as mortar attacks on the communities surrounding the Gaza Strip. OneFamily's case workers have been on the scene in all these communities, providing immediate assistance, calming the frayed nerves of the residents, and beginning the rehabilitation process of those affected. ADDENDUM: From Rabbi Rachamim Pauli (Rachamim47@aol.com): Please pray for the following victims of the Jerusalem bombing Odelia Nechama bat Michal — suffered serious head injuries and is in intensive care. Her life is still in danger. Natan Daniel ben Shulamit — a 17-year-old student who is in serious condition. He suffered massive internal injuries and has had a number of internal organs removed. David Amoyal — David is the owner of the snack stand next to the bus stop. He told everyone to run away and then called the police, and was on the phone with them when the bomb exploded. He suffered injuries to his legs and feet and lower body. He is in moderate condition. Sasson ben Shulamit — This is the second time Sasson has been injured in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem. He suffered lower body injuries and serious post-traumatic symptoms. Ad Shapira — Ad is 18 years old and just about to complete high school. She suffered light orthopedic injuries and is in good condition in hospital. Shilo ben Ofra — Shilo is 15 years old, and suffered burns and fractures to his legs and lower abdomen. He is sedated in intensive care. Daniel ben Nurit — Daniel is 13 years old, and suffered lacerations and shrapnel injuries to his lower extremities, and is likely to be released from the hospital before Shabbat. Elchanan ben Alona — Elchanan is 14 years old, and suffered serious injuries to his feet. One ankle and three of his toes were crushed. He has had one operation and will require more surgery. He will likely be in the hospital at least 2-3 weeks. Netanel ben Shlomit — Netanel is 18 years old and works as a security guard at the bus station. He was injured in the abdomen had surgery. He is now recuperating in the hospital Please visit OneFamily's website at http://www.OneFamilyFund.org for more updates on the injured victims of this week's attacks. Leah Bracha bat Shoshana Batya — is already on my list. She is a 19-year-old seminary student. She suffered burns to her legs and arms as well as serious shock.
|
|
STATE DEPARTMENT LEGITIMIZES TERROR
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, March 23, 2011. |
|
To whom did the Obama administration grant permission to fly the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] flag in Washington D.C.? The answer: Palestinian Arabs — A society whose overwhelming majority nurtures a blind hatred of Israel, and has created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death. This organization, which has been directly responsible for the murders of American civilian and security personnel, now has its recognition and flag waving in our capitol. Here is just a subset of articles from the PLO Charter that the American administration has no shame to honor: *Article 7: [Individual] must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation. And if their charter was not convincing enough, the United States Congress, on numerous occasions, has reaffirmed the PLO's status as a terrorist organization. Although past presidents have attempted to circumvent this law, its conclusions are concise and unequivocal: "Therefore, the Congress determines that the PLO and its affiliates are a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the United States." The violent and disturbing history of the PLO is one that has dreadfully affected the lives of countless Israelis, Americans, and many others. The PLO is so transparent in its criminal and malicious ways, whether it be via their charter, public statements, or incitement, that one must question what the State Department was thinking when it upgraded the status of their mission from representative office to general delegation. 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 |
|
SELF-REFLECTION AND SELF-BLAME; ISRAEL AND OBAMA
Posted by UCI, March 23, 2011. |
|
This was written by Kenneth Levin and it appeared March 20,
2011 in the American Thinker and is archived at
|
|
Much has been written about President Obama's reported statement to a Jewish group earlier this month that Israelis should search their souls concerning the quest for peace. In this offensive comment and related remarks, Obama once more put the onus on Israel for the absence of movement towards a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while he characterized Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas as eager for a fair deal. In fact, Abbas has used the mosques, media and schools under his control to militate against any genuine peace. The message conveyed by all three is that Jews have no historical connection to any part of Palestine, that they are mere usurpers whose presence must be expunged, and that it is the duty of every Palestinian to pursue that goal. In addition, Abbas has personally praised terrorists who have killed Israelis as the ideal all Palestinians should strive to emulate and has explicitly endorsed efforts to delegitimize Israel and its right to exist within any borders. But Obama's hostility to Israel appears impervious to all such realities. Perhaps this should not be surprising, as his jaundiced view of America's traditional role in world affairs is hardly more responsive to counter-evidence. Thus, he pursues the reining in of American leadership, and the reaching out to those who wish America ill, even as his doing so entails, among other travesties, allowing Muammar Gaddafi to slaughter most of his way back to full control of Libya; promising carrots to Sudan's Omar al-Bashir despite the continuing genocide in Darfur; and doing nothing meaningful to help the bloodied people of Iran throw off the totalitarian yoke of their nation's theocracy. Obama's insulting call for Israeli soul-searching reminded many of a similarly hostile statement in July, 2009, in which he urged Israelis to do some "serious self-reflection." But commentary on Obama's "advice," both then and now, has generally failed to note that, for many Israelis, the last decade has, in fact, been one of intense soul-searching and self-reflection. This introspection, for most, has been a radical departure from a decade earlier, when these same people had largely abandoned serious consideration of the realities of Israel's predicament. They had done so primarily out of exhaustion with the unending Arab siege of their nation. For the more than forty years from the nation's founding until the early 1990's, Israelis had envisioned their Arab neighbors ultimately reconciling themselves to the Jewish state's existence and agreeing to peace. They had pinned their hopes on various imagined scenarios. From the time the League of Nations, in 1922, mandated the creation, in former Ottoman Empire territories, of two large Arab states as well as — in the Jews' ancestral homeland — reestablishment of the Jewish national home, the Arab world had rejected the latter project and local Arabs had repeatedly resorted to bloody attacks on Jews living in the Mandate region assigned them. Nevertheless, after Israel's creation, many Israelis anticipated the Arab world would accept the Jewish state as a fait accompli. When this failed to materialize, many, recalling recurrent British incitement of Arab attacks on the Jews both before and during the 1947-48 war, theorized that Arab hostility was fueled largely by colonial manipulation. They therefore expected it would dissipate when Britain retreated from the region. When this too failed to occur, optimism shifted to the thesis that the Arab war against Israel was propelled by the machinations of conservative Arab monarchs and would end as they were replaced by new, reformist leaders. Indeed, many Israelis saw the 1952 coup in Egypt that catapulted Gamel Abdel Nasser to power as a harbinger of peace. This also, of course, proved dramatically wrong. It was then argued that hostility to Israel was fed by pan-Arabism and so would inevitably ease as the various Arab nations redirected their attention to their own people and their internal development. Others suggested Arab enmity was encouraged and sustained by Arab despots of various stripes but would disappear with what they believed to be the impending democratization of the Arab world. But the Arab siege continued, accompanied by recurrent acts of anti-Israel terror. In 1967, the siege reached a new level of intensity as Egypt mustered a huge force on Israel's border, declared the time had come for Israel's destruction, and enlisted other Arab states in its planned offensive. When Israel won the ensuing war in dramatic fashion and captured large swathes of Arab territory, many Israelis then anticipated that the Arabs would agree to peace in order to recover lost lands. But instead the Arab nations soon unanimously endorsed the "three no's": no recognition, no negotiation, no peace. Then in the late 1970's, Egypt, under Anwar Sadat, broke ranks with the rest of the Arab world and agreed to a negotiated peace. Israelis now anticipated that this presaged a widening circle of Arab-Israeli accommodation. But Egypt was ostracized by all other Arab states for its accord with Israel. In addition, Egypt refused to implement the approximately two dozen agreements on normalization of trade and other relations that were part of the treaty with Israel. Instead, it fashioned a "cold peace" that has entailed, for example, ongoing intense defamation of Israel in state-controlled media and an actual increase of anti-Semitic propaganda in Egyptian print and broadcast outlets. As the continuation of the Arab siege, and recurrent disappointment in hopes for a change in Arab attitudes, wore away anticipation of a soon-to-be-realized genuine peace, a significant portion of the Israeli public, including the majority of the nation's elites, chose to turn its gaze from the reality of Arab enmity. It averted its eyes as well from the reality of Arab hostility — then as now — towards every minority, religious or ethnic, living within what Muslim Arabs consider as properly their exclusive domains. This has included, for example, rejection of, and attacks upon, the Christian blacks of southern Sudan and Christians across the Arab world, the Muslim blacks of Darfur, the Berbers of Algeria and the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. Large numbers of Israelis chose to look away from such unpleasant realities and instead embrace delusions of Israeli control over the nation's predicament vis-a-vis its neighbors. They embraced the delusion, despite all the evidence against it, that Arab hatred was actually due to past Israeli missteps and fault and that if Israel would only make sufficient amends, especially retreat to the pre-1967 armistice lines, then Arab hostility would be assuaged and peace would ensue. They insisted that Israel would then not need to concern itself with defensible borders as, in the context of peace, there would be nothing to defend against. They abandoned all serious self-reflection and rushed en masse to endorse the Oslo agreements and embrace arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat and his cadres as their "peace partners." On the September, 1993, evening after the signing of the initial Oslo accords on the White House lawn, Arafat declared in a broadcast to his Palestinian constituents and to the wider Arab world that they should understand Oslo as the first step in implementing the PLO's 1974 plan. This was a reference to the "plan of phases," which called for taking whatever land could be gained by negotiations and using that territory as a base for pursuing Israel's annihilation. But Israel's Oslo enthusiasts ignored Arafat's speech and celebrated the outbreak of "peace." In the ensuing months, and more particularly after Arafat's arrival in the territories, Israel suffered the worst level of terror attacks it had ever endured. Arafat openly praised those responsible for the terror. The Palestinian Authority, then as now, used its media, mosques and schools to declare Israel's existence illegitimate, teach Palestinian children they must devote themselves to the nation's destruction, and prepare the entire Palestinian population for incessant war against Israel. Still, half of Israel ignored all this and continued to focus its gaze on its rosy delusions. Some Oslo devotees did, during the Oslo years, revert to serious reflection and soul-searching on Israel's predicament and the harm the nation had done itself. In 1997, senior Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit, a former Oslo enthusiast, wrote, "In the early 90's... we, the enlightened Israelis, were infected with a messianic craze... All of a sudden, we believed that... the end of the old Middle East was near. The end of history, the end of wars, the end of the conflict... We fooled ourselves with illusions. We were bedazzled into committing a collective act of messianic drunkenness." But Shavit's opening his eyes was then a rare act among Oslo's true believers, and he was vilified by other "enlightened Israelis." It was only in 2000, when Arafat and his associates rejected Israel's dramatic concessions at Camp David, rejected as well President Clinton's bridging proposals, refused to offer any counter-proposals and instead launched their terror war against Israel, that Oslo enthusiasts in large numbers began to engage in serious self-reflection and free themselves from their erstwhile delusions. The numbers of the disabused grew as the terror war increased in viciousness, claiming more victims on buses, in restaurants, in markets and outside schools. Still more who had resisted serious reflection on Israel's situation began to abandon their delusions when Israel unilaterally evacuated all its citizens and soldiers from Gaza and got in return intensified rocket and mortar attacks onto Israeli towns and villages near the Gaza border. Today, the great majority of Israelis understand they have no "peace partner." They understand the agenda of Hamas, which explicitly declares in its charter, in its media, in its mosques, in its schools, its dedication not only to the annihilation of Israel but to the murder of all Jews, and which daily seeks to translate its words into acts. They understand that so-called "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas, while talking of peace to foreign audiences, makes clear to his own people that he and his Fatah movement will likewise not reconcile themselves to Israel's existence. There are, however, still many Israelis who cling to their Oslo era delusions, people who still insist that sufficient Israeli concessions will somehow transform the Middle East and who persist in misconstruing defamatory self-blame as serious self-reflection. Among them are the much diminished ranks of Peace Now. But then, President Obama, too, mistakes defamatory self-blame for serious self-reflection, as illustrated in his serial apologies for American behavior and in those myriad policies predicated on his jaundiced view of America; policies, again, adhered to despite all evidence of their disastrous consequences. Israel's shift to serious self-reflection, to looking open-eyed at the nation's predicament, did not come cheaply. Nearly 1,500 lives have been lost to the anti-Israel terror enabled by Oslo. With the American population some fifty times that of Israel, a proportional loss would be 75,000 dead. Let us hope President Obama's path from apologetics, and from the hubris of ignoring the world's grim realities, to genuine soul-searching and self-reflection does not entail America's paying such a dear price. UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" |
|
ARGENTINA REMEMBERS DEADLY BOMBING OF ISRAELI EMBASSY IN 1992
Posted by Barbara Taverna, March 23, 2011. |
|
The video of the horrific attack on the
AIMA Jewish Center, which took place later, is at:
|
|
Politicians and Jewish leaders have commemorated the anniversary of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and expressed concern about the growing influence of Iran in Latin America. "Iran was behind the 1992 Embassy attack. Iran is trying to increase its influence in Latin America," Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in a message read out by Israel's ambassador to Argentina, Daniel Gazit. In the car bomb attack on 17 March 1992, 29 people were killed and 242 injured. "I came here with my parents and met all the ambassadors of Israel. Then I came due to political persecution," said Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, who is Jewish. "Today, I come as foreign minister of a government committed to justice. It is hard for me stand up here; I am a foreign minister of a country who was attacked twice and there is no justice for the attackers." The perpetrators of the deadly car bombing are still at large, as are those who planned the attack on the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires in July 1994, in which 85 people died. Gabriel Pitchon, a survivor of the 1992 attack, expressed the commitment of family and friends of the victims to seek justice. Timerman told the crowd at the memorial that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner had appealed to Iran to cooperate with the justice minister of Argentina in the AMIA case at the General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2010, proposing that a third country should judge Iranian citizens accused of involvement in the attack. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com
This is archived at
|
|
DISPROPORTIONATE RESTRAINT
Posted by David Isaac, March 23, 2011. |
|
"Disproportionate force" is the accusation invariably hurled at Israel when she does anything beyond lie down in response to Arab attack. In Dec. 2008, for example, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in an effort to reduce Hamas rocket fire coming in from the Gaza Strip — 1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortar bombs were hurled at Israel that year alone. Less than a year passed before the UN Human Rights Council Commission on Gaza led by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone accused Israel of "a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population." But if Israel is guilty of anything it's of disproportionate restraint. We see this most recently in the government's feeble reaction to the Fogel family murders, in which a mother, a father and their three children were stabbed to death. The youngest, a 3-month-old baby girl, had her throat slit to the point of decapitation. It appears that the terrorists, who are still at large, fled to a nearby Arab village. "They murder. We build," was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remark to 12-year-old Tamar Fogel, the eldest daughter, who discovered the slaughter after returning home from an evening out with her youth group. The prime minister was referring to the government's decision, in light of the attack, to approve the building of some 400 new apartments in places like Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, Kiryat Sefer and Gush Etzion. Notably absent from the list was Itamar, the town where the murders actually took place. Itamar has been the site of many Arab terror attacks — 15 Jews were murdered at the height of the post-Oslo "peace". It especially behooves Israel's government to build in Itamar as it bears some guilt for the attack, having failed to provide adequate defense for the community. According to Arutz Sheva, "the IDF refused to fund essential security equipment around the Itamar fence because the government's legal department claimed that the fence was illegal.... The army also refused to help fund technological upgrading and installation of advanced capabilities for the surveillance camera ... The upgrading would have made it possible, through the use of thermal sensitive devices, to differentiate between an animal touching the fence and someone going over it." Those who have followed news of the murders may recall that a guard on the night of the grisly crime was alerted by a fence alarm at the point where the terrorists infiltrated. Inspecting the area, he saw that the fence hadn't been cut (the terrorists had jumped over), so he assumed an animal had triggered the alarm and did not pursue the incident further. The 'they murder, we build' approach has not gone over well with the residents of Judea and Samaria. "It was an insult, Yesha Council officials said this week," according to a Ynetnews.com op-ed. "Linking construction to this murder is simply insulting. It felt like the PM was offering us a deal: Here, you deserve 500 housing units for this murder. And even that figure quickly turned into 400 homes. And then we discovered that some 200 of those are apartments already approved a month ago and earmarked for young haredi couples in Beitar Ilit." The Netanyahu government says that it will also pursue the murderers. It may very well catch them. But unless the perpetrators are killed while being taken, they will end up doing time in an Israeli prison, perhaps eventually to be released in return for the bodies of some Israeli soldiers, as happened in the case of Sami Kuntar, who in 1979 shot dead 28-year-old Danny Haran and then killed his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, by smashing her skull with a rifle butt. No one would have believed that such a monster would have been released but he was set free in 2008 to be feted by Lebanon, Syria and Iran. In an interview, he remarked, "God willing, I will get the chance to kill more Israelis." Another group of terrorists who will probably enjoy relatively cushy confinement courtesy of the Israeli taxpayer are the Hamas terrorists who carried out an attack in September, killing four residents of Beit Haggai, a Jewish town near Hebron. The Arabs ambushed the four when they stopped their car at an intersection, shot them and then pulled their bodies from the vehicle and shot them again at point-blank range. One of the murdered was a woman nine months pregnant. Just as with the murders in Itamar, the Israeli authorities share some of the guilt. As Arutz Sheva reported back in September, "The Victims of Arab Terror organization said it had begun initial steps into suing the Government of Israel for 'having taking away the gun of Yitzchak Imas [one of the four killed at Beit Haggai], which might have been able to save his life and that of the other victims." Successive Israeli governments have pursued an upside down policy, failing to defend its citizens, even depriving them of the means to defend themselves, while at the same time releasing terrorists who've committed the most heinous crimes. This suicidal approach is reminiscent of the policy pursued by the Jewish Agency during the years of the 1936 Arab Revolt in the Mandate period. As Shmuel Katz wrote in Days of Fire (W.H. Allen, 1968): After a very brief period of hesitation the Agency decided on a policy called havlaga (self-restraint). This did not mean passivity. The Haganah was active, maintaining a twenty-four-hour protective guard on institutions in the towns, and a constant lookout in the agricultural settlements, and ready at any moment to repel attackers. But havlaga forbade carrying the war back to the attackers. They drove the enemy off (if he attacked in mass) but they did not pursue him; they did not liquidate his bases, nor counterattack. ... Even as late as 1947, with a full-scale Arab invasion imminent, the Haganah found it difficult to shed pre-conceived notions. As Katz wrote: Accidents and bad luck, even inefficiency in execution, are understandable, even inevitable. What was disturbing throughout those weeks was the strangely unreal political aspects of all Haganah activity. They persisted in describing these reprisals as "punitive operations" — an empty phrase which emphasized their failure to recognize the fact that they were waging a war of life and death. But the Jewish Agency's official policy was still "moderation and non-provocation." ... Why did the Jewish Agency leadership adopt such a policy? Katz offers that: They saw their pioneering efforts as the foundation on which Jewish political existence could be built. But with their gaze turned inward, they were not capable of making a realistic assessment of the forces ranged against Zionism. Confronted by a clear-sighted, purposeful antagonist determined to set bounds to Jewish regeneration, they did not even identify the antagonist, let alone pause to recognize his motives. It's unlikely Netanyahu is motivated by similar illusions regarding Obama's friendship. What Netanyahu shares with the "elite" of the Jewish Agency is the folly of his approach. With murder to the left of him and murder to the right of him, he intends to propose a new peace initiative. This plan will include more concessions to the PA. His motive may be that he wishes to head off, in the words of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a "diplomatic tsunami" whereby the international community will recognize a Palestinian State, but as others in the cabinet say, such an approach is "delusional". Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon points out that even so-called moderates like PA head Mahmud Abbas want Israel wiped off the map. It has been documented ad infinitum how the PA incites violence, indoctrinates children and celebrates the murder of Jews. The PA says one thing in English and another in Arabic. In the case of the Beit Haggai attack, the PA captured the terrorists responsible only to release them a few months later. When Sami Kuntar was released, the PA made him an honorary citizen. What is remarkable about the PA's reaction to the Fogel family murders is that it condemned them at all. In the end, the PA's official media made up for this uncharacteristic condemnation when in the next breath it held Israel ultimately responsible and suggested, according to MEMRI, "that the attack could have been perpetrated by an Israeli settler." The Jewish Agency chose subservience to resistance. Netanyahu does the same. But it was resistance (led by the Irgun and Lehi) that finally drove the British from Palestine. It is resistance — not pre-emptive surrender — that offers Israel its only chance to extricate itself from the hangman's noose. Contact David Isaac by email at
David_Isaac@shmuelkatz.com and visit his website at
|
|
NO 'REVOLUTION' FOR EGYPT'S CHRISTIANS
Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, March 23, 2011. |
|
I recently discussed the Arab uprisings and the caliphate on CrossTalk (which can also be viewed directly on YouTube). |
|
On March 5, Muslims attacked, plundered, and set ablaze an ancient Coptic church in Sool, a village near Cairo, Egypt. Afterwards, throngs of Muslims gathered around the scorched building and pounded its walls down with sledge hammers — to cries of "Allahu Akbar!" Adding insult to injury, the attackers played "soccer" with the relic-remains of the church's saints and martyrs and transformed the desecrated church into a mosque (a live example of history, which witnessed countless churches seized and transformed into mosques). As a result of Christian girls being abducted and raped and overall terrorization of the Coptic community, thousands fled the village. (See this letter to Egypt's military leadership signed by twenty congressmen discussing this and similar anecdotes.) This latest church rampage was initiated by Muslims killing each other over an affair between a Christian man and a Muslim woman — and then transferring their violence onto the Copts of the region and their church. 
Radical sheikh Muhammad Hassan, who was commissioned to investigate the incident, recently shared his "findings" on Egyptian TV. After insisting to Coptic viewers that "Islam is a religion of peace, mercy, and justice," he said that the "Muslim youth" who attacked the church never intended to do so; rather, they went there searching for a Coptic man. After invading the church, they discovered ancient liturgical books in the Coptic script, and papers with the names of Muslims. These were interpreted as "sorcery" — hence, they destroyed the church. (The fact is, some Muslims venerate St. Mary and often submit their names at churches for intercession.) Not once did Hassan condemn the Muslim perpetrators. He even referred to the Copts as "dhimmis" and "pact-holders," prompting outrage among Egypt's indigenous Christian population, or as one Copt put it: "Hassan wants to make Dhimmis out of us... I thought we were living in [a] country with a constitution and a police force and not in Mecca or Medina, 14 centuries ago. Or maybe this is a first step to later subject Christians to Jizya for protection." As medieval as this entire anecdote is — and as anachronistic as Hassan's rationale of "sorcery" is — none of this is surprising. What is disappointing, however, is that the Egyptian army — recently touted as the noble "savior" of the Egyptian people — and the Arabic media — which provided 24-hour coverage of the Tahrir Square protests — have both blatantly demonstrated their bias against Egypt's Christians. Portrayed in the Western media as magnanimous for restraining itself against Egypt's civilians during the recent uprisings, not only did the Egyptian army allow the wanton destruction of the church to go unfettered, but it also opened fire on Christians protesting the burning of the church, killing nine and seriously wounding at least a hundred, some beaten with electric batons. Coptic activist lawyer Sherif Ramzy, who was among those assaulted, said that the soldiers also cried "Allahu Akbar" before attacking the Copts, adding, "This only shows that the army is infiltrated by Islamists." Nor was this the first time since Mubarak was ousted that the military attacked Copts: in late February, armed forces, including tanks, opened fire on a 5th century monastery (as churches are accused of "sorcery," monasteries are accused of stockpiling weapons). Likewise, as Muslims spent some twenty hours pulverizing the church at Sool with sledge hammers, neither the military, nor state security ever appeared — and this near Cairo, Egypt's capital, not some inaccessible village. 
Where has the Egyptian and Arab media been in all this? Not only have they tried to bypass all of these unpleasantries with scant or euphemistic mention ("sectarian strife"); but they also failed to cover the massive protests in front of Egypt's State TV building in Maspiro, where Copts rallied in an effort to get the world's attention, demanding the return of the church (which is now called "Mercy Mosque") and the return of the Copts back to their village. By some accounts, there were nearly two million protestors — including many Egyptian Muslims who rose up in support of their Christian countrymen. One would have thought all this newsworthy. As Wahid of the Arabic show Al Dalil put it: Al Jazeera focused on every detail of Tahrir Square for twenty days. Where is Al Jazeera when Christians are attacked in Egypt, protesting and sleeping in the streets for ten days — or are they infidels, no good, or irrelevant dhimmis? You claim that you represent an objective and fair media in the Middle East — but where were you regarding what happened in Maspiro in Egypt? This confirms to us that you are one of the most terrible medias — a discriminating organization that treats events based on whether they deal with Muslims or not. But if it's about Christians, then we [i.e., Al Jazeera] don't deal with it. This is a media crisis of huge proportions. Till this day we do not have any media in the Middle East that is objective and that portrays the news as it truly is. (My translation.) Aside from what all this bodes for the Copts, Western observers should also be concerned. For starters, that the Western media closely followed Al Jazeera's lead during the Tahrir Square protests, while being virtually clueless of these massive Christian uprisings, suggests that, when it comes to information on the Middle East, the Western mainstream media is heavily dependent on the Arab media, especially Al Jazeera. This is not to say that the West agrees with the point of view put forth by Al Jazeera. But it is to say that whether an issue even makes it to the Western media — makes it to the West's knowledge — is very much dependent on whether Islamist-leaning Al Jazeera wants to publicize it or not. More troubling, these events unequivocally betray the Egyptian military's Islamist inclinations. This should not be surprising: as a grassroots movement, the Muslim Brotherhood has long been infiltrating Egypt's culture so that some of the youth — who make up the bulk of the army — have naturally been indoctrinated in an Islamist worldview. Indeed, the military, which keeps imprisoned some of the secular youth who initiated the original revolution, has just released a number of jihadists, including al-Zomar, who reasserted in his first interview the need for Egypt's Christians to pay the jizya tax, thereby confirming their inferior status under Muslim rule. Al-Zomar, of course, was not imprisoned because of his anti-Christian views, but because he was closely involved in the assassination of former President Sadat for making peace with Israel. Thus the Egyptian military's Islamist leanings suggest that changes for the worse are coming — not just for the Copts, but internationally as well. Because the Islamist worldview is interrelated, Egypt's leadership may well prove to be as anti-American and anti-Israel for the very same reason it is anti-Christian — all are infidels, all are the enemy. The only difference is that the Copts are weak, whereas America and Israel are currently not — thus unabashed animosity for the former, latent hostility for the latter.
Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College. This article is archived at
http://www.meforum.org/2678/ground-zero-mosque
|
|
MIDEAST 'EXPERTS'; SELF IMPORTANCE ON PRIME TIME
Posted by Susana K-M, March 23, 2011. |
|
One of the major problems with interviewing journalist "experts" on the Mideast (or any subject for that matter) is that they occasionally get so wrapped up in their own assumed sense of geopolitical brilliance and consequence that they mislead the public with twisted or even totally wrong information just to make a point. Take Piers Morgan's very able CNN interviews last week with journalism's Sultan of Self-Importance, the New York Times' Tom Friedman, as well as with the New Yorker's much lauded editor David Remnick, another veteran of Mideast reporting. Talking about the recent wave of democratic discontent that has swept the Middle East, Friedman quickly invoked his penchant for pop-pomposity. As he put it, as far as the Mideast was concerned "stability has left the building" (he liked the phrase so much that he used it twice). Moreover, he insisted,we are "still in the top of the first inning". Clownishly put, yet true enough. But then, Friedman went on to indicate that solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem was still a regional core issue (something the lack of anti-Israeli rhetoric during the demonstrations from Tunis to Tahrir Square proved was not quite true — at least as far as the Arab masses go.) What's more, Friedman — who has been on an anti-Israel rant and rage for some time now — went on to suggest that it was the Jewish state and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu who were holding up the peace works...not the Palestinians who steadfastly refuse to negotiate face to face until Israeli agrees to prior conditions (in my book that's called "surrender", not "negotiation"). New Yorker editor David Remnick was considerably more measured (and decidedly better spoken than Friedman). But he too blamed the lack of a peace deal almost entirely on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and (shudder-shudder) pro-Israeli lobby groups in America. Remnick, who should know better, also told us (as did Friedman) that the basic problem was that Israel still occupies the West Bank and suggested that if Israel came up with a reasonable peace plan (or if the Obama administration did) — and Israel withdrew from the West Bank- unilaterally if it had to — the problems would be solved! Well, Israel has come up with a US backed peace plan, not once but three times — once under President Clinton, once under President Bush — and again in secret talks with the Palestinians themselves. These US-Israeli plans would have included a basic Israeli withdrawal from some 93 to 96 per cent of the West Bank with square mile for square mile exchanges of some Israeli green-line land for West Bank land in order to keep some Jewish settlements within Israeli territory. The plans also offered creative solutions for both Israeli and Palestinian presence in Jerusalem and security arrangements that guaranteed a new born Palestinian state wouldn't become the doormat for outside Arab military action against Israel — or against the Palestinians. Despite White House pleas , the plans were all privately and publicly rejected by the Palestinian leadership — either because they are just too weak to accept and enforce one or because after 63 years they still really don't want peace with a Jewish state whose legitimacy they still do not recognize. As far as the simplistic idea of just withdrawing from Palestinian territories, Israel has tried that gamble before and lost. The prime example is Gaza where Israel uprooted 8,500 settlers and completely dismantled 21 Jewish settlements. In exchange, all they got was Hamas and ongoing rocket shelling of Israel proper and the citizens therein. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PURIM IN HEBRON 2011
Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, March 22, 2011. |
|
Photos and videos: 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. |
|
JORDAN: PROBLEM OR SOLUTION?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 22, 2011. |
|
Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman considers Jordan the potential solution to Israel's problem with the Palestinian Arabs. He suggests federating the P.A. with Jordan. He supposes that Jordan would stabilize the P.A. and, being part of an Arab state of the same people, the P.A. no longer would make war on Israel. IMRA director Dr. Aaron Lerner warns that Jordan, itself, is not sufficiently stable to contain the stress of having to deal with the P.A.. He bases that warning on a news report that: (1) The Muslim Brotherhood is very influential among non-tribal Arabs in Jordan; (2) Most of the people in the country complain about government corruption. The tribes, normally loyal to the monarchy, insist that the government had better end corruption. The King responded by replacing his Prime Minister. Unfortunately, the replacement is unpopular (IMRA, 3/22/11 http://www.imra.org.il/). Lieberman's reliance upon Jordan overlooks Jordan's role as a repeated aggressor against Israel. At the end of the 1973 war, which Israel almost lost, the King of Jordan remarked that had he realized how precarious Israeli forces were, he would have piled on to Israel. Jordan once did control Judea-Samaria. What did it do with that control, as far as the Jews were concerned? It acted like an Islamic enemy of the Jews. Jordan used the Territories as a base for conquering Israel, expelled local Jews, and barred them from worshipping at the Temple Mount that the ceasefire authorized Jews to attend. Therefore, Min. Lieberman is naïve to think both that Jordan could tame the P.A. and that Jordan is benign. He also shows himself far from a Jewish nationalist and Zionist in wanting to give away part of the Jewish homeland to Israel's Arab enemies. He does not seek a Jewish solution. Some right-winger, Lieberman! One cannot seek a Jewish solution that pleases the antisemitic world. That is a basic self-contradiction. 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. |
|
SO IT WASN'T ISRAEL
Posted by Daily Alert, March 22, 2011. |
|
This was written by Rich Lowry and it appeared in the New
York Post
Arab governments were real problem. |
|
In the great Middle East who dunit, the verdict is in: The Jews are innocent. They aren't responsible for the violence, extremism, backwardness, discontent or predatory government of their Arab neighbors. The last few months should have finally shattered the persistent illusion that the Israeli-Palestinian question determines all in the Middle East. In an essay in Foreign Policy magazine titled "The False Religion of Mideast Peace," ex-diplomat Aaron David Miller recounts the conventional wisdom running back through the Cold War: "An unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict would trigger ruinous war, increase Soviet influence, weaken Arab moderates, strengthen Arab radicals, jeopardize access to Middle East oil, and generally undermine US influence from Rabat to Karachi." Obama: All his charm (and demands on Israel) couldn't get Palestinians to negotiate. Behind these assumptions has long stood a deeply simplistic understanding of the Arabs. Professional naif Jimmy Carter insists, "There is no doubt: The heart and mind of every Muslim is affected by whether or not the Israeli-Palestinian issue is dealt with fairly." This is reductive to the point of insult. Carter thinks that Muslims have no interior lives of their own, but are all defined by a foreign-policy dispute that is unlikely to affect most of them directly in the least. He mistakes real people for participants in an endless Council on Foreign Relations seminar. The Israeli-Palestinian issue certainly has great emotional charge, and most Arabs would prefer a world blissfully free of the Zionist entity. But the Israelis can't be blamed — though cynical Arab governments certainly try — for unemployment and repression in Arab countries. Monumental events in recent decades — the Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq War and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait — were driven by internal Muslim confessional, ideological and geo-political differences. Israel has nothing to do with the Sunnis hating the Shia, or the Saudis hating the Iranians, or everyone hating Moammar Khadafy. Adam Garfinkle muses in his book Jewcentricity: "Imagine, if you can, that one day Israelis decided to pack their bags and move away, giving the country to the Palestinians with a check for sixty years' rent. Would the Arabs suddenly stop competing among themselves, and would America and the Arab world suddenly fall in love with each other?" Yet the pull of the illusion is so powerful that even those who don't profess to believe in it, like George W. Bush, eventually get sucked in. Barack Obama came into office ready to deploy his charm and fulfill the millennial promise of the peace process once and for all. He couldn't even get the Palestinians to sit down to negotiate with the Israelis, in an unintended "reset" to the situation decades ago. According to the illusion, the region should have exploded in rage at Jewish perfidy and American ineffectualness. It exploded for altogether different reasons. We witnessed revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt without a hint of upset at the Israeli settlements or America's continued failure as a broker of peace. We've seen the Arab League petition the United States — whose sole function is supposed to be monitoring Israeli housing developments and paving the way for a Palestinian state — to undertake a military operation against another (recently suspended) member of the Arab League, Libya. It'd be easier if the key to the Middle East really were sitting around a negotiating table with a couple of bottles of Evian, poring over a map adjudicating a dispute so familiar that people have built diplomatic, academic and journalistic careers on it. The current terrain of the Middle East as it exists — not as we assume it should be — is hellishly disorienting by comparison: What to do when an ally invades another ally to knock around protesters in violation of our values? When a tin-pot dictator thumbs his nose at us and the rest of West and crushes his opponents with alacrity despite our earnest protestations? When popular uprisings threaten our allies more than our enemies? It makes the old peace process seem alluringly comfortable and manageable. No, the illusion will never die. The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
ISRAEL UN ENVOY SLAMS FALK OVER ACCUSATION OF 'ETHNIC CLEANSING'
Posted by Daily Alert, March 22, 2011. |
|
This was written by Shlomo Shamir and the Associated Press.
It is archived at
|
|
Israel's United Nations Envoy Aharon Leshno Yaar called Richard Falk an "embarrassment to the United Nations," after the academic charged Israel with ethnic cleansing on Monday. Falk, who is also an investigator for the UN, said earlier in the day that Israel's expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and eviction of Palestinians from their homes is a form of ethnic cleansing. Speaking to Haaretz, Leshno Yaar said Falk is the man who "claims that it is unclear who stands behind the terror attacks of 9/11 and calls IDF soldiers Nazis." Falk has been admonished in the past by UN Secretary General Ben Ki-moon for comments that he made about the 9/11 terror attacks. "Israel doesn't participate with Falk," Leshno Yaar said, adding that he leaves the room when he speaks. Falk made the comments while speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The "continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of long-residing Palestinians are creating an intolerable situation" in the part of the city previously controlled by Jordan, he said. This situation "can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing," Falk declared. In his speech, Falk said he would like the Human Rights Council to ask the International Court of Justice to look at Israeli behavior in the occupied territories. This should focus on whether the prolonged occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem had elements of "colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing inconsistent with international humanitarian law," the investigator declared. 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 |
|
BIN LADEN IS WINNING
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 22, 2011. |
|
This was written by Daniel Greenfield
and it appeared on his website: www.SultanKnish.com
|
|
Osama Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa against America was the first domino in a chain of events that was meant to accomplish three goals. 1) Unify Muslims in a war against Western civilization Phase 2 is now well under way. And America and European warplanes are bombing Libya to help clear the way for it. Just as we already did in Yugoslavia and Iraq. It is unknown whether Bin Laden is still alive or not, but his goals are being met. Muslims now see the defeat of Western civilization as an important and an achievable goal. Our democracy and nation building efforts have toppled much of the old order, and those best positioned to benefit from it are the Islamists. The East underestimated the sheer amount of firepower that the West had at its disposal, but the West once again underestimated how well the East could use its strength against it, corrupt its purposes and make it serve its goals instead. As the physically weaker civilization, the East adapts better than the West does. The byzantine cleverness of its plotting often dead ends in self-delusion, it has a weakness for conspiracy theories and its organizations and structures are rotted through at every level — but it also adjusts itself to a situation. While the West dusts off its old set of tactics and principles, striving to apply them to every situation. When Al Qaeda first attacked us, we treated it as a criminal problem. But when their attacks escalated and killed thousands of Americans, we treated it as a war. The flexibility problem was obvious. We could only categorize the threat either as a police problem or as a war, nothing in between. The United States had only a limited tradition of domestic political terrorism. And has no idea how to deal with external political terrorism aimed at taking over the country. Communism was badly fumbled for the same reason, it was not conventional crime or warfare. And even though it was a real menace, the authorities could not address it, because they could not categorize it. Islam represents the same problem. After centuries of intermittent conflict, and two decades of rising terror, we are still unable to meaningfully classify the enemy, define who he is and what his numbers are. Our tradition of protecting political dissent and religious freedom causes us to divide those who directly commit the violence, from those who indirectly commit the violence. But that is an artificial distinction that the enemy does not make. Terrorist organizations have political and military arms only as an operational distinction. Both are part of the same cause and committed to the same goal. For all its hostility to progress, Muslims have quickly found forms and structures that can function in the West. And move toward conquering it. Structures that are ideologically camouflaged within the protected zones of Western beliefs so that they cannot be touched. The West has been able to do nothing of the kind. Even when it has brought its armies into Muslim lands, they have been swiftly leveraged by the locals to support existing factions. Rather than imposing our standards and our values on them, we have become unpaid mercenaries in their wars. We tried to export our political systems with the force of arms, except we assumed that our political system was the natural baseline of all societies once the tyrants are removed from the equation. We still assume that right now. And so rather than imposing our systems, we instead strive to identify the Tojos, Hitlers and Mussolinis, sweeping them away and expecting a better world to form in their absence. We assume that the laws we live by are universal, but while they might be ideal, they are not culturally universal. Western structure is strengthening but inflexible. It makes for better institutions, but limited freedom of action. Eastern lack of structure makes for immediate flexibility. A shape that can be poured into any container while retaining its essential nature. Exporting Western structures to the East is meaningless unless they change the nature of the region. And it is easy to pour Muslim immigrants into Western containers without actually changing their basic attitudes. In the East, action, rhetoric and principle are all completely disconnected from one another. They may meet when convenient, but that is all. What a ruler says has no connection to what he does and only a passing acquaintance with his principles. There is a liquid flexibility in that which even the most corrupt Western politicians cannot match. Whereas a Western politician suborns a system of laws, for the Eastern politician laws are cards in a deck. The structures of government are unreal, cardboard sets for a play. When Western politicians think they are outmaneuvering their Eastern counterparts, they are not even in the same game. They are putting chess pieces on a dominoes board and claiming victory, when they don't even understand the rules of the game. Let alone how to win it. What did we do wrong? For one we have never stopped refighting World War 2. Treating Korea and Vietnam as if they were parts of Europe was bad enough, but throwing the Marshall Plan at the Muslim world is completely unforgivable. After WW2 we could at least rely on being able to roll back Germany, Italy and Japan to their pre-Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo states. But what in the world did we think we were rolling Iraq or Afghanistan back to? The stone age. The Abbasid Caliphate? Had we set out to smash the armed forces and industrial bases of the Axis of Evil, we would have been done long ago with a fraction of the casualties. Not only would we have dealt terrorist supporting regimes a major setback, but we would have limited our exposure to their culture and denied them the time necessary to form a working insurgency. Instead we assumed that reforming and rebuilding Iraq would turn it into a model of democracy for the region. And unsurprisingly, the surviving members of the Axis of Evil, made sure to amp up the terrorism, turning the nation building project into an occupation and finally a long series of compromises leading to a withdrawal. But the falling dominoes didn't end there. We took Saddam out of play, but left Iran in the game. And Iran used its new freedom of action to gain regional influence and power. Then in a final topper, a new administration championed democracy in the Muslim world, which isolated Western allied regimes, and allowed the Islamists in an alliance with Iran to topple even Cairo. And that's how we reached Phase 2. This is what Bin Laden wanted back in 1996. He may never replace the Saudi royals, but if he's alive, then he's closer to it than ever. And it's our work that got him there. We applied Western standards to non-Western states without realizing that the outcomes would be completely different than what we expected. Countless analysts are still applying the 1848 model to Arab regimes right now. The realization has still not dawned on them that the Middle East is not Europe and that their values are not universal, so instead of experiencing events, they are romanticizing them by marrying them with their own historical myths. By pushing us, Bin Laden set a chain of events in motion. No one could have predicted the exact trajectory of them, but in the general sense, he sought to move the Muslim world toward an armed Jihad against the West with the aim of overthrowing Middle East governments and building a caliphate over their bones. He could not have foreseen how much of his work we would do for him, though after we bombed Yugoslavia to create a KLA terrorist state, perhaps he did. It makes no difference. Bin Laden's overall goal was to shift the conflict from the soft demographic and cultural invasions, to a violent campaign. A conflict that would bring the West into direct collision with Muslims and their governments. This conflict has accelerated Western resistance and subjugation, as it has accelerated Muslim violence and conquest. Today there is much wider Western and Muslim awareness of the Clash of Civilizations. Muslims are no longer content with a long term demographic and cultural victory — they want short term conquest as well. And Westerners who have previously been voiceless in the face of the Islamization of Europe and America, have found their voice in response to 9/11 and 7/7. Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition"
[FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk) |
|
A REVIEW OF DMITRY RADYSHEVSKY'S "UNIVERSAL ZIONISM"
Posted by Jenny Grigg, March 22, 2011. | |
|
This review was written by David Gurevich, a New York-based writer, who is the CEO of the Jerusalem Summit. He received his BA in journalism from Moscow State University, his Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard University and his PhD from the Hebrew University (Jerusalem). He worked as a religion writer for Moscow News and a senior foreign correspondent for The Jerusalem Report and served as an Assistant Editor of the Russian project at New York Times, and then, for six years, was the New York Bureau Chief of Moscow News. He made Aliyah (repatriation) from US to Israel in 1999. | |
|
The author is a Moscow-born, Harvard-educated theologian and journalist. Already a hit among Russian-speaking intellectuals in Israel and among many US Christian Zionists, the book is strangely (or rather understandably) ignored by Israeli mainstream. The Israeli publisher of the Russian edition wrote: "The book may be described as a 'first prophetic voice produced by the Exodus of 1 million Russian Jews'". The Jabotinsky Institute has translated the book into Hebrew and published it with a subtitle: "Development of Jabotinsky's Ideas for the Future of Israel". However, as a secular right-wing Russian Jewish journalist (as was Jabotinsky himself), the author supplies classical Zionism with an unexpected and extremely powerful engine of theology. The book may seem difficult for the mainstream, as it creates a cross-genre: it is neither pure political science nor pure theology. Mr. Radyshevsky coined a new term for his approach: theo-politics. He dissects historic and current political events from spiritual and metaphysical points of view, seeing the Universal Jewish mission as a driving force of history, and all the modern troubles of Israel as the result of failure to understand this mission. Al-Jazeera poured venom on the book and labeled it a "neo-con conspiracy", which suggests they never read it properly, since one of the book's chapters is titled "The Mistake of Neo-Conservatives". It argues that, rather than impose a certain form of democracy on Islam (i.e. representative government and elections), the West has to fight for transforming the soul of Islam in practical terms — nourishing democratic values, starting with freedom to re-interpret Koran to gender equality and religious freedom for other faiths. Universal Zionism provides spiritual reasons why this is a theologically correct Biblical policy. This is a very unusual book, provocative and thought-provoking. Suffice to mention just a few chapter titles: Holocausts and Apes, Nazism and Reincarnation, Jewish Oil, Mentality of the Third Temple, Collective Prophecy, Spiritual Hi-tech, Civilization of Sabbath, The Prophetic State, Israel-the-leader-of-Jihad, Palestinian problem: Transformation, rather than Transfer, Eurabia: Political Psychoanalysis, Biblical Alternative to the UN, Four Beasts of Anti-Zionism. Download the book for free at: http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/radyshevsky_book_eng.php
|
|
AGAINST THE WESTERN ATTACK ON LIBYA
Posted by Emperor's New Clothes, March 21, 2011. |
|
Numerous people have asked us where we stand on Libya. Let us say, briefly: we oppose Gaddafi and we oppose Western military intervention against his regime. Obama's justification for attacking Libya — an act of aggression regardless of whether the UN rubber stamped it — is preposterous. The Department of Defense press service quotes Obama as follows: " 'But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government,' he said." [My emphasis — J.I.] ============================================ The human suffering argument ============================================ Yes, civil wars kill people, but so does firing over 100 missiles at one side, as the U.S. reportedly did on Saturday, while the U.S., the U.K. and France flew multiple bombing raids. An immense assault on a government that had not attacked the U.S., the U.K. or France. Moreover, by shoring up the losing side, the West may very well prolong the fighting, which could mean more deaths and possibly more bitterness — and therefore even more deaths — in the aftermath. Yes, if Gaddafi wins, he may kill a lot of people. But does anyone seriously think that if the other side, led by people like Mr. al-Hasidi, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, during which war Mr. al-Hasidi's mujahedeen associates executed school teachers because they knew that to be a secular teacher was to be a communist and therefore an agent of the devil — does anyone believe that Mr. al-Hasidi's people will not conduct a reign of terror? Yes, Gaddafi is the furthest thing from a progressive, but so, from everything we know, are the people he is fighting. Indeed, considering Mr. al-Hasidi's credentials — the anti-Soviet war — they are probably worse. And when all is said, the point remains: who gave the U.S., the U.K. and France the right to decide when it is OK to intervene in fighting (Yugoslavia, Kuwait/Iraq, Libya); when it is not OK to intervene in fighting (the Congo, Iran, Sudan); and when it is OK to intervene even though there is no fighting (the U.S. invasion of and mayhem in Panama). However one parses this, it is flagrant aggression, made possible by military might, and if the attack on Libya continues the gainers will, we predict, be the Islamists who are strong in Eastern Libya, and who, if they win in Libya, will be closer to dominating the Middle East and Central Asia, since, with immense assistance from the West, they have made huge gains in the key Arab state, Egypt. To understand what is happening in Libya (and Yemen, and Bahrain, etc.) we need to discuss what has recently taken place in Egypt, the elephant in the living room of Western policy. We think Western citizens have been told lies about the Egyptian political earthquake, and to understand regional Western policy we must see past those lies. So, on to Egypt. Shortly we will begin sending material on Egypt to our Newsletter subscribers. In the meantime, we leave you with the map below. Notice that if Libya is taken over by Mr. al-Hasidi's Islamist associates, it will put pressure on Egypt, where a member of the Muslim Brotherhood has helped rewrite a constitution that used to exclude religious parties from political power, and on Tunisia, Algeria and Sudan as well, adding considerable force to the already considerable pressure, which Iran and its allies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Sudan and Syria) presently exert on Africa, Asia and Europe. Food for thought.
|
|
LOST SENSE OF MISSION; MAYBE NOW IS ENOUGH?; PLAYING FOR THE ENEMY SIDE; JERUSALEM WILL NEVER BE DIVIDED
Posted by Steven Shamrak, March 21, 2011. |
|
Purim — the Lesson of Jewish History! Dear friends, I wish you and your loved ones a happy and joyful Purim — the time when we commemorate the survival of the Jewish nation! Even now our over-cautious rabbis and politically correct 'leaders' do not like to emphasize the practical aspects of Purim's survival — when Jews were facing mortal danger, our ancestors united and decisively destroyed enemies of the Jewish people. Jews often talk about the lessons of history like the Exodus from Egypt and the Holocaust. It is time to learn from these lessons and transform them into action! We must get rid of the slave mentality which is destroying our own country and eroding our national identity! We must unite and remove our present enemies from all Jewish land before they destroy us! Another physical or spiritual Holocaust of the Jewish people is not an option! Israel's Lost Sense of Mission
A person needs a sense of mission like the air he breathes. A clear sense of mission and purpose keeps the soul healthy. Nations are like people, with a healthy sense of mission they thrive; without it, they flounder and fade away. The Jewish people have survived for 3,800 years only because they had a strong sense of mission. At Mt. Sinai the Jewish people were charged with the mission of being a light unto the nations, volunteering to become a nation of prophets and priests, who will teach the world right from wrong. Even in their darkest moments Jews cried out, "Next Year in Jerusalem" , never wavering in their commitment. They were proud of and deeply cherished their Jewish identity and having been chosen for a unique and special mission. They witnessed the rise and fall of many mighty empires that have been reduced to the footnotes of history, while they never left its front page. It was only the Jews' sense of mission that kept their souls fresh, their minds vigorous and their families alive... At its founding, however, Israel declared itself to be a Jewish liberal democracy. The inherent contradiction in its Declaration of Independence is tragically playing itself out in today´s headlines. Israel's crack in its foundation has now become fully exposed. Israel has to decide once and for all whether it is a Jewish land, as the name ´Israel´, after the people of Israel, clearly indicates, or whether it is just another liberal democracy... In England during World War II, Winston Churchill stiffened the English spine by inspiring his people and lifting their morale with his fighting words. The English knew why they were fighting. They had a clear sense of mission and purpose that enabled them to survive and defeat the Nazis... Israel is the heart of the world and if the heart is unhealthy, the whole organism suffers. If the citizens of Israel are unsafe, then we are insecure here in New York. With each passing day, it's becoming crystal clear that until Israel tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it will continue to face a dead end and all of us will continue to suffer from the scourge of terrorism... It's time to tell the truth that there never were a Palestinian people and there never will be a Palestinian state. No one is doing the Arabs any favors by cruelly fueling false hopes that will only lead to frustration and greater disillusionment. The eternal people of Israel will continue to thrive in the whole of Eretz Yisroel and not even Jewish politicians, acting foolishly and humiliating themselves in public, could stop or slow down the fast moving train of Jewish destiny that's hurtling towards the dawn of our Redemption. If our ancestors were here today, would we be able to look them in the eye? What will we tell our children and grandchildren when they ask us why we gave away their inheritance and trust, without their consent? Will they ever forgive us? What will we tell them — that we had no choice? History will not be so kind or forgiving. Maybe Now is Enough? Time to Move them all to Sinai! Palestinian militants in Gaza fired more than 50 mortar shells into Israel on Saturday, the heaviest barrage in two years. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak All over the world Jewish communities are predominantly involved in politically correct activities that do not lead to any real accomplishment. We must stop repeating our mistakes of the past and take charge of our destiny. It is not too late to become involved in meaningful acts of restoring self-respect, Jewish unity and unity of the Jewish land! 'Poor Palestinins' Getting 'Aid' to Destroy Israel 1. Egypt's army captured five vehicles smuggling weapons into the country from Sudan, and apparently heading to Gaza. 2. Israeli Navy commandos intercepted the German-owned A.S. Victoria on Tuesday, March 15 about 320 kilometers off Israel's Mediterranean coast on its way from the Turkish port of Mercin to Egypt. The Liberian-flagged vessel was carrying a large consignment of weapons bound for the Palestinian Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Victoria collected the weapons at the Syrian port of Latakia, where they had been offloaded by the two Iranian warships which transited the Suez Canal. (Predictably, the international media is mute about this raid of Israeli commandos and multi-national anti-Israel cooperation!) Arab Dictators in Self-preservation Snub Obama Saudi and United Arab Emirates troops crossed into Bahrain Monday, March 14 to support the king against escalating anti-throne demonstrations and Kuwaiti soldiers are on the way. A Saudi official said the units come from a special force within the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council. Rulers regarded as US Middle East allies have turned against President Obama, encouraged by the upper hand Qaddafi has gained against Libya's rebels. King Abdullah blames Obama's policy for unseating Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and has no intention of following the American line. Tanks and Helicopters — No Demands for No-Fly Zone? On March 16, the crackdown by Bahraini security was launched with tanks and helicopters to drive the mostly Shiite protesters out of Manama 's main square and key points of the island-state while Saudi troops guarded strategic areas. (Why are 'politically correct' hypocrites 'outraged' only against Israel and competitors of Saudi Arabian oil interests, like Iran and Libya?) Hypocrisy of the Headlines: Jerusalem should be a neutral city, say European voters - guardian.co.uk — Why are European voters, who are brain washed by anti-Israel propaganda, are the 'authority' on the future of the capital of the Jewish state? Stop Funding Unsupervised PA Schools Israel will ask the West to stop funding the Palestinian educational system and Palestinian television until there is a significant supervisory body overseeing them. There has been constant brainwashing against Israel in general, and settlers in particular, in violation of the Oslo accord. "It's no wonder a horrible murder like this (Itamar) is perpetrated when Israelis, particularly settlers, are depicted as subhuman," said Yossi Kuperwasser, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry. Playing for the Enemy Side Ehud Barak, Israeli defence minister, said that Israel faces a "diplomatic tsunami" that could erode its international support and bolster its enemies in the Middle East. He also criticized his coalition government partner, Benjamin Netanyahu, saying indecisiveness by the prime minister "was pushing Israel into a corner from which the old South Africa's deterioration began." (When will this leftist, self-hating idiot learn to keep his mouth shut? The only criticism of the current government indecisiveness is that it does nothing to promote the Jewish national agenda and keeps Barak as defence minister!) Quote of the Week: "I noticed that some of the states who rushed to the Security Council to condemn Israel, the Jewish State, for planning to build a home somewhere, are slow in issuing a harsh condemnation over the murder of Jewish babies." — Binyamin Netanyahu, Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel Vocal in Support of Israel Only when They Need Jewish Help During his official visit to Israel on March 13-14, President Christofias described Israel as one of Cyprus' "most important strategic partners." During his visit he discussed the possibility of transporting newly discovered natural gas from Israel to Cyprus and from thereon to Europe. The gas would come from the Leviathan field, some 80 miles off the Israeli coast, with estimated reserves of 16 trillion cubic feet. President Christofias also expressed his commitment to enhance relations between Israel and the European Union, under the rotating Presidency of Cyprus during the second half of 2012. Jerusalem will Never be Divided
Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat insisted that Jerusalem is not up for negotiation in a future peace process. "In (the peace negotiations) there are a lot of pink lines, but I have one red line: It's called Jerusalem, don't negotiate with Jerusalem," he said at the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem. (There should be just one red line — Eretz-Israel is not for sale! Only then will our enemies stop their attempts to deligitemise the Jewish state, and will Israel be able to reunify all her ancestral land!) He called the terrorist attack which killed five Israelis in Itamar an example of the importance of sticking to certain "red lines" in negotiations. "This whole brutality reminds us the level of risks we need to take with our neighbours," he said. "We cannot trust that this will not happen again." (How many Jewish lives must be sacrificed to make Jewish voters and politicians in Israel realize that we are in perpetual war, which our enemies are not willing to end? Only decisive action and clearing of all Jewish land from Arab occupation will bring an end to this internationally sponsored travesty!) Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
WHERE IS THE OUTCRY AGAINST ARAB APARTHEID?
Posted by Sanne DeWitt, March 21, 2011. |
|
This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh, and it appeared in
|
|
Mohammed Nabil Taha, an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, died this week at the entrance to a Lebanese hospital after doctors refused to help him because his family could not afford to pay for medical treatment. The tragic case of Taha highlights the plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live in impoverished refugee camps in Lebanon and who are the victims of an Apartheid system that denies them access to work, education and medical care. Ironically, the boy's death at the entrance to the hospital coincided with Israel Apartheid Week, a festival of hatred and incitement organized by anti-Israel activists on university campuses in the US, Canada and other countries. It is highly unlikely that the folks behind the festival have heard about the case of Taha. Judging from past experiences, it is also highly unlikely that they would publicize the case after they heard about it. Why should anyone care about a Palestinian boy who is denied medical treatment by an Arab hospital? This is a story that does not have an anti-Israel angle to it. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if an Israeli hospital had abandoned a boy to die in its parking lot because his father did not have $1,500 to pay for his treatment? The UN Security Council would hold an emergency session and Israel would be strongly condemned and held responsible for the death of the boy. All this is happening at a time when tens of thousands of Palestinian patients continue to benefit from treatments in Israeli hospitals. Last year alone, some 180,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip entered Israel to receive medical treatment. Many were treated despite the fact that they did not have enough money to cover the bill. In Israel, even a suicide bomber who is — only! — wounded while trying to kill Jews is entitled to the finest medical treatment. And there have been many instances where Palestinians who were injured in attacks on Israel later ended up in some of Israel's best hospitals. Lebanon, by the way, is not the only Arab country that officially applies Apartheid laws against Palestinians, denying them the right to receive proper medical treatment and own property. Just last week it was announced that a medical center in Jordan has decided to stop treating Palestinian cancer patients because the Palestinian Authority has failed to pay its debts to the center. Other Arab countries have also been giving the Palestinians a very hard time when it comes to receiving medical treatment. It is disgraceful that while Israel admits Palestinian patients to its hospitals, Arab hospitals are denying them medical treatment for various reasons, including money. But then one is reminded that Arab dictators do not care about their own people, so why should they pay attention to an 11-year-old boy who is dying at the entrance to a hospital because his father was not carrying $1,500? But as the death took place in an Arab country — and as the victim is an Arab — why should anyone care about him? Where is the outcry against Arab Apartheid? Sanne DeWitt publishes the East Bay IAC (IACEP) Newsletter. Contact her by email at skdewitt@comcast.net |
|
NETANYAHU IN 1978
Posted by Yoram Shifftan, March 21, 2011. |
|
It is amazing that in the age of 28 he knew to say that there are 22 states to one Arab nation, and Jordan is Palestine, and now he is silent about it. I was not aware that these two facts, which I repeat for years, he said
so clearly. If this was the line of official Israel it could change for
the good all the atmosphere around Israel.?
This article appeared in American Thinker
|
|
In a remarkable video from 1978, 28 year old MIT grad Benjamin Netanyahu debates whether there should be a Palestinian state created on the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu argues that such a state would have but one goal: to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. He reviews the history from 1948 to 1967, when Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan and there were no calls to end the occupation, or for national sovereignty for the Palestinians. But one thing was similar in that period and today: terror attacks against Israeli Jews. Netanyahu went by the name of Benjamin Nitay at the time. His brother, Yonatan was an Israeli commando who led the Entebbe raid on July 4, 1976 during which he died. Netanyahu chose to use the name Nitay at MIT, where he was one year behind me, in large part for security reasons due to his brother's notoriety and the spate of Palestinian terror attacks aimed at Israelis all over the world. One of Netanyahu's interrogators in the clip is Fouad Ajami, the well known political analyst. Netanyahu's strong defense of Israel rings as true today as it did in
1978. The clip is only ten minutes and is well worth watching.
Bejamin Netanyahu in 1978
|
|
WHY DO THEY SLAUGHTER
Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, March 21, 2011. |
|
What is common to Daniel Perl, Nick Berg, the Jews of Hebron in 1929 and the Fogel family? They were butchered. They were not simply stabbed to death, but were killed by an act designed to decapitate them or to cause fatal bleeding by severing their carotid artery. Another common denominator: all were slaughtered by Moslems. An endless list of Moslem girls and women can be added to them, those who were similarly slaughtered by their brothers, fathers or other relatives for "violating the family honor". A question that arises automatically is where does this Moslem tendency to this kind of slaughter come from? The answer is simple: Slaughter is a routine, widespread practice among many Moslem families. Many children see how their fathers slaughter sheep when celebrating an important event, and the whole family is present at the sacrificial slaughter during Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, when the slaughter is part of the holiday ritual. In modern societies, the slaughter of animals for meat consumption takes place in slaughterhouses, far from the eyes of the public and children, who generally get their meat free of blood and hair and ready for cooking or eating. This sterile arrangement spares the public the sight of the slaughter, the blood and the accompanying cries. In the West, many of those who witnessed animal slaughter become vegetarian. In many Islamic societies, slaughter generally occurs at home, in front of the children, and is part of the routine of life. They are immunized against the sight of slaughter, are not moved by the blood dripping from the animal's neck and are not frightened by its snorts and struggles. In many cases, the children hold the legs of the lamb in order to immobilize it during slaughter; they sense very well its frantic reactions as the knife so painfully slices through its neck. The presence and participation of the children in the act of slaughter immunizes them emotionally against its influence; when they are older they perform the custom of sacrifice with their own hands and knives, and in front of their own children. The emotional immunity to the act of slaughter allows a Moslem to utilize it whenever he feels he must employ radical methods to rid himself of someone. The slaughter of sheep during the Festival of Sacrifice is accompanied by the recitation of "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful", and the butchering of girls who do not behave properly is conducted as a kind of execution ceremony. The slaughterer feels that he is doing something important and worthy, acting in a way to which he is inured since early childhood. In western societies, slaughter seems barbaric, while members of Moslem societies view it as proper and commendable when carried out within the proper context. Therefore, slaughtering a Jew, a Christian or anyone seen as an enemy is not considered unusual in traditional Islamic societies. This is what professional jargon calls a "cultural difference". Mordechai Kedar is an Israeli scholar of Arabic literature and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University. He holds the Ph.D. from Bar-Ilan University. Kedar is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. He served for twenty-five years in IDF Military Intelligence, where he specialized in Islamic groups, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic press and mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena. The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Translated by Nachama Kanner
|
|
ISRAEL FIRST TO SET UP FIELD HOSPITAL IN JAPAN
Posted by Albert Wendroff, March 21, 2011. |
|
This was written by Jerusalem Post Staff and it appeared
today in
|
|
Surgery established at Minamisanriko, fishing city devastated by quake; Israel also providing aid for the homeless. The field hospital Israel is establishing in Japan is the first to be set up by any nation offering outside assistance, Israel's Ambassador to Japan Nissim Ben Shitrit said Monday, and the Japanese are extremely appreciative. Ben Shitrit said the hospital was being established at Minamisanriko, a fishing city 290 miles north of Tokyo, that was utterly overwhelmed by the quake and tsunami and where some 10,000 people are dead or missing. A five-strong Israeli team "is setting up the surgery right now," the ambassador said. "They are evaluating the needs today, so that a larger team can be dispatched." He confirmed Israel was also providing tons of aid assistance — including mattresses, blankets, coats, gloves and chemical toilets — for some of the half-a-million people who are homeless, many of whom are now living in public facilities. "I don't know how or why it is that our field hospital is the first," the ambassador said. "Maybe we moved faster. Maybe it's because of our experience." He said the medical crisis would take a long time to resolve, but that he believed the Japanese government would bring the situation under control in the coming weeks. Appreciation for Israel's help, he said, was clear in the reporting in the Japanese media and in the grateful response of people in the field. Asked whether Israel had provided any assistance in grappling with the difficulties affecting Japanese nuclear facilities, Ben Shitrit said no. "That's an issue for the Japanese and the Americans only," he said.
Contact Albert Wendroff by email at wendroff39@yahoo.com
|
|
THE RISE OF SAMANTHA POWER AND THE RISKS FOR THE AMERICAN- ISRAEL RELATIONS
Posted by YogiRUs, March 21, 2011. |
|
This attached article by Ed Lasky on Samantha Power is essential reading for anyone concerned with Israel's relationship with the U.S. She has an extensive track record of anti-Israel remarks, publications and endorsements. She is bright and has instant access to the President.Like others of the Eastern intellectual and academic intelligentsia, she has a strong belief in the U.N. and shares the general hostility held by many of that class towards Israel. She has deliberately been flying below the radar since Obama put her into a high post on the National Security Council staff. The piece should be read and widely distributed, particularly to members of the Jewish community who still retain some kind of political allegiance to this President. This article is archived at
|
|
As stories leak out regarding who was responsible for Barack Obama's sudden pivot from passivity regarding Libya towards military engagement (albeit with England and France being in the lead) one name has emerged as playing a key role in persuading him to push the button: Samantha Power. Her influence might cause qualms among supporters of the American-Israel relationship. As has been covered by American Thinker and others (notably Noah Pollak in Commentary Contentions, among them), Power has been critical of the strength of this friendship and alliance. This concern should be now be heightened. Not only has she emerged as a key player in foreign policy but the rationale that was used to justify American actions towards Libya can be used by other nations — if not the United States — to justify more active involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Power was Barack Obama's most influential foreign policy adviser during the campaign; they go back years and are basketball and Blackberry buddies. Any influence she has would not be good for the American-Israel relationship-for reasons outlined here and here (where she said this regarding problems Barack Obama had during the campaign; "So much of it is about: Is he good for the Jews?"). Power may also have played a role in the granting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a person with a checkered record regarding actions towards Israel. She now serves on the National Security Council. Foreign-policy making in this administration has been opaque at best. But one dynamic that has been now made clear is that Power has emerged as a key player. From John Podhoretz's column in the New York Post: The Tuesday-evening meeting at the White House at which the president decided to move on Libya was "extremely contentious," according to a report in Josh Rogin's excellent blog, The Cable. But apparently, Samantha Power and Hillary Clinton persuaded Barack Obama to act. The rationale they used that led to military can come back to haunt friends of Israel's. Again, from Podhoretz: According to Rogin, the governing doctrine that helped Obama to make his decision to act was not an appeal to the national interest, but rather to a recent concept promulgated at the United Nations called "responsibility to protect," or R2P. So it was not an appeal to our national interest that led President Obama to act but rather a new concept circulating in international policy circles — and one actively promoted by Power — that prompted his shift. (By the way, the fact that Power played a key role in persuading Barack Obama to apply military force to protect civilians in Libya is akin to the same advice she counseled regarding Israel: Power also advocated that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians). But there are other problems inherent in the concept of R2P (how easy that must be to tap out on Blackberrys) and with the precedent that has now been established that allows international intervention. It is not hard to envision that this R2P concept, swirling through the United Nations and in international foreign policy circles, can one day be applied against Israel when that nation is forced to respond from attacks coming from the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. Terrorists hide behind civilians; Israeli actions to defend themselves often happen in densely populated areas where civilian deaths are almost inevitable — despite all the precautions Israel takes to prevent them. Power's promotion of the R2P concept is not a surprise. Barack Obama's adoption of the same concept should be cause for concern. A Pandora's Box may have just been opened. Power's emergence as a key playe, and her influence over the President, who already is inclined to outsource American foreign policy to the "international community," should heighten this concern. Just one more reason to try to keep track of the role and influence that Samantha Power has in the Oval Office. If Hillary Clinton decides to resign as Secretary of State (she has already declared she will not serve in a second term) there will be a reshuffling of positions of power (Susan Rice, Samantha Power, etc) and there is no telling who may end up moving closer to the center of power. UPDATE: The always astute Omri Ceren has more regarding the R2P concept over at Commentary Contentions. He notes that there is a bit of history regarding the concept's application to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There was a group created in 2009, the International Coalition For The Responsibility To Protect, that has spoken out against Israel, notably during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. The Coalition released this statement: The recent escalation of violence in Gaza has raised serious questions about the use of the Responsibility to Protect to urge international action to protect civilians in the conflict. The Responsibility to Protect has been referred to, notably by Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but also others who claim that crimes committed in Gaza by Israeli forces have reached the threshold of R2P crimes. Ceren continues: This is part and parcel of the statements that the ICRtoP has been publishing since it was established in the immediate aftermath of Cast Lead. They published a petition absurdly insisting that "the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not... amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence." They passed along Richard Falk's "Israelis could be charged with war crimes" lawfare spin on the Goldstone Report. They reprinted other articles accusing Israelis of war crimes here and here and here and here and here. All of this was under the umbrella of "evaluating" whether R2P should be brought to bear against Israel's self-defense campaigns. Now Samantha Power has seemingly slipped this concept into the mind and policies of Barack Obama. Once these international "concepts" are formed and promoted they often transform from mere intellectual ideas into the basis of international policy. Israel should be worried.
Update II: One more clue to Power being the promoter of the R2P concept within the Obama administration is her history. She opened a symposium put on the by the International Coalition for The Responsibility To Protect (ICR2P) as recently as November, 2010, with a keynote address. Furthermore, Sergio Vieira, was an international diplomat who pioneered the concept of the "responsibility to protect." Vieira was later killed in a suicide bombing attack in Iraq. Power wrote an admiring biography (if not a hagiography) of Vieira a few years ago that noted his role in developing and promoting that concept. Concepts become norms and, in the wrong hands, norms can become weapons. Contact YogiRUs by email @yogirus@aol.com |
|
SARAH PALIN AT THE KOTEL
Posted by Jeff Dunetz, March 21, 2011. |
|
Sarah Palin visited Israel for the first time and immediately headed for the
Kotel, the "Western Wall" of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Despite the
common descriptions, the Kotel is not the most holy site in Judaism, it is
the retaining wall for the Temple Mount which housed the two Temples to God.
It is the Temple Mount which is the most holy site in all of Judaism, but
thanks to the hubris of Moshe Dayan
Jews are rarely allowed up on the Temple Mount and when they are allowed it is illegal for them to pray. 
Sarah Palin Visits The Kotel (Western Wall)
Video
|
|
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE: QADHI A PEACEFUL RADICAL
Posted by Steve Emerson, March 21, 2011. |
|
It doesn't set out to do so, but an exhaustive profile of an Islamic cleric in Sunday's New York Times magazine makes the depth and severity of radicalization among some young Muslim Americans very clear. Reporter Andrea Elliott devotes nearly 8,500 words to Yasir Qadhi, in the article "Why Yasir Qadhi Wants to Talk About Jihad." It casts a picture of a very conservative but generally peaceful Salafi Muslim. As such, he is cast as the ultra-conservative Muslim antidote to al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is credited with inspiring everyone from Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and would-be terrorists Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad. But Qadhi, dean of academic affairs at the Houston-based AlMaghrib Institute, rarely is shown aggressively challenging the radical ideas that fuel violent jihad. If anything, he agrees with them, including a notion that the U.S. is at war with Muslims. That message is considered among the most forceful in radicalizing young Muslims into supporting violence. Like his students, religion is more than a personal belief system to Qadhi. He would like to see "the world ... fully adhere to his faith," the story says. He won't say whether he considers attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be legitimate jihads. It is due to a delicate balancing act, the story explains. If he speaks too openly about "what kinds of militant actions are permitted by Islamic law," he risks being labeled unpatriotic and possibly even prosecuted, Elliott writes. When he tells his students to use the power of their votes and their voices, they push back, wondering if that's enough to meet their religious duties. A female student criticized Qadhi for providing "wishy-washy nonanswers." And she was not persuaded that there are more peaceful ways to pursue jihad. Elliott described it this way: "Being martyred in the battlefield, she said, is 'romantic,' while 'lobbying your congressman is not.'" He is shown arguing why the failed Christmas Day 2009 bombing of a commercial airliner was wrong under Islam. "There were even Muslims on that plane!" he said. "I mean, what world are you living in? How angry and overzealous are you that you simply forget about everything and you think that this is the way forward?" But he acknowledges being hesitant to take on some of his students' positions forcefully out of fear he'll be dismissed from their consideration. His students are well educated and seemingly comfortable economically. But they struggle with the proper Islamic response when America is waging war in Muslim lands. America is a newly hostile country for Muslims, the story says. "They have watched as their own country wages war in Muslim lands, bearing witness — via satellite television and the Internet — to the carnage in Iraq, the drone attacks in Pakistan and the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo," Elliott writes. "While the dozens of AlMaghrib students I interviewed condemned the tactics of militant groups, many share their basic grievances." The Times profile notes Qadhi already is derided as a "sellout" on some jihadist web sites. The result, however, may be that he fails on both sides. In an example not mentioned in the article, Qadhi was unable to state a clear position on the January assassination of a Pakistani governor who was openly critical of that state's blasphemy laws. In an online posting, Qadhi republished an article by a Pakistani writer. Salman Taseer's murder by a bodyguard was an issue with "many facets and perspectives to consider, and it is simply not possible for an outsider (as we all are here in the West, even if some of us originate from Pakistan) to fully understand the nuances of the situation," Qadhi wrote. The Pakistani writer offered a "very balanced" assessment, Qadhi wrote, acknowledging "(t)here are clear elements of truth on both sides and clear elements of exaggeration and extremism on both sides as well." According to the writer Qadhi cited, the issue should be discussed dispassionately. "Representation from different schools of Islamic thought should be gathered," he wrote, "and, together with legal experts, a solution should be sought whereby, at least, the misuse of this law for personal gain or revenge should be curtailed." Neither writer came out and called the assassination wrong and unacceptable in a modern, civil society. Vague messages from Qadhi are numerous. In the profile, he advises an audience to heed the law of the land. But, Elliott writes, "their 'responsibilities would be different'" if they lived in Palestine or Iraq. "He did not elaborate." It is not the only time he has advised people to obey the laws of man even if that means tolerating something they might otherwise act against. In a video posted to YouTube in March 2008, Qadhi responds to a British television program which sent undercover cameras into mosques, finding that "a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK" by groups considered moderate and mainstream. That included messages "condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers." Qadhi accused the producers of editing statements to make them look worse than they were. One part apparently dealt with intolerance toward homosexuals. Islam considers that a sin, Qadhi says in the YouTube clip. "It is a crime against Allah... Are we going to do something against homosexuals? No, we are not. This is not our country. This is not our land," he says. "But we're allowed to speak against it, are we not? Our country has promised us the right to freedom of speech." Elliott does address blatantly radical statements Qadhi has made in the past. That, he tells her, was "the old me." While he maintains an ultraconservative religious viewpoint, he said he moved away from the violent jihadist perspective. He traveled to Auschwitz and Dachau last summer, telling Elliott the experience compounded his shame over past remarks about the Holocaust. Elliott makes a point of showing ways in which Qadhi is like most other Americans. He lives in Memphis, "a long way from the centers of Islamic thought ," calls people "dudes," drives a Honda and enjoys Popeye's "popcorn shrimp and gravy-slathered biscuits." But he still sees the United States as hostile toward Muslims, Elliott writes, saying those like him, "who engage in controversial rhetoric are treading on thin ice" legally. That was Qadhi's reaction to the conviction of a former mentor, Ali al-Timimi, on terrorist-related charges. Days after 9/11, Timimi urged a group of followers to travel to Pakistan for military training from the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba so that they might fight U.S. troops as they invaded Afghanistan. Elliott minimizes the facts in the case, ignoring the Lashkar training and saying the men merely "practiced shooting at a paintball facility." Presiding federal Judge Leonie Brinkema emphasized that connection when she sentenced Timimi to life in prison. "I don't think any well-read person can doubt the truth that terrorist camps are an essential part of the new terrorism that is perpetrated in the world today," she said. "People of good will need to do whatever they can to stop that." As Elliott's own newspaper reported, Brinkema rejected the argument that Timimi was punished for his words alone. "This was not a case about speech; this was a case about intent," Brinkema said, finding Timimi meant to incite others to violence against the United States. After the conviction, Qadhi called Timimi "one of the more sophisticated voices of reason representing orthodox Islam in the Western world" and decried his trial as a "witch hunt." Timimi did no wrong in inspiring people to commit violence leaves open whether he is an authentic voice in opposing violent jihad. Also left unanswered is whether his approach to radical Islam is effective. Abdulmutallab attended AlMaghrib's summer institute 18 months before trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airplane with explosives sewn into his underpants. He had access to the teachings of both Qadhi and Awlaki and chose Awlaki's side.
Steve Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and
national security and the author of five books on these subjects, most
recently "Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US."
Steve also writes for the Counterterrorism Blog and he is the CEO of
the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
This article was published March 21, 2011 in Family Security Matters
(FSM)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9020/pub_detail.asp
|
|
THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: HARD AT WORK CONDEMNING ISRAEL
Posted by Anne Bayefsky, March 21, 2011. |
|
The meeting on Monday at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva helps explain how it is possible for the horrifying murder of the Fogel family by Palestinian terrorists on March 11 to have been so easily minimized by the "civilized" world. Slashing the throat of a three-month old baby and stabbing a three-year old twice in the heart has sickened and anguished Jews everywhere, but the steady pounding of anti-Semitism at the United Nations has not skipped a beat. At this session of the Human Rights Council a UN-accredited NGO distributed a publication containing the following picture: 
The demonic Jew, with the swastika substituted for the star of David on the Israeli flag, is depicted as an octopus strangling freedom-loving innocents. The Jews as a vile life-threatening octopus was also a feature of Nazi propaganda. Today, it is how the Turkish NGO, the International Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), is permitted to portray its attempt last May to defy a legal Israeli naval blockade. An appeal made to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, to take action against the IHH and to object to the distribution of this material on the UN "designated NGO tables outside the plenary room" was ignored. The UN-accredited IHH "humanitarians" also delivered a statement at this Council's session in which they said: "we consider the unlawful activities of Israel to be the most serious threat, one that is even more dangerous than that of a nuclear attack." Being fanatical hatemongers is evidently no barrier to being UN-accredited. The IHH is not alone. On March 11 of the current session, the Council "Bulletin of informal meetings" advertised the time and place of a meeting entitled "Human rights in Palestine." It was organized by the UN-accredited NGO "Nord-Sud XXI" and held in a UN-provided room near the Council chamber. Invited speakers manufactured such accusations as "people are buried alive in Israeli prison cells," and "one woman had gangrene and they cut her foot off instead of treating her," followed by "we want a future free of Zionist crimes," and "we need revolution and intifada against this oppression." Imad Zuhairi, deputy permanent observer of the Palestinian Authority to the UN in Geneva, was an enthusiastic participant in this event, made possible only with the assistance of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights despite its focus on advocating violence against Israelis. Zuhairi declared a few hours before the Fogel murders: "we cannot equate resistance against occupation with terrorism." Such NGOs operate hand-in-glove with the Council. Currently being discussed during the Council session is another resolution on the IHH flotilla, calling for still another report to condemn Israel on the same subject in June. Because the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power at the Council, by controlling the regional groups that form the Council's majority, the resolution is guaranteed to be adopted later this week. Furthermore, the flotilla resolution is just one of many. There is another resolution on settlements. It condemns only Israel, references the Road Map only to allege Israeli violations, and demands Israel end "all settlement activity, including "natural growth." This is not just verbiage. Such UN settlement resolutions intimate that the three young Fogel children, while living and breathing, were criminals. And still it does not end. Incredibly, at this Council session there will be a total of six resolutions adopted condemning Israel alone — on the flotilla, settlements, the Goldstone Report and its successors, the "Syrian Golan," other "grave human rights violations by Israel," and Palestinian self-determination. Consider the absurdity of the resolution entitled "human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan." The Council claims to be "deeply concerned at the suffering of Syrian citizens" and then demands that Israel "desist from...practices that obstruct the enjoyment of their fundamental rights." There is no mention whatsoever of the Syrian government, its murderous rampages at this very moment in time, and its "obstruction" of the fundamental right of Syrians to live. On the contrary, Syria is currently running for a seat on the Council and is widely expected to be elected in May. Saudi Arabia is already a Council member and the ongoing crackdown on democracy advocates in Saudi Arabia is nowhere to be found in the Council's repertoire. The only states other than Israel subject to a resolution of the Council at this session will be North Korea, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, and Cote d'Ivoire. In sum, the Council is poised to adopt this week six resolutions condemning just Israel, one resolution for each of four other countries, and nothing for the other 187 UN member states. This is the highest number of resolutions dedicated to the demonization of Israel at a single session of the Council since it began in 2006 as the crown jewel of Kofi Annan's UN reform. A great many in the Western world believe either that discrimination against the Jewish people is an acceptable price to pay for progress on other fronts, or that the United Nations serves at worst as an incompetent but necessary escape valve for hot air and play-acting by weak countries with inferiority complexes. The atrocity committed against the Fogel family puts the lie to this reprehensible and deadly exploitation. The world should have learned long ago that demonizing Jews is not a human right. For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.
Anne Bayefsky is spokesman for Eye on the UN organization.
Contact her at info@EYEontheUN.org. This article appeared in The
Jerusalem Post
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.
|
|
OFFICIAL SYRIAN SOURCE... TROUBLEMAKERS ATTACK, BURN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTIES IN DARAA
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 21, 2011. |
|
This comes from http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/03/20/337732.htm |
|
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-An official source on Sunday announced that while a delegation sent by President Bashar al-Assad to offer condolences to the families of two martyrs died in Dara'a regretful events, a group of troublemakers attacked hospitals in Dara'a, setting fire to private and public properties, frightening families and residents, firing at police men who didn't return fire. The source denied any killings in today's incidents, adding procedures will be taken to protect the safety and security of citizens and preserve private and public properties. Earlier, the government formed a committee to investigate those acts and take necessary procedures, bring those responsible to justice and release people who have proved no involvement in the incidents. MAZEN EYON
Gabrielle Goldwater is a member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
|
|
AND THEN THERE WERE 3
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 21, 2011. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to to see more of his graphic art at
|
|
FORGOTTEN THINGS —REMEMBER THEM!
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, March 20, 2011. |
|
Do you remember there were 200 families living in Muswara before the 1929 massacre? Muswara is now an Arab parking lot. There is probably a great deal more that you don't remember. Read on. Do you remember, the Patriarch Abraham, Avraham Aviinu, bought The Cave for the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron ? Do you remember the British embargo during WWI and that half the Jewish population of Jerusalem died for lack of food and medicine? When? Why? And he buried his wife Sarah there.
Do you remember the Matriarch, Rachel, Rachel Imeinu, was buried "on the way" to Efrata which was in Bethlehem, Beit Lechem, which was in Israel where she gave birth to Benyamin and the Bible says "stones were placed on her grave and it is a monument known until this day"? Do you remember Jacob, Yaakov, pleaded with his son Joseph, Yosef, to bury his bones in Hevron because it is in Israel? Do you remember Sir Moses Montefiore bought Ramgate in 1831 and hence Jews could own land in Britain ending the Anti-Jewish land laws? He repaired and added a room to Rachel's Tomb in 1841.
In his diary it states there were three yeshivas in Hebron in 1865 and there
were 489 inhabitants.
Do you remember there were 200 families living in Muswara before the 1929 massacre? Muswara is now an Arab parking lot. Do you remember 67 Jews were slaughtered in Hevron in1929 where the father of the astronaut Dr. Judith Resnick studied? Why won't you remember even as there are survivors (who were protected by their mothers' dying bodies) still alive? Do you remember the Romans changed the name of Jerusalem to Aeitola Capitolina, but we didn't accept the change? Do you remember the Romans changed the name of Judea, Samaria, Israel to
Palestine after the Philistines who are a dead race to confuse us?
Do you remember Mahmoud Abbas alias Abu Mazen, wrote a doctoral thesis
denying the Holocaust?
Do you remember when Oslo II, 1995 was signed on The Whitehouse Lawn and PM Rabin refused to come out until the Amendment to protect 29 Jewish Holy Sites was added. *This amendment to keep Rachel's Tomb, Hevron's Maarat HaMachpelah, The Tomb of Josef and Shalom Synagogue forever under Israeli control was signed by PA Arafat, Pres. Clinton (Hillary's husband) and PM Rabin and was reported on the front page in The New York Times? Why are you forgetting and letting history be rewritten according to the dictates of Mein Kampf's rip-map? Do you remember in the 19th century, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Kalisher bought the property across from Rachel's Tomb with the pennies of those who could not afford to come to Israel and this memorial may be their only legacy for their generations murdered in the Holocaust, and it is outside the wall built in the middle of the street even though recorded by The Israel Land Authority. Do you remember the 1917 Balfour Mandate for the Jewish State in Palestine
included Jordan.for the Arabs which is 78% of the Mandate..
Do you know that by ignoring the Mandate for the Jewish State in Palestine the custodian , Britain, denied Jews their right to leave Europe in WWII and sacrificed their very lives? Do you remember that they hanged our beautiful youth who wanted to save their brethren in their mandated land? Do you remember the British embargo during WWI and that half the Jewish population of Jerusalem died for lack of food and medicine? How can you forget to remember that there were Jews in Jerusalem lost to the failure of others when they were weak and losing now to failure by self denial when they are strong Do you know that America is proud of its 400 year old settlement of
Jamestown 1607 — 2007?
Why should PM Netanyahu negotiate 4000 years of Jewish truth for the Big
Lies of the Holocaust denier?
Rebuilding is remembering and re-in-stating. As the enemy of truth and Israel removes the facts under the ground, Netanyahu must respect Hevron, the resettlers; the Gush, the resettlers, Ramot, Jerusalem, the resettlements. He must refrain from compromising truth, justice and Jewish rights to their property in their Homeland. As Israel had legal validation, not remembering is forgetting the responsibility of an elected official who was selected to remember. Netanyahu must be kept from going backward, forgetting the past and botching the future. Of course, Israel will survive the evil empires of today because of the
settlements:
Let our people re-build. We are forever. Remember to not forget. ----------------------------- 8. second responce to perfection.... chuck, austin,texas us (01/14/11) I do not know if you allow a second submission..but..just wanted Evelyn Hayes to know...this is one of the finest pieces of writting i have ever read..one that i have read and re-read..made copies of and handed out...truly written with brillient insite..the heart of a poet..and with compassion,love and caring..the shear depth of passion in this article is amazing..Thank you for a masterfull sharing of truth..with love from a Christian who knows from 45 years of study of the word of God..that The eternal Jews and the eternal State of Israel will one day be the center of rule by the Mesiah from His beloved Jerusalem..and the Jews will,will,will,be honored forever as the peoples who brought the world the Blessed Word of God..Blessings,Love,Peace,Joy,Prosperity to all Jews and Israel..Gods chosen..God protected.....Peace....Remember who you are...time to stand and reclaim..Remember..... 7. Great piece. Thank you A7! (n"c)
6. Occupied Territory
When Obama and Hillary start calling Jewish lands occupied territories, they should be reminded that the U.S. has been occupying Northern Mexico for 165 years. This territory, consisting of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, was taken in a war of agression. 5. kol hakovod to Evelyn
Evelyn has her heart in the right place. Israel needs more activists like her to protect Jewish rights to our historical, ancestral, and religious sites. 4. Remember Arabs came from Arabia
Repatriate Gazan Arabs to Egypt and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian state of Jordan. Ein Aravim, ein piguim ! (no Arabs, no terror). 3. balfour declar. is supream law of usa:britiian/usa treaty 1924 #VI of
constitut
borders,population&activies are relious issues found in the bible that u.s. constitution forbids u.s. govt. to act for or against!u.s. govt. refused to destroy railroads taking jews to death camps! 2. "Remember......"
Remember....such a loving,powerfull,awaking word..Israel is indeed the only land on earth that has been Deeded forever to the Jews by God. Never again to be taken,will be defended by God Almighty as rest of world sits on their hands. For all the hurt,tears,loss,suffering,Israel and the blessed Jews have been put through, Israel will end up being the capital of the world and the Jews will forever be at the top. As a Christian I pray and defend the people who brought the world the blessing of God,His holy word. God bless the eternal Israel,..Blessings,love,joy,prosperity,protection from God against all ,...and peace.. 1. It is not just for Jews to remember
The rest of the world has an obligation to itself to get history right and this means also the history of Israel and its people. The US is a very young country and we tend to forget this. If we wish to last to an old and accomplished one that fulfills the promises of its birth, we should be as observing of Israel's history as we are our own. Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com |
|
RE: KARL VICK'S ANTI-ISRAEL ARTICLE SLAUGHTER OF THE FOGELS: AFTER THE WEST BANK KILLINGS
Posted by Bill Narvey, March 20, 2011. |
|
My e mail earlier this morning I am advised did not format correctly. I have fixed it to make it much easier to read and thus am resending. On getting Valerie Sobel's letter to Mr. Huey that supplemented mine, it struck me that if more would write to Mr. Huey, the chances that he and his organization would be more likely persuaded to avoid publishing heavily biased anti-Israel advocacy pieces in Time Magazine regarding Israel and the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict, such as Karl Vick's, would be increased. The following is supplemental to my letter to Mr. John Huey, Editor in Chief of Time Magazine regarding my deep concerns with an article Time published March 13, 2010 by Karl Vick entitled "Slaughter of the Fogels: After the West Bank Killings", which article was heavily biased against Israel. I wrote the following letter back to Valerie incorporating some supplemental points and have already included Mr. Huey in that reply. For those who may not have read Vick's Time Magazine article, it can be accessed at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058660,00.html which link I overlooked including in my letter yesterday to Mr. Huey. My letter yesterday to Mr. Huey appears at the foot of my supplemental letter, which follows this brief introduction. For brevity I have lessened the word count to get through by not including Valerie's excellent letter citing many other instances of occupation that did not arouse world objection such as the vitriolic demonizing objection to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria. It was Valerie's letter that prompted me to do a supplemental letter to Mr. Huey. The more people who write to Mr. Huey to express concerns, the chances increase that he and Time Magazine can be persuaded to avoid publishing heavily biased anti-Israel advocacy pieces in Time Magazine regarding Israel and the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict, such as Karl Vick's. Mr. John Huey's e mail address is: john_huey@timeinc.com Please give this your serious attention.
|
|
Letter to Mr. John Huey,
To: Mr. John Huey — Editor in Chief of Time Magazine I am for your information raising the following three points, supplemental to my concerns raised with you in my letter of March 19th, 2011 regarding Karl Vick's Time Magazine article, Slaughter of the Fogels: After the West Bank Killings. Re: The words "Occupation" and "settlers" The word "occupation", just like "settlers" has taken on a very pejorative meaning as applied to Israel and Israelis in their ongoing low grade war with the Palestinian Arabs and presence in the West Bank. To add a more modern point to your dissertation regarding "occupied territories", reference should be had to the full scale Turkish military invasion of the then Greek held island of Cyprus in 1974, whereby the Turks took control of the northern part of Cyprus, being about 40% of the island. Turkey has since maintained control of that area. As a result of Turkey's successful military campaign, almost 200,000 Greek Cypriots were evicted from their homes and about 50,000 Turkish Cypriots moved into those areas seized by Turkey, which maintains control to this day. The dispute between Greece and Turkey has yet to be resolved. While this ongoing source of tension between Greece and Turkey and efforts to resolve the dispute continue, it really has been lost sight of in the vast majority of international quarters and the Western media, as all attention is focused on the Israel vs. Palestinian Arab ongoing low grade war. The nub of this is that Turkey, just 36 years ago, gained control of northern Cyprus through an offensive, NOT DEFENSIVE war against Greece, forced the population transfer of 200,000 Greek Cypriots out of northern Cyprus and facilitated 50,000 Turkish Cypriots to take up residence in northern Cyprus to replace the evicted Greek Cypriots. Few, if any in Western media describes northern Cyprus as occupied territory or the Turkish Cypriots who moved in to replace the evicted 200,000 Greek Cypriots, as settlers. Few, if any but Greece have shed a tear for the 200,000 Greek Cypriots evicted from their homes by the Turks. Most of the world however, demonizes Israel with the most heinous accusations for defending its very existence against Arab Jew/Israel hating aggressors that militarily threatened Israel's very existence and for its presence in the West Bank. For maintaining a presence and some control of the West Bank, in part for its own essential security, the world incessantly heaps scorn on Israel as the aggressor, sheds crocodile tears for the Arab-Palestinians and is pressuring Israel to give back all the West Bank to the Arab-Palestinians, as if they are the rightful owners of all that land and entitled to exclusive domain, free of any Jewish or Israeli presence. If you ask why is that, I am sure if you take a moment, you can come up with a few good reasons, such as that which I alluded to in my letter yesterday to Mr. Huey. If you want to find out more, I urge you to do a little research on the point. Re: West Bank This phrase was coined by the Jordanians in 1948 to refer to the territory Jordanian forces conquered in 1948 and which Jordan annexed. That annexation was never internationally recognized at law and Jordan relinquished claims to those lands after losing control of them to Israeli forces in 1967. Until 1948, those lands were commonly referred to by their historic names, Judea and Samaria and which names many Jews and Israel continue to use to refer to those lands. One of the obvious reasons, if not the only reason for Jordanians in 1948, renaming Judea and Samaria as the West Bank, was to strip away any reference to the Jewish historical connection and lawful claims to those lands bound up in the Palestinian Mandate and San Remo conference agreement to cite a few of the lawful bases for Israel's rightful claims. The Arab and Muslim world quickly adopted the phrase West Bank to refer to those lands and the rest of the non-Muslim world quickly followed suit. If you take a moment to ask, why is that, I am sure you will come up with a few good reasons. Think of anti-semitism, suspicion or an uncomfortable sense when it comes to Jews, the power of Arab oil leverage on the West and Western perceptions of national self interest or any one or more of these. Re: Israel's Sovereign Rights to Jerusalem and to the West Bank — Judea and Samaria As I earlier noted in my letter to Mr. Huey, if the Arabs-Palestinians do have a legitimate basis to make claim to Judea and Samaria which claim incidentally, never seems to be made beyond their bald faced assertions of such rights, the Jewish — Israel claims of exclusive or superior right to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, have been the subject of many scholarly studies. Two legal treatises on the Jews' exclusive or superior lawful rights to Jerusalem and to the West Bank or more correctly, Judea and Samaria, are by Dr. Jacques Gauthier and Howard Grief respectively, summaries of which are available on the internet. To conclude, I do hope Mr. Huey takes serious note of the concerns expressed with not only Karl Vick's article, but with Time Magazine for having published it. Sincerely, Bill Narvey From: Bill Narvey
Attention: Mr. John Huey — Editor in Chief — Time Magazine Cc to some of Time Magazine's advertisers: . AT&T: Mark A. Siegel — Corporate Issues, Randall L. Stephenson, Chairman, CEO, and President
Dear Sir: Re: Time Magazine's Credibility is On the Line When It Provides a Forum for Anti-Israel advocacy Journalists Such as Karl Vick Whose op-ed, Slaughter of the Fogels: After the West Bank Killings Appeared in Time on March 13th, 2011 Vick certainly has pushed the right buttons — right that is for those who like Vick, wear their anti-Israel animus on their sleeve. Anti-Israel buttons Vick pushed are: 1. Netanyahu's government "approved construction of 500 new homes on Palestinian territory. The homes are to be built on settlement blocs close to the 1967 border....... But it was the first new construction Netanyahu's government has approved, and the clearest effort to transmute the deaths of the Fogels into politics. It would not be the only one." It is no stretch to say that Vick has deliberately ignored all the foregoing facts and twisted others that get in the way of his anti-Israel animus based opinions. What however, can one expect from people like Vick whose opinions on the Israel Palestinian conflict are ruled by his biases against Israel? Well, Mr. Huey, one would have expected that Time Magazine, if it has any real regard for journalistic standards and integrity, would expect and demand better — a whole lot better from its op-ed contributor, Karl Vick. There is an ocean of relevant history, facts and circumstances that must be known and appreciated in order to grasp how the Israel vs. Arab/Palestinian conflict got to where it is today and why peace is so elusive. People, having regard to such relevant history, facts and circumstances can of course fairly reach differing conclusions. Such conclusions and opinions however, are not fairly reached and indeed are perverse, when one fails to respect and fairly take into account all relevant history, facts and circumstances that fair and reasoned conclusions and opinions require. Time Magazine does itself no credit and hurts its own credibility by publishing Vick's overly biased anti-Israel views. I don't expect you to publish my letter in Time Magazine. It is far too long. Besides, it not only takes Vick to task for his overly biased views, but your magazine as well for providing Vick a forum for his one sided anti-Israel opinions. I did however, want you and some of your advertisers to know exactly what I think of Karl Vick's opinion and your agreeing to disseminate his biased views. I do hope you will seriously consider my criticism as constructive. If you do, I further ask that you hereafter ensure that op-eds you publish as regards the Israel vs. Arab/Palestinian conflict, regardless of what side the op-ed pundit comes out on, will reveal that the pundit has fairly respected and considered all relevant history, facts and circumstances in reaching their conclusions and opinions in a fair and balanced manner. Yours truly,
Contact Bill Narvey by email at wpnarvey@shaw.ca |
|
TRUTH PURSUIT
Posted by Zvi November, March 20, 2011. |
|
As a kid growing up in Brooklyn, my pals and I hung out at the corner candy store where we would bullshit one another. 'Jocko' swore he could bench press 350 pounds while 'hot rod Harry' claimed that he had pushed his jalopy over 100 mph. I was reminded of these bull sessions recently when I received an e-mail containing a speech by King Abdullah ibn-Hussein, the first king of the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan. This explanation of the Arab position on Palestine was presented in November 1947. (Abdullah was later assassinated on July 20, 1951 by a disgruntled fellow Arab/Palestinian on the Temple mount in front of the al-Aksa mosque.) Abdullah's assertions still form the foundation of Arab propaganda which, with the help of defeatist Israeli policies and actions, continues to dominate public opinion in the international community and media. Abdullah avers that Palestine has been 100% Arab for 2000 years. Historically this is false because the Arab conquest of Jerusalem came after Mohammed's death in 632. It is estimated that the population of Palestine at that time was between 400,000 and 500,000, mostly Jews although the country was taken from the Byzantine Christians. (Israel is full of ruined ancient synagogues and churches from this period.) The Arab commanders actually discouraged Arab settlement in the holy land because they viewed the subjugated population as an important source of tax revenue with which they did not want any interference. Today, there are Arab Moslem villagers in Israel whose folklore alludes to their Jewish origins. Abdullah explains that the name "Palestine" comes from the Greek "Philistia". He is apparently ignorant of the fact that "Palestine" is derived from the Hebrew root PLSH and translates as "invade". Indeed, Israeli archaeologists working on Cyprus have proved that the Philistines originated on that Island. The king claims that the Jews are newcomers who have few, if any, roots in Palestine. He sees them as a threat to the supposedly native Arabs. However, the opposite is true. With the start of the return to Zion in the 1880s it has been the Arabs who have attacked Jews (e.g. hacking 69 Jews to death in Hebron in 1929 and most recently the Fogel family in Itamar last week). Even "President" (his term of office has expired) Mahmoud Abbas explained that his family deserted their Safed home in 1948 out of fear of Jewish reprisals for the Arab attacks during the 1936-39 uprising. Abdullah makes no mention of the fact that all Jewish settlements, at the time of his address, were on land purchased by Jews. Nor does he dare remind his audience that the majority of Arab village names are transliterated versions of their original Hebrew names. The king declares that the Jews are foreigners, unwanted strangers in the land. Yet it is Abdullah who is the alien newcomer. He was born in 1882 in the Hashemite Kingdom of Hejaz, Arabia. His Hashemite clan, claiming descent from the Prophet Mohammed, was charged with protecting the holy places in Mecca. Unfortunately, the Al-Saud clan attacked and captured Mecca in 1924 killing about 800 defenders. In 1925 King Ibn-Saud marched into Mecca and the Saudis have been there ever since. As compensation, the British made Abdullah emir of Transjordan (which is over 70% of the original League of Nations mandate for Palestine) and his brother Feisal king of Iraq. Abdullah has no complaint against the British who made him King of Jordan but he condemns the British Balfour declaration specifically and western colonial interference in general when it is supportive of the Jews. King Abdullah refers to the myth that Jews were generally well-treated in Arab lands. He believes that Jewish expansion and success in Palestine are fostered by powerful Jewish political influence in the US. He fails to mention the pro-Arab state department, ARAMCO supportive lobbying and American anti-Semitic attitudes. Abdullah says that the US and other western countries encourage large-scale Jewish immigration into Palestine because they feel guilty about the Nazi atrocities but they, themselves, do not want more Jews in their midst. Abdullah feels it is unfair to force Arabs to pay the price for Nazi atrocities. But the Arabs, by and large, sided with the Nazis. In fact Haj Amin al-Husseini organized Moslem fighters who helped the Germans and shared their hatred of Jews. Abdullah, however, is right about western countries blocking Jewish immigration. When Jews were being oppressed in Germany, a proposal to allow Jewish settlement in Alaska led the Alaskan governor to travel to Washington to successfully lobby against Jewish immigration to Alaska. In this 1947 talk, King Abdullah states that Arabs are not nearly as adroit at propaganda as are the Jews. Wow! Today, 2011, we see how Arab propaganda has come to be the dominant narrative in the world. The legitimate rights of the Jewish people have become an international joke. The Arabs are experts when it comes to weaving Middle East fairy tales. My Brooklyn buddies were amateurs in comparison to today's Arab story tellers. Click on www.palwatch.org if you need proof of this. With very best wishes, Zvi November
|
|
LESSONS OF GAZA
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 20, 2011. |
|
50 mortars were fired at Jewish civilians in the Negev yesterday as the latest manifestation of the success of the Oslo Peace Process and the continuing Peres-ization of Bibi Netanyahu. It should now obvious even to Bibi that eventually Israel will have no choice but to re-impose Israeli control over the Gaza Strip, or what I call R&D or Re-Occupation and Denazification. Everything else is self-delusion. Accordingly, I though the time might be apt to repost this: http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/37944
"Lessons Of Gaza"
by Steven Plaut
|
|
The great untold story of Operation Cast Lead was the level of euphoria and national unity that gripped Israel. Those who think the era of miracles is over will have to explain this sudden wall-to-wall political consensus in Israel. In what is arguably the most contentious society on earth, public opinion polls were showing a 94% approval rating among Israeli Jews for the military action against Hamas. Almost the same percentage opposed any cease-fire that did not include the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. The emergence of this sudden national consensus came against a backdrop of an international wave of naked anti-Semitism on a level not seen in decades, and of Israeli Arabs almost uniformly expressing both opposition to the operation and outright hatred of Jews and the Jewish state. The really amazing thing, however, was that the man responsible for the surge of good feelings and patriotism among Israelis was the most unpopular and probably the most corrupt politician in modern Israeli history. Ehud Olmert already had one foot out the door of the Prime Minister's Office before the shooting started, and many believed his other foot was headed straight for prison. Olmert's approval ratings before the Gaza war were not significantly above zero. Yet within moments of his ordering the commencement of operations, Israelis were closing ranks behind him in a way that caught nearly everyone by surprise. The rest of the world may be united in denouncing Israeli "brutality" and the supposedly disproportionate level of Palestinian casualties. But Israel was just as united, at least for the moment, in celebrating the beginning of the end of its era of national self-debasement and capitulation. Israeli television stations and newspapers reported in great detail on the countless anti-Israel demonstrations all over the world, down to and including the swastikas and the chants that Hitler had been right. This only seemed to augment the sense of national unity and determination among Israelis. The devotees of Hamas could march on Western campuses all they wanted, Israelis seemed to be saying, but we will deal with the savages in our own way. The new Israeli national unity manifested itself even in the face of the distorted and maniacal denunciations of Israel for its alleged insensitivity to the plight of Palestinian civilians. Of course, the same world media that failed to challenge the lies surrounding the infamous "death" of the Gaza boy Muhammad al-Dura back in 2000 kept repeating the Hamas "estimate" as if it were a scientific finding from an unimpeachable source. In any case, clearly the bulk of the Palestinian dead were armed genocidal terrorists. The usual "human rights" organizations, which have never acknowledged that Jewish civilians in the Negev are entitled to their human rights, kept claiming that a quarter of the dead were "children." Of course, they count any 17 year old killed while firing a bazooka at Jews as a "child." My youngest son spent most of the war dodging rockets in Netivot, a town of 26,000 in the Negev near the Gaza Strip best known for serving as the spiritual center for Moroccan Jewry, with its shrines of leading Moroccan rabbis. Netivot was hit by more than its fair share of Hamas rockets. Home for a weekend, my son watched the televised images of a Palestinian man sitting on a pile of rubble that had once been his home and sobbing about how there is no justice. "You do not like having your house blown up?" my son responded to the TV screen. "So who told you to start firing rockets at me?" He speaks for nearly all Israelis. And then of course there was all the whining by the media about how Israel was preventing convoys of supplies from entering Gaza, as if the Allies in World War II had sent convoys of supplies to Berlin when it was under siege. A caller to an Israeli radio program put it rather succinctly: "So release Gilad Shalit and stop shooting rockets at us and you can have all the supplies you want; in fact you can shop in Israel and use our hospitals and beaches." Even some — though certainly not all — members of the country's dwindling far left came out in support of the operation. (I say "dwindling far left" because half have woken up to the fallacies of leftist thinking while the other half have morphed into outright anti-Zionists.) Consider the following developments, which would have been unthinkable a month ago and which are a very small sampling of the changed mindset in Israel: The novelist A.B. Yehoshua, leader of Israel's leftist literary soviet, wrote a scathing article telling off an anti-Israel columnist at the far left anti-Zionist daily Haaretz. The popular singer Arik Sinai, long associated with Tel Aviv bohemian leftism, suddenly went on a Zionist crusade, complete with bashing of leftist anti-Zionists. Street protests in Israel against the war consisted almost exclusively of Arab students and Jewish members of the pro-terror HADASH communist party. The Israeli national consensus opposing the declaration of a cease-fire by the Olmert team was almost as broad as the consensus in support of the actual fighting. * * * Within days of the new cease-fire, however, it was becoming clear that Olmert had blown the whistle before the team had finished its work. The abandonment of Gilad Shalit was just part of it. The new cease-fire would allow Hamas to re-stock its armories and replenish its rocket warehouses. Hours after the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas's smuggling tunnels were being repaired and returned to operations. Worst of all, most of the Hamas leadership remained alive. Even more worrisome, the Olmert people were reverting to the approach that had produced the rocket blitz on Israel in the first place. After eight years of a policy of restraint that had achieved absolutely nothing, turning the other cheek was being restored as the national defense policy. Olmert and Livni were back to offering land for peace, reaffirming that two decades of giving up land and getting war in return had taught them nothing. For decades Israeli leaders had agreed to one unilateral cease-fire after the next. These bought Israel nothing but demonization in the world media. After their brief incarnation as fierce Zionist warriors, Olmert and his pals were once again pretending that Mahmoud Abbas and the PA were something different from the Hamas; that they were reasonable people who yearned for peaceful coexistence with Israel and with whom deals could be struck. And Israel was again offering to release hundreds of terrorists from captivity. If there was one lesson Israel should have learned over the past eight years, it was that Israeli restraint buys neither goodwill for the country nor moderate behavior on the part of Palestinians. For eight years Hamas and its affiliates in Gaza fired rockets at Jewish civilians, while the Israeli government's main response was to turn the other cheek and order the country just to wait passively for Hamas to run out of ammunition. Israeli leaders had deluded themselves into thinking that if only the world would clearly see unprovoked Palestinian aggression and terror, Israel would enjoy a public relations Xanadu. Especially after the Israeli government, for the sake of peace, drove all Jews out of Gaza. The expectation that restraint would boost Israel's image was among the stupidest of the delusions of Israel's Osloid leadership. The world not only ignored the thousands of rockets fired at Jewish civilians, it went to contorted moral lengths to justify them. For decades Israel's leaders misunderstood and misjudged anti-Semitism and they continue to do so now. Anti-Semites and those with totalitarian ideologies always reverse cause and effect. For them, every atrocity against Jews is a righteous protest against Jewish wrongdoing and Israeli misbehavior. Every retaliation by Israel is an unprovoked criminal act of malice and Nazi-like aggression. It is exactly like claiming the Japanese were the victims of American aggression at Pearl Harbor. The real problem is that the Anti-Israel Lobby does not consider Jews to be human. Therefore Jewish deaths never matter and Jewish lives are expendable. Because Jews are not quite human, they can never be entitled to the right of self-defense or permitted to engage in it. Anti-Zionism has now been thoroughly Nazified. There can be no other word for people who insist that Jewish life is worthless and that Jewish deaths never count. If Olmert had responded to the firing of thousands of rockets at Israel by merely sneezing in the general direction of the terrorists, thousands of protesters would have take to the streets and the campuses in Europe and America to denounce this as a disproportionate response and a war crime; many would no doubt describe it as an act of biological warfare. Absolutely nothing can ever be gained by Israeli restraint, except to demonstrate weakness and fan terrorism. But that insight, clear to any reasonably intelligent seven year old, was too complicated for Israeli officials who for eight years ordered residents of Sderot and the other towns of the Negev to sit and take it. Sderot had been turned by the Israeli government into an undefended Guernica, its children traumatized, its families reduced to paupers. * * * Another delusion that fell victim to Operation Cast Lead was the notion that Israel's far left, while perhaps dangerously naïve, is not at all anti-Semitic or self-hating. Over the past two decades a malignant plague of anti-Semitism has swept the left, including the Jewish left. It affects Jews in the United States, in Europe, and even in Israel. While 94 percent of the Israeli public was solidly behind the soldiers and the attack on the Hamas infrastructure, the Jewish left was out at the forefront of the pro-jihad Nuremberg marches, waving Hamas and PLO flags, demanding international boycotts of Israel, calling for a Hamas victory. The Jewish-born British Member of Parliament ranting about how Israel is a Nazi regime was just the tip of the iceberg. While the Arab regimes themselves were letting everyone know the contempt they felt for Hamas, Jewish leftists were out displaying their contempt for Jews, from the members of J Street to the Reconstructionist "rabbi" leading a pro-Hamas rally in Philadelphia,. Those who thought that "Jewish anti-Semite" was an oxymoron will have to think again. Increasingly, the left, and especially the campus left, produces a mass of Jewish collaborators with the enemy, the Jewish equivalents of Taliban John. Just about every Israel-bashing newspaper and Internet site now features anti-Jewish columnists and writers, many of them Israeli faculty members. But the rudest awakening of all at the end of Cast Lead came with regard to the Israeli far left, led by the academic fifth column. For years, the pursuit of leftist silliness has been just as fashionable on Israeli campuses as it's been on campuses in the U.S. and Europe. As Orwell wrote, some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals can believe them. As the guns in Gaza began to fall silent, a number of Israeli leftists emerged from their bunkers with a vengeance, sabotaging the consensus of patriotism that had filled Israel during the war. Ben-Gurion University, the campus with arguably the largest number of anti-Israel extremist faculty members, was shut down for weeks as Hamas rockets bathed Beersheba. Several rockets landed close to the campus. Public-school buildings in Beersheba were destroyed by rockets. Yet leftist faculty members at BGU went on the warpath against Israel and in support of Hamas. In an article titled "Black January," BGU sociologist Lev Grinberg proclaimed Hamas terrorists to be the true Maccabees, struggling against the evil empire: I admit that I find the name "Cast Lead" in bad taste because of its allusion to Chanukah and the Maccabees who fought against a mighty conqueror. If indeed there is a struggle here of the weak against an occupying empire, it is the struggle of Hamas against Israel, not the other way around. Our self-image as the weak victim is utterly surreal and trapped in the mythology of the Jews as the ultimate victims, regardless of reality.... The firing of missiles by the prisoners in protest against their starvation was interpreted as aggression, while their oppression by their jailers was interpreted as self-defense. Grinberg had earlier denounced Israel's targeting of terrorist leaders as "symbolic genocide." Neve Gordon, a BGU lecturer now serving as the chairman of political science at the university, turned out one pro-terror anti-Israel article after the next for anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi websites, denouncing Israel as a criminal entity. In one, he excoriated Israel for bombing the Islamic "university" in Gaza that was serving as the storage warehouse for the very same rockets being fired at his own university campus. Oren Yiftachel, a professor of geography at Ben Gurion University who has made a career out of denouncing Israel for being an "apartheid" regime, cheered the firing of rockets at the children of Sderot and Netivot as the moral and just response of Palestinians "imprisoned" by Israel firing at their "jailers." At my own University of Haifa, left-wing faculty members exploded in a wave of outraged protests when the campus heads decided to fly Israeli flags as a gesture of solidarity with the embattled residents of the Negev towns. The leftists claimed this would be insensitive because it would offend the pro-jihad Arab students who fill the campus. The most important lesson of the past eight years, at this late stage understood by everyone except university leftists and most Israeli politicians, is that nothing will really put an end to the terror and rockets other than some good old-fashioned R&D — Reoccupation and Denazification. Everything else is a delusion. See also this: http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/jan02/facing.html 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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
SAME MOB, DIFFERENT CAPTION
Posted by Nidra Poller, March 20, 2011. |
|
Since December 2010 I have spent long hours watching television footage of what is now dubbed in France as "le printemps arabe." Echoes of the Prague springtime and other inappropriate comparisons. I watched the BBC, CNN, SkyNews, GuysenTV, and the major French channels. Le printemps arabe was the cover story of all the news weeklies, usually illustrated by a photo of a woman in hijab shouting hysterically. The flow of these current images intersected with my reading of L'exil au Maghreb [Paul Fenton and David Littman, L'exil au Maghreb /La condition juive sous l'islam/ 1148-1912. Presse de l'Université Paris-Sorbonne 2010], an exhaustive exposé of eight centuries of persecution of Jews in the Maghreb. Embarking on this long journey, the reader might wonder why the authors chose to present hundreds of pages of raw documentation rather than using the tools of historiography to digest, summarize, and frame it. Descriptions of the situation of Jews in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia from the 11th to the early 20th century, drawn from traveler's diaries, consular reports, newspaper articles, lamentations of survivors of massacre, are painfully repetitive. An unending tale of harassment, exploitation, injustice, cruelty, savagery, torture, murder... The Maghreb, collectively known as "la Barbarie" at that time, deserved its reputation. The evidence piles up, page by page, year by year, irrefutable... a Google map zooming in house to house, victim by victim, day by day. In fact, it is the compelling monotonous repetition that justifies the approach. The details are so repetitive it almost seems as if they were concocted by cut- and-paste. The same elements are noted in the same order over the centuries. Jews are subject to constant savage persecution. A Mohamedan boy can beat up a Jewish man in the street... he dare not lift a hand to defend himself...the best he can do is run away squealing. Jews must walk barefoot in the medina [the Muslim city]. They must wear black, a baleful color for Muslims. They are falsely accused of crimes, flogged nearly to death, chained and thrown into prison. Or murdered, hacked to pieces, and burned. Their testimony is not valid in court, there is not the slightest chance of justice being rendered in their favor. Jews are taxed to starvation, thrown in prison if they cannot pay. But the Mohamedans cannot run the country, create wealth, manufacture goods, or conduct commerce without the Jews. They force the Jews to work for them. Mistreat them. And when their slaves have acquired enough wealth and comfort, the Mohamedans mutilate and murder them. The second and most poignant half of the hefty volume is composed of documents from the archives of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, a French-based educational and philanthropist organization that intervened to protect Maghrebi Jews and bring them up to a European standard of living and education. Heart rending reports — some written in beautiful atypical French, others translated from Hebrew, Arabic, English — add soul and dimension to the more detached accounts collected in the first part of the volume, in which observers often balanced examples of the Arabs' barbarian cruelty with unflattering descriptions of the Jewish victims... almost as if they deserved their fate. Muslim mobs storm into the Jewish ghetto — the mellah — on the slightest pretext or simply for pleasure. They rape women, deflower virgins, sodomize boys, kidnap children, murder rabbis, steal everything of value, smash and destroy and burn the rest. The names of victims cited in letters from the AIU archives resonate today; they are the names of my friends in France, the names of prominent French Jews of North African origin. Many of my friends left the Maghreb as teenagers or young adults with nothing but a few suitcases. Jewish families abandoned goods and property, factories and businesses and fled for their lives. Jews growing up when the Maghreb was under European domination had not been forced to live in the mellah, walk barefoot in the medina, bow their heads, submit to insults and flogging. They have memories of harmonious relations with Muslim neighbors. Many Jews joined in the fight for independence — an earlier printemps arabe. Some stayed, most left. My friends re not simple-minded creatures who hide the truth from themselves and yet I think most of them do not even know the extent of the atrocities endured by their dhimmi forebears. I wonder if they could bear to read L'Exil au Maghreb. It is almost too painful to acknowledge the condition in which we Jews were forced to live for centuries. Most of us are familiar with the history of European shtetlech — persecution, pogroms, the Shoah — but the history of dhimmitude in Muslim lands is only recently emerging. Supporting evidence for the pioneer studies of Bat Ye'or is available in English in Andrew Bostom's monumental Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism and now in a French-language counterpart. These two hefty volumes crush the last pipsqueak of the myth of the Golden Age of Andalusia and counter the pernicious claim that Jews were better off in Muslim lands than in Europe. It is difficult for non-Jews to admit the truth; it is painful and shameful for Jews to see ourselves as we were. Disgraced, groveling, helpless, at the mercy of heartless brutes. This is why it is absolutely necessary to read every word of these endless tales of woe. Today we have the means to defend ourselves but the same barbaric forces that run amok through the pages of l'Exil au Maghreb are determined to reduce us once more to slavery or death. We must get this into the heads of our fellow Jews. The enemy is closing down on us. Same mob, different caption. Molten masses of enraged men filling streets and squares of Muslim lands, adoring the dictators they now want to behead. Guttural shouts, pounding feet, murderous mobs waving swords and clubs pour into Jewish neighborhoods of Cairo, Baghdad, Algiers, and Tripoli, smashing and destroying, raping, maiming, murdering Jews. The survivors fled. Furious Muslims on the march in European cities, screaming "Death to the Jews." Torching, smashing, stoning, protesting the existence of Israel, the presence of Jews...in Europe! Now the mob is democracy on the hoof. Western correspondents on the scene flutter with excitement. The freedom fighters occupy Tahrir Square in Cairo. Their numbers swell. They shout "dégage Mubarak" — the Jasmine Revolution is their model — they want freedom and won't leave until the dictator is disgraced and dismissed. It started in Tunisia and Egypt; we were promised it would spread to Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and who knows maybe Saudi Arabia. A spontaneous uprising by the champions of human rights dances through the Arab-Muslim world. We are told that these people are just like us, they want to be free, they have been oppressed by dictators imposed...well...by us, right? Nothing inherent in their culture or values could have caused this oppression. That is the story, and who would want to deny it? All human beings want to be free. Why aren't they? That is a longer story. And L'Exil au Maghreb is an important part of it. Whenever there was conflict, rivalry, rise and fall of governors or caliphs, the mob stormed into the mellah and massacred Jews. That story has been hidden. Today's version of the mob is wrapped in beautiful thoughts. But we in Europe have seen those mobs storming through the streets, smashing and torching cars, beating up women and young men, attacking the police, looting, burning down public buildings, waving Hamas and Hezb'allah flags, demanding justice, jobs, liberation of Palestine, death to the Jews...and the right to attack the police without being punished. The 2005 uprisings in France were portrayed as justifiable exasperation of an oppressed minority. We see "Intifada" mobs in Israel throwing rocks, fronting for men armed with automatic weapons, running amok, committing mayhem, on the rampage, throwing firebombs, their faces wrapped in keffieh. What do they want? An end to the "Occupation." We have heard resounding cries of revenge at triumphant shahid funerals now and before. Just as the truth of the endemic persecution of Jews (and Christians) in the Maghreb was kept secret, perfumed with orange blossom, and wrapped in golden ages, the truth today about these mobs is prettily packaged and sold to us by journalists who identify with the crowd. And sometimes, misled by their own narrative, they are seized, beaten, battered or raped. Yes, of course, there are people in those crowds who want to be free. What about the rest? What will become of them? The tragic misrepresentation of reality paves the way for other onslaughts, revolts, intifadas, and virulent peace marches, bringing atrocities in their wake. At this writing, the reversal of fortune of Libyan rebels is a sobering reminder that truth trumps the media show, not every dictator is a pushover, and the domino effect may be one of those Western notions foreign to the Middle East. Suddenly, the slaughter of the Fogel family in Itamar brings me full circle to l'Exil au Maghreb and the unbearable repetition of the seething hatred that endures, constantly renewed from its original 7th century source. A Hamas website reportedly described the attack as the "elimination of five Zionist usurpers." French media call the victims "colons" [colonizers]. The difference is, we are not defenseless barefoot Jews in the mellah. We will not submit.
Contact Nidra Poller at nidrapol@gmail.com.
This article is archived in American Thinker
|
|
ISRAEL BREATHES; WORLD CONDEMNATION INSTANTANEOUS
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 20, 2011. |
|
This was written by Andrew Pessin and it is from A Jew With A View
|
|
Israel breathed this morning. There was a quick intake of air, and then a gentle exhalation. World condemnation was instantaneous. P.A. President Abbas decried the Israeli attempt to commandeer the Middle East air supply, and demanded a prompt return to the 1967 air distribution which Palestinian leaders had previously violently rejected. Iranian President Ahmadinejad interrupted his weekly call for the destruction of Israel in order to blast the Zionist entity for its blatant oxygen grab and call for its immediate destruction. Egyptian newspapers detailed the malicious Mossad plot to exhale germs into the air and then spread the poisoned air via high-tech windmills directly into the lungs of Muslim children. Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal announced that in response to the Israeli aggression, Hamas would not let the Red Cross visit captured soldier Gilad Schalit. When it was pointed out that they hadn't allowed such visits in the four years prior to Israel's action, he snorted, "And now you see why!" Turkey announced it would be withdrawing its ambassador, only to retract that announcement in slight embarrassment when it realized it had already withdrawn him last week, in response to some other Israeli outrage it could no longer quite recall. The United Nations General Assembly, after meeting for an all-night emergency session, called for another all-night emergency session. And the Security Council demanded an immediate impartial investigation, only to backtrack when it was informed that all its available staff were already tied up in ongoing impartial investigations of other Israeli actions. Indeed, outrage at Israel's action was heard around the globe. People everywhere exclaimed that Israel's aggression was against international law, and then asked for a copy of the newspaper so they could see just what it was, in fact, that Israel had done this time. Others, more intellectually-inclined, asked for some links on "international law," curious to find out, at last, just what was this special code which apparently all non-Israelis had secretly agreed upon. And, of course, there were numerous calls for Israel's leaders to be brought up on charges of 'war crimes'. Loudest of these were from regimes as diverse as China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea, which took time off from their busy schedules oppressing Tibetans, Darfur civilians, women and all religious minorities, and their own citizens respectively to make their pronouncements. In fact, Israel's action this time was so offensive that Muslim extremists actually paused from their work installing massive explosives in each others' mosques in order to condemn Israel's attacks on Muslim civilians. The criticisms could even be heard within Israel itself. "How can Israel call itself a democracy," Haaretz asked in an editorial, "while allowing its Jewish citizens to consume 75% of the air?" Arab-Israeli MKs signed a petition demanding that the Israeli constitution, guaranteeing their right to sit in the Knesset despite their repeated calls for Israel's destruction, should be dissolved, preferably in favor of something more totalitarian. "On this day I am ashamed to be a Jew," proclaimed one prominent left-wing leader, a man who had repeatedly urged all peoples to be proud of their ethnic and religious identities, except for Jews. Israel initially attempted to respond to these criticisms, but quickly realized that speaking would require it once again to inhale and thus draw upon itself further global ire. And so, Israel stopped breathing altogether. This action, clearly aimed to destroy the regional economy and destabilize the entire Middle East, triggered instantaneous worldwide condemnation. Ad infinitum. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
OBJECTIVE — SUBJECTIVE ISLAM
Posted by Bill Warner, March 20, 2011. |
|
There are two excellent sources of the Koran. The first is: http://www.quranbrowser.com/ The most exciting Koran to be published in my life time (and I am 70) is "The Dilemma Quran", found at www.thequran.com It is produced by former clerics and scholars who are now Christians. (Think of the head of the KGB defecting to our side.) It has no equal. It spends over 100 pages explaining what the Koran actually is and how to understand it. SEE ALSO: "Objective Islam, Subjective Islam" Bill Warner is Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com. |
|
HERBERT HOOVER AND THE JEWS; A FABLE: ADAM SEES THE LIGHT
Posted by Ted Roberts, March 19, 2011. |
|
Herbert Hoover was NOT a man blessed with great timing. He gets elected in '28 and in 1929 he's smacked with a World Depression. Three years later he's voted out of office by Franklin Delano Roosevelt with a huge plurality of six million votes. Don't let the door hit you in the rear end, said six million Americans. And as the White House door slammed shut — the song ringing in the ex-president's ear was: Happy Times are Here Again. His four years were no Camelot. Bad timing. Few remembered that he saved millions of Europeans from the clutches of starvation — first in post World War I Belgium. And again in hungry Central Europe. We Jews, who naturally look at the world through our own ethnic spectacles, consider Herbert Hoover and say — what's he got to do with us? Everything. Because the starving masses he fed in the early 20's were the bubbes and zaydes, uncles and aunts, maybe parents of many of us. If Oscar Schindler was pronounced a hero for saving a few thousand Jews, Herbert Hoover should be anointed as the Mosiach, the Messiah, or maybe granted charter membership to the Hall of Righteous Gentiles. His contribution ("The Great Humanitarian" they called him) is told in the Hoover Digest, affiliated with Stanford University. World War I — "the war to end all wars" — eventually brought us World War II, Communism in Russia, and the subsequent Cold War. But its first curse was starvation in Central Europe. Between 1919 and 1921 the American relief effort, headed by Hoover, fed a million and a half Jewish children primarily in newly independent Poland — disgorged from Germany, Austria, and Poland. The challenge was daunting because Central Europe was convulsed in warfare. The Russians were marching on Warsaw, while Russia, roiled by revolution, was pillaged by rival Royalists and Red gangs. This was like Katrina relief in the middle of a war. The easiest part was getting the money to buy food. Uncle Sam, as usual, was the first to open his wallet. The U.S. Congress contributed 100 million dollars and the U.S. Army contributed a fleet of railroad cars to transport food to out-of-the-way shtetles like Pinsk, Bielsk, Siemiatycze, and Brzesc. Getting the food to starving Polish kids in this savage political environment had all the challenges of feeding malnourished Africa today. Hungry armies, murderous gangs, black marketeers, corrupt local officials, transport lack stalked the treasure trove of nutrition that the American Relief Agency brought into Central Europe through Danzig. Somehow, Hoover, who knew more about getting nourishment into hungry mouths than anyone on the planet, negotiated this gauntlet of obstacles. In most cases, the food supplies were shepherded directly to the schools by the American relief workers. Hoover wisely avoided government channels. He wanted to feed kids, not enrich corrupt bureaucrats. Millions were fed. The Hoover Institution at Stanford University has recently illuminated this bittersweet chapter in history — an era that has not found its way into our text books. Several years ago they released a report on Hoover's work by Elena Danielson. It tells us how she came upon an old "beautifully gold-tooled leather portfolio" in the archives. It contained presentations, proudly presented to the "Great Humanitarian", upon his visit to Poland in l921, by school kids. She went to Zachary Baker, curator of Judaica at the Stanford University Libraries — a Yiddish translator — for help. The portfolio was overflowing with letters from another world — a time and place called loosely, Poland 1921. The land of many of our forefathers — of shtetles, hasids, cheders, and Isaac Bashevis Singer and the Baal Shem Tov, and Sholom Aleichem. And finally, the very ground zero of the Holocaust. Here are letters from school children, most of whom never reached middle age. They write thank you letters to the American businessman, Herbert Hoover, who culturally was as unlike them as a Hindu Maharaja, a continent away in India. They could not imagine the wealth and freedom of Herbert Hoover or the average American if they spent a lifetime of study in their cheder or study rooms. It was beyond their wildest dreams. Their letters are perfumed with the innocence of youth and the warm gratitude of full stomachs. The children elaborately thank the American businessman. Then proudly demonstrating their newly learned ability, there's a scrawl of childish signatures and decorative artwork. Other cards and notes bear pictures of the children's school, festooned with American flags. One letter, in Hebrew, is decorated with a drawing of a can of sweetened condensed milk. Such cans were used for drinking cups. Tin cans for cups; a poverty unknown to us was endemic in Central Europe. The cups came to symbolize the American effort. A youngster named Ary Goldman adds a poem to his thanks and does not forget to ask for money to buy books. It is a blessing in disguise that we know not what happened to Ary and his schoolboy friends when Nazi and Communist armies carved up their country. His final verse says it all. Send us "Money for clothes, for rice and other types of food, so that we may be able to study the Torah without fear. One of the students in the Pinsk Talmud Torah: Ary Goldman, 17 Sivan 5681, June 23, 1921." Another group of youngsters presents a card vivid with orange cornflowers and declares, "We the Jewish children signed below of the town of Siemiatycze, the country of Bielsk, and the land of Grodno, kitchen no. 4 send our greetings to American children, from Poland to noble America in homage to Herbert Hoover. — On the day of July 4th, the year 1921." Sometimes the past is as hidden from us as the future. This mitzvah, this good deed by a Quaker humanitarian unrecognized by the history books, is unknown to Jewish hearts. A FABLE: ADAM SEES THE LIGHT Can you imagine Adam — G-d's first human creation in Eden's green meadow? See him, newly minted. His fresh body gleaming and his mind totally empty of facts, attitudes, opinions — as empty as Eden is of thorn bushes — ready to begin its lifelong task of accumulation of data and weaving that data into an intellect. He turns slowly 360 degrees, a full circle, and takes in grass and forests, and flowers, and mountains, and brooks, all covered by a blue dome. As he registers every throb of the new creation in the lush, green grass of Eden and wonders at his consciousness — as flimsy as the few white clouds that sail above him. He looks closer and sees the songbirds. And look, there are small creatures in the grass and larger ones hopping and bounding amongst the trees. Truly, a brave new world full of creatures unlike himself that are necessary for him to understand — he who at birth has no identity and a head full of inexperience. Then he chances to stare into that copper disc that illuminates his new world. It beams over all. Still sitting on the green Savannah and swiveling his head in all directions, because the Lord of creation has put a potion called curiosity into his bloodstream; unappreciated at the time by Adam, but destined to nourish his intellect. So much to see that it took many hours to inscribe it all in his heretofore blank brain like the honeybee fills his comb with nectar. Then among his recording of his surroundings, he made an alarming observation. That bright orange thing was no longer straight ahead. The trees on the far horizon appeared to consume it. And he could no longer see the sharp outlines of trees and mountains. In fact, the creatures that had been joyfully bounding in the woods were no longer visible to him. Darkness was replacing light. He trembled. Even a partially stocked brain knew that somehow darkness meant blindness and blindness was death. And as the trees pulled more and more of the light below the horizon, Adam's blindness increased. He chose to run to escape this danger, but he fell over a large boulder. He rose, only to run into a tree. He resumed his running — somewhere there must be light and he must find it. He was cold and blind and fearful all at once. And the Lord G-d saw his fear and took pity on him. Ah, we need a light for the night, thought the mind of G-d wherein dwells all the mechanisms of the universe. Therefore, he flung the full moon into the midnight sky. Adam stopped. Only a small improvement. Now at least he could see the river, which lay in his path. But still the garden's beauty seemed blurred in dusky yellow. So, the lord flung millions of points of light into the sky. They helped but a little. The good Lord, who made the heart of Adam, understood the heart of Adam. This fear of nighttime blindness needed more than moon and stars. The Creator spoke in Adam's ear the secret of day and night. How they revolve like all things in nature; life and death, the seasons, the great architecture of the galaxies. But Adam's mind could not accommodate the voice of his maker. It was like talking to the beasts. He needed one of his own kind. The ragged hole of fear in Adam's soul could only be filled by a helpmate. Thus, Adam slept and G-d made Eve. She stood beside him and pointed to the horizon where the earth had swallowed the sun. Her eyes expressed no fear, only wonder. They sank to the grass in each other's arms — huddled like two babes. Neither knew anything except the warmth of the other. They watched and waited. Their fearful eyes focused on the Pine tree where they had last seen the sun. Would it ever return to bless them with light and warmth? They dozed, frightful, but full of the need to sleep. Then Eve, feeling a warmth at her back and noticing the lightening of the black sky, laughed the first exultant laugh of creation and put her hand to Adam's face in order to turn it to the life-giving light behind them. "It returns, it returns," she whispered with awe; "but not where it was eaten by the earth." They stand, they face the rising sun, and then they lift their faces to heaven — wherein the laws of nature are made — to thank He who gave them life and light and warmth. Around them all living things hummed a hymn of hope. Ted Roberts is author of "Scribbler on the Roof." Visit his websites at http://www.wonderwordworks.com http://www.scribblerontheroof.typepad.com. |
|
SPARE ME THE CROCODILE TEARS WHEN NORTHERN AFRICA EXPLODES
Posted by Don Hank, March 19, 2011. |
|
Now that the street mobs are in control of the Middle East, I predict first the unleashing of a fireball throughout the region. And then after that a flood of crocodile tears from the Western leaders who triggered it. |
|
Jim Kouri reports at the Examiner.com that Western coalition forces have launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to "protect the Libyan people from that troubled nation's dictator, according to the Pentagon." Kouri's article mentions criticism of the operation, but this is limited only to the fact that the coalition "places US troops under the command of foreign generals." This is very far from the crux of the main issue as recently highlighted by Olavo de Carvalho here and myself here. As we have stated, the salient outcome of US involvement in each case in Iran, Kosovo, Iraq and Egypt was to take the world step by step closer to a worldwide Caliphate or at least to a world increasingly hostile to Christianity, Jews and Western traditions. And as we pointed out, while this occurred under color of "spreading democracy," the so-called democratic regimes that sprang up in the power voids we created were much more aggressive toward opposition and much more hostile toward Christians and Jews than the governments Western allies helped overthrow. Libyan rebels are reported to have terror ties. Whereas we once fought, at least ostensibly, to defeat terror, we now fight to defend it, as if it needed our help! Though many remain in denial about the motives behind this tragic power transfer, it is increasingly clear, particularly in Europe, that the virtually unaccountable Ruling Class (in the EU, the national and local governments) has adopted policies and laws that are aimed to dismantle Christianity and traditional Judeo-Christian life and culture, at variance with the will of their constituents. The Germans may well have suffered more than the rest of Europe. Indeed, there are public schools in places like Berlin where up to around 90% of all students are Muslims, many of whom mercilessly attack and insult the German students. In retrospect, it is perhaps not surprising that after tolerating such abuse for many years, a German TV station picked up the story. Laigle's Forum was one of the first US media outlets to report this to US audiences. Within days, Chancellor Angela Merkel became the first top-level European leader to state unequivocally "Multikulti" (multiculturalism) is not working. Not long thereafter, David Cameron, normally a lackey of the Ruling Class, said the same thing. So did France's Sarkozy. Now European leaders at this level never flout the top brass (in the EU, for example) in this way unless their jobs are at stake. For the first time in decades, the pressure was coming from the people, building to a crescendo and inviting revolt. The point is that the Ruling Class in the West has been using Muslims as a means of undermining Christian culture, and the support of Islamic rioters in Northern Africa is but an extension of this policy. A hotelier couple in the UK, for example, was recently sued in court for sharing their faith with a Muslim guest. Homosexual "sensitivity" is also used on both sides of the Atlantic to suppress Christian thought and speech. The connection to the anti-Christian tone of US leaders (on all levels), with the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center making constant juridical sorties against Christians, is abundantly clear to anyone with internet access and palpable brain wave activity. So given the above list of Islamic nations that has received military support, it is not unusual that the West would leap to the support of a group of radicals who want to overthrow the Libyan regime, even though Libya has had one of the highest standards of living in the region and a more highly developed network of social services, and even though Qadaffi had in the past shown remarkable cooperativeness with the West, even voluntarily dismantling his weapons systems. So now there are 5 regions in the hands of another wild street mob, thanks to the intervention of the West. Watch the prices soar at the pump. Watch for streams of Middle Eastern Christian refugees in Western countries. Watch Israel as Islam moves in for the kill. Watch for crocodile tears as the Western leaders who triggered the debacle react with false shock and indignation at the blood bath they deliberately initiated. Further reading: Western support for radical Islam
This article is entitled "We've Switched Sides in the War on
Terror" and it appeared in Laigle's Forum
|
|
APARTHEID IS ALIVE AND WELL IN ARABY
Posted by Laura, March 19, 2011. |
|
This article was written by Victor Sharpe, a freelance writer and author of several published books including Volumes One and Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state. |
|
We stand in the midst of a new round of Israel-bashing called by the organizers of "Israel Apartheid Week." Those doing the bashing are busy turning logic on its head. For them, up is down, day is night, and right is wrong. The collected hatemongers of the radical Left allied with the terminally hate-filled Muslim world, their ranks filled with empty-headed and gullible drones, are combining to shriek misplaced support for an Arab people calling themselves Palestinians, who, they allege, are suffering from apartheid. They make this false charge by slandering the Jewish state, equating it with what was once the South African apartheid regime. According to the upside-down world of the "hate Israel" crowd, Arabs are separated from Jews within Israel just as the black Africans were segregated from the whites within South Africa. This is where facts retreat into the fantasy world one finds within the Thousand and One Arabian Nights. The real apartheid that exists in the Middle East can be found not in Israel, but within the territories currently occupied by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-occupied Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Arabs ban all Jews from living amongst them. Any Jews found are summarily murdered in cold blood. This is sanctioned by Fatah and Hamas, who both delight in describing the Arab terrorist thugs as heroes — even naming streets and town squares in their honor. Any Arabs found to have sold property to Jewish purchasers are summarily executed — often in the public squares and streets of Palestinian Arab settlements. The geographical territory known as Palestine has, of course, never existed as an independent, sovereign nation in all of human history, and certainly never as an Arab state. The current territory within the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip formed integral parts of the ancestral and biblical Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority sits upon the very Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, known now by its Jordanian name, the West Bank. The vast territory east of the River Jordan, now called the Kingdom of Jordan, includes large tracts of land that also formed part of the biblical Jewish and tribal lands. But now that same vast territory, which extends eastwards to Iraq, north to Syria, and south to Saudi Arabia (dwarfing tiny Israel in size), is also closed by the Jordanian authorities to Jews, who may not live within its borders upon pain of death. In contrast, Arabs, who make up 20% of the overall Israeli population, may live within the reconstituted Jewish state as citizens enjoying equal rights with justice for all. The Jordanian regime instituted a law in 1954 prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan. They did this by conferring citizenship to all former residents of geographical Palestine — except Jewish ones. Israel's population contains Jews who are white, black, brown, and yellow. It is not an apartheid state based on racial differences or concepts of racial purity and impurity. Under apartheid South Africa, blacks were not citizens of the country and were not permitted to vote. Yet the loony Left, allied with the hate-filled Islamic world, continues to accuse Israel of a mythical apartheid system while ignoring the Arab and Muslim perpetrators of the actual apartheid that so clearly exists in the Kingdom of Jordan, in the Palestinian Authority, and within the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. The tsunami of anti-Jewish bigotry and malice sweeping the universities in America and Europe is desolating. The boycotts of Israel generated from within academia are built upon a fraudulent ethos of Arab distortions and outright lies, yet thy are willingly accepted by gullible students and faculty alike. It seems that the intellectuals who utter their elitist drivel within the corridors of academe are all too often seduced by novelties. But what it sadly, and so often, reveals is an undeniable truth that intellectualism does not automatically confer intelligence or intelligent behavior. It would be refreshing if the same students, professors, and assorted Israel-bashers could learn how the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have created for themselves what can be described as anti-history. So insanely set are they upon a destructive denial of Jewish patrimony that these same Palestinian Arabs have created for themselves a fraudulent narrative denying even the existence of the Jewish Temples on Jerusalem's Temple Mount — despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence of Jewish civilization and history in the land spanning millennia. This is why Palestinian Prime Minister Fayad called out the Palestinian rent-a-mob to riot in the streets of Hebron and Jerusalem after Israel declared the ancient Jewish holy sites of the Machpela Cave in Hebron and the tomb of the biblical matriarch, Rachel, as national heritage sites. In Genesis 23:13, we read about the first Jew, Abraham, purchasing land in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite as a burial plot for his wife, Sarah. His son Isaac and grandson Jacob are also buried there along with their wives — the Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. But this upsets the Palestinian Arabs because the Jewish tombs are within the territory they demand for a state — for them, these Jewish sites are an inconvenient truth. Another Jewish holy place in what the world likes to call the West Bank is Joseph's tomb in Nablus, or what was once biblical Jewish Shechem. The good Palestinian Arabs recently desecrated the ancient tomb, filling it with rubbish and excrement, to prevent Jewish prayers and pilgrimage at the site. These are manifestations of apartheid — Arab style. With breathtaking absurdity, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians make claims of historical and lineal descent from the extinct Canaanites and Philistines. They have bred several generations of children in kindergartens imbued with such frightening nonsense, attended by a love of barbarism and a culture of death. They have been encouraged in this by the corrupt neighboring Arab leaders, who for some sixty years have stigmatized them as refugees yet at the same time have barred them from living within their own basket-case countries. From this horrific Palestinian-Arab sectarianism, the culture of death has developed along with an Islamic refusal to ever make a true and lasting peace with the non-Muslim state known as Israel. Indeed, for the Jewish population and for the subsequent State of Israel, there has been relentless Arab terror since the 1920s. Consider the massacre of Jewish civilians by their Arab neighbors in Judaism's second-holiest city, Hebron — the city that not only houses the Jewish burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but which King David first made his capital. That Arab atrocity took place in 1929 during the British Mandate occupation. For all those anti-Israel bigots who scream against Israeli occupation, they should know that the so-called West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not occupied at that time. Indeed, the Jewish state was not reborn until nineteen years later, in 1948 — yet Arabs were murdering and terrorizing Jews all those years before. They should ask themselves why, after the Israel-Arab war of 1948, when the Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and the Jordanians occupied the so-called West Bank, neither Egypt nor Jordan felt the need to create a new Arab state to be called Palestine. Neither did the Arab residents demand it. Only after Israel defeated Arab aggression in 1967 and liberated the territories did the Arab world begin to demand the creation of a 23rd Arab state. They should also know that today, some 98% of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians live in both the Arab Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the rival Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. There is, in reality, no occupation. So what do they mean when they rant and rave about Israeli occupation, unless it is a call for the very extinction of Israel itself? There is no such thing as Israeli apartheid against the Arabs. But there most certainly is Arab apartheid imposed upon Jews, who are denied the right to live amongst Arabs even in the ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland, which is occupied and controlled today by the Palestinian Authority and the Islamist Hamas. It truly is an upside-down world, viewed now through a window so terribly distorted as to bewilder and confuse untold millions. It is much more than an Arab-Israel conflict over territory; it is much deeper than that. It is an Islamic refusal to accept a reconstituted Jewish homeland where once the Muslim foot trod triumphal. The very fact that the Palestinian Arabs, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, will never accept a tiny Jewish state within the enormous Arab landmass that stretches from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east is clear and present evidence of Muslim and Arab apartheid. This empirical fact must be understood. In that context, I am reminded that it was the Indian leader Mahatma Ghandi who said, "While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees, and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam." It would be an enlightening and seminal moment in these first years of the 21st century if the eyes and ears of the Israel-bashers could be opened with the realization that they have targeted the wrong nation, and that apartheid is alive and well within the Arab world. Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
TWO YEARS AFTER GOLDSTONE, GENEVA COMES TO SDEROT
Posted by Susana K-M, March 19, 2011. |
| This was written by Noam Bedein, Director of Sderot Media Center. Contact them at www.SderotMedia.org.il |
|
On Wednesday the 9th of March 2011, an unprecedented video conference was convened at the Sderot City Hall, between representatives and residents from Sderot and Ashkelon, on one side of the screen, while, on the other side, there were 'new' judges in Geneva from the UN Human Rights Commission — among them there was leading US Judge Mary Davis, who has been placed in charge of investigating thousands of law suits against Israel's military response to the attacks from Gaza, which took place in December 08/January 09. This commission is still examining the results of the IDF military operation in Gaza two years later, while hardly anyone is examining the results of the Gazan aerial attacks on Sderot and the Western Negev region of Israel. Two years ago, SMC, The Sderot Media Center, SderotMedia.org.il, was asked by the UN Human Rights Commission to help facilitate Israeli victims of the Gaza attacks to come to Geneva. SMC was asked this time as well to assist the commission in learning about the human side of the story on the ground in Sderot, something that no UN body has done during at any time during the past 10 years of Gaza attacks on this city -the only city whose civilian population in the Western world has been under sustained aerial attacks from a radical Islamic-controlled entity. On Thursday, the Sderot municipality hosted representatives of the International Jewish association of lawyers, who presented three members of a panel to testify at the video conference: The mayor of Sderot, David Boskila, The head of the Sderot Parents Association, Mrs. Hava Gad, a representative of the Ashkelon Municipality, Anat Barkovitz and the spokesperson of Ashkelon's Barzilai hospital- Lea Malol. Each panelist had only a few to tell their story, beginning with Mrs. Malol, who described the work at the hospital which was not protected against the Iranian-manufactured Grad missiles. She described what it was like to treat over 500 Israeli and Palestinian patients from Gaza.. "What other hospital in the world would allow itself to function under 10 years of rocket threat — with no vacations, doctors and nurses worrying about their own children, with thousands of children with PTSD symptoms, not including the deaths and over 1,000 injuries which resulted from rocket attacks over the past few years ?" Hava Gad, who also helps out at the Sderot Media Center, explained what it meant to be officially diagnosed a trauma victim. She began the first sentence of her testimony: "We're sitting in the municipality at the moment, and you (judges) should know there is no protection or bomb shelter to protect this building.. I don't go anywhere in this town unless there's a shelter near by"... Mrs. Gad described how she stopped functioning as a mother, and added she was no longer the woman she once was, she also spoke about her fears and the 24 hour medication she is on. I remember Hava collapsing on her way home after Shabbat dinner when seven sirens went off. After every explosion, she would start shaking until she completely collapsed. Each time, having her 9 year old comforting her and petting her head, saying: " It's OK Ima, the Qassams fell far from here..." The last one who spoke was the Sderot Mayor, David Buskilla who slowly recited the names of the children who were murdered by the Gaza missiles. These slain children in Sderot had been born to immigrants from Morocco, Ethiopia and the former Soviet Untion. Buskilla went on to describe the thousands of children who had lost their childhood and told the UN that he was speaking on behalf of the 25,000 Sderot residents who cannot understand why no human rights committee in the UN has ever stood up for them! The UN panelists on the other side of the screen in Geneva, just asked how many attacks there had been since the IDF operation in Gaza. The accurate number: The Hamas regime in Gaza has launched 535 aerial attacks since Israel unilaterally ceased fire on the day before President Obama's inauguration on January 19th, 2009, giving new meaning to Israel's situation: We ceased, they fire.. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE PACIFICATION OF NAZI GERMANY
Posted by Dr. Sanford Aranoff, March 19, 2011. |
|
We successfully pacified Nazi Germany after World War II by occupying Germany and using military force to compel the removal of all hate education from schools and other public places. The Allies imprisoned many people in this process. The result has been a peaceful Germany. We need to examine this pacification process and apply it to the struggle between Moslem Arabs, the "Palestinians" and Israel. Let us examine critical differences between the German occupation and the Israeli occupation of the "territories". With the Nazis, there was no negotiation. No one spoke of "both sides". The Nazis were wrong in all the killing they did, and that was that. There is no justification for such horrible evil. With the Palestinians, we must do likewise. We must cease talk about such as "A brutal act brings out the worst on all sides", made by an AIPAC lobbyist. We must focus solely on the brutal murders the Palestinians commit. We must focus solely on the rockets the Palestinians shoot into Israeli cities and never mention any possible justification. With the Nazis, hate teaching became illegal. Denial of the Holocaust is a crime. Hitler's book of hate, Mein Kampf, cannot be taught in schools. With the Palestinians, hate teaching is permitted. Israel must have boots on the ground to stomp out hate teaching. If the world complains, Israel must remind the world that never again will any group of people be allowed to teach young children hate. Although popular opinion is that Germany has eliminated its evil past, many people doubt this. Some people think Germany still has thoughts of world domination, by using means other than military. Their reaction to Ireland's economic policies is an example where Germany wishes the EU to do things that Germany knows will weaken and harm Ireland. Ireland reduced corporate taxes, thereby attracting foreign corporations, and thereby increasing government revenue. Germany and the IMF are demanding Ireland increase corporate taxes. We all know that increasing taxes results in decreasing revenue to the government. We all know that reducing corporate taxes is the way to prosperity. Germany's demands clearly indicate a regression to Germany's evil past. Contact Dr. Aranoff by email at aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com |
|
THE DEEP, VIRULENT EVIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Posted by Sanne DeWitt, March 18, 2011. |
|
This was written by Ben Shapiro and it appeared in Townhall http://townhall. com/columnists/ benshapiro/ 2011/03/16/ the_deep, _virulent_ evil_of_the_ united_nations/ page/full/ Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botoxn the Road to the White House. |
|
Blood on the bed. That's what 12-year-old Tamar Fogel saw last week when she opened the door to her parents' bedroom in Itamar, Israel. The blood covered the blankets and the bodies of her father, Rabbi Udi Fogel, and her 3-month-old sister, Hadas. In the other room, her mother, Ruth, lay murdered. So did her brothers, Yoav, 11, and Elad, 4. Five members of the Fogel family were slaughtered in their home last week because they dared to live on historic Jewish land. They were not murderers and were not occupiers. They were people who simply wished to leave in peace and be left alone to bring up their children. Now those children have been buried along with their parents. And the Arab Palestinian populace, which by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet, celebrated. Residents of Gaza — an area already handed over to the Arab Palestinians by the Israeli government, supposedly in the interests of peace — handed out candy in exultation over the crimes. These are the same people who train their small children to wear suicide vests and force them to watch propaganda about Muslims dying to "liberate" Jerusalem. Hamas, naturally, cheered wildly and suggested that the murder of a 3-month-old fell short of Muslim expectations: "The report of five murdered Israelis is not enough to punish someone," said the Hamas spokesperson. The leader of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, was slightly subtler, equating instead the murder of children in their beds with Israeli anti-terrorism military action. The world community parroted Fayyad's line, with the United Nations, European Union, Russian Federation and United States condemning the attack by stating, "Attacks on any civilians are completely unacceptable in any circumstance" — code for equating Israeli military action and Palestinian Arab thuggery. Just to clarify their position, the United Nations held a very special event last Monday night. No, it wasn't a fundraiser to benefit the orphaned children of the Fogel family. It was a premiere screening of "Miral," a film by Julian Schnabel, a self-hating Jew and world-famous director; it's based on a book by his Arab Palestinian girlfriend, Rula Jebreal. "Miral" is a virulently anti-Israel movie casting the state of Israel in the worst possible light. Every Israeli soldier is a brutal murderer; every Palestinian is a wounded innocent; Jews are usurpers of Arab Palestinian property rights. Every anti-Israel trope is employed. "These settlers living here are our real cancer," says one Arab Palestinian character. A cancer, presumably, that must be cut out by force or stabbed to death in its bed. "I expect to be told that the other side of the coin is not represented, " Schnabel told the press several months ago. "It was not my task to tell the whole story." That purposefully one-sided treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict brought out the stars Monday night. Al Pacino, who apparently learned nothing from playing Shylock, showed up. So did Sean Penn, the useful idiot that terrorist group Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade once asked to "represent our pain and our cause." Josh Brolin and Robert De Niro also came out to support the newest anti-Israel smear campaign. This is what the United Nations does when faced by implacable evil: it reverses the roles. Israel is always the bully, and those who slit children's throats and soak their toys in blood are the victims. Jewish blood is cheap at the U.N. But it isn't cheap for Americans, who foot the taxpayer bill for that stinking, festering pustule of moral incoherence. We pay for the red carpet that welcomes the moronic actors who present public cover for knife-wielding child-killers. We pay for the conversion of the U.N. into an Arab Palestinian propaganda movie theater. The U.N. has no authority, legal or ethical. Any legislator who votes for further funding for that perverse institution has blood on his or her hands. Sanne DeWitt publishes the East Bay IAC (IACEP) Newsletter. Contact her by email at skdewitt@comcast.net |
|
JIHAD AND CONGRESSIONAL HEARING
Posted by Richad H. Shulman, March 18, 2011. |
|
Even before Rep. Peter King, who specializes in counter-terrorism, announced a hearing on jihad, Democrats and Islamic organizations denounced him for it. They accused him of discrimination against Islam. What intent had Rep. King stated? He said it was to alert the public to the proved danger of jihad (not of Islam) and to investigate how to get American Muslims to cooperate with security forces against terrorists. The critics did not caution against the temptation to create prejudice. No, without evidence, it accused the Congressional committee of prejudice. Lacking any basis, was the criticism meant to shut down or defame the investigation in advance, or was it partisan politics? If partisan, disgraceful to sabotage a matter of national security! So far, one Committee session was held. Here is an evaluation of it, with my editorial license (from Raymond Ibrahim (March 14, 2011
Congresswoman Jackie Speier accused the hearings of "racism." Jihadists can be of any race. So "racism" is misleading term, just a semantic club. It is unscrupulous. Similarly unfounded accusations of being anti-Muslim were made. Congressional intent was to learn how to work with the majority of Muslims against a common terrorist, totalitarian menace is not anti-Muslim. The menace is clear, Radical Islam having killed thousands of Americans and millions elsewhere. Radical Islam is an imperialist, bigoted global movement like Nazism and Communism. Jihadists have committed terrorism against the U.S. in the past two years, whereas, the Justice Dept. finds, neo-Nazis, militias, crazy environmentalists have not. Besides, jihad has a global scope, making it much more dangerous. Complaints that the hearing is anti-Muslim equate Muslims with jihadists. Not true and not fair. All jihadists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are jihadists. Lumping all Muslims with jihadists is prejudiced, indeed. Congressman Keith Ellison, a spokesman for CAIR, related to the Muslim Brotherhood, shed tears. He fled before he could be questioned. A convenient flight? Crying is advocated by jihadists to confuse the enemy. Problem is, Islamists have penetrated our society, present themselves as respectable, and manipulate the legal system. Neither of those emotional Representatives had any argument of substance. That is suspicious. Why their false alarm? They engaged in the jihadist tactic of "trying to stifle any talk on Islam and Muslims by labeling it 'racist.'" No matter how egregious and obvious the terrorist assault, such as the Fort Hood shootings by a Radical Muslim, people call criticism of the assault "racist." It is time to discredit name-calling, especially in defense of our country's deadly enemies. 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. |
|
HATE-FILLED POPPY BURNERS LAUGH AT £50 FINE
Posted by Chairman Nick Griffin, MEP, March 18, 2011. |
|
Fellow Patriot, A Muslim fanatic has been fined a mere £50 for burning poppies and chanting hate slogans on Armistice Day. Emdadur Choudhury, 26, was part of a demonstration by members of Muslims Against Crusaders who protested at the end of a march celebrating the UK's armed forces. The group chanted through a two-minute silence with slogans such as "British soldiers, burn in hell." Choudhury waved a protest flag and then set fire to two large plastic poppies. Choudhury was convicted of actions "likely to cause harassment, harm or distress". He did not even bother to attend court to hear his sentence. When asked why he had not attended the hearing, Choudhury said: "I did not want to waste my time on something which is really insignificant. This fine, I will wear it as a badge on my shoulder. I did it for Allah. I did it to raise awareness that these so-called soldiers are the criminals. They are the ones who should be tried for war crimes." Choudhury himself boasted: "It's £10 less than a parking ticket." His £50 fine was means tested after his lawyer said he earned £480 a month from part-time work and got £792 a month in benefits. The maximum fine for his offence — the least serious of public order crimes — is £1,000. As this Muslim nut is happy to take benefits from our Welfare State, it will be the hard-pressed British taxpayer who pays his fine in reality. You really couldn't make it up! Words can scarcely express how angry this makes me. Shaun Rusling, vice-chairman of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association, said that every serviceman in the country would see the sentence as "disgusting". He said: "If we set fire to a Quran, there would be uproar, and they would go after us, but because this is Britain, people just get upset. It is a futile sentence." "For them to insult those who have given their lives for freedom is an affront. It is one law for them and one law for others," he said. Remembrance Day is a very special day for those in the armed forces and our country. It is a day when we remember those who have lost their lives for freedom and fighting for their country. People are rightly angry, not just about the poppy burning, but the half-hearted and ineffectual response from the establishment. Think too about our brave forces being sacrificed by our Political Class in Afghanistan and Iraq. How must they feel when they read of this treachery? They have been insulted and vilified — spat on by people who hate our values and way of life. To add insult to injury, they then see the abusers given a slap on the wrist and a slight telling off! I want as many people as possible to give £50 — the same sum as the paltry fine this Muslim fanatic was given — to the British National Party today. If you can't afford that, give what you can. I am not afraid to speak out against these evil fanatics. They don't frighten me or the British National Party. This is our country, and we will face down any threat with militant action. We will never allow our country to be insulted or our people to be demeaned without response. We're campaigning for the sentence to be reviewed. We are passionate about Britain. The poppy and other symbols are sacred to us. With your help, we will oppose the fanatics who seek to destroy not just our symbols but our way of life.
Are you as angry as I am? Are you with me on this? Please donate £50 whatever you can afford.
Please accept my sincere thanks,
PS.Your donation is so we can fight for Assembly seats in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and 500+ seats in this year's local elections. Without your help RIGHT NOW we will not be able to contest these seats, so this is the most important appeal letter this year! So important, in fact, that staff members have all given a percentage of their wages this month to fund this email fund raiser. The future of our party rests with you now. I know you will not let us down.
Contact the BNP at
|
|
ARABS GET UNRWA NOT TO TEACH ABOUT HOLOCAUST
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 18, 2011. |
|
UNRWA runs schools for Palestinian Arabs in several Arab countries and in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The UN agency had planned a curriculum on human rights and the Holocaust. Its constituency in the P.A., Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria denounced the plan Teachers threatened to strike if the subject were included in textbooks. The UNRWA Union of Arab Workers counter-proposed that the curriculum incorporate a topic on the "right" of "refugees" to return to their "homeland." UNRWA cancelled its plan (IMRA, 3/18/11
What is the UN doing, teaching a curriculum that omits instruction on human rights and that falsifies history in the interest of jihad? Why should the U.S. pay part of the costs of political indoctrination in the service of international strife, a.k.a. jihad, that takes American lives? Shouldn't UNRWA stop financing such schools? Muslim students in Britain and France refuse instruction on the Holocaust and on any other topics they deem not compatible with their view of Islam. Some go further than refusing to listen, they forcibly silence the teachers by violence. Britain and France have yet to insist on proper education and have yet to conclude that certain immigrant populations do not come in order to be part of their countries but to take apart their countries. What are "refugees?" By the common definition, almost all of the Palestinian Arabs are not refugees; Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are not their homeland. The common definition, which the UN applies to all other groups, considers refugees people long established in a country, and recently forced out of it. For the Palestinian Arabs, however, UNRWA, an agency that the UN set up apart from its regular refugee agency, counts people recently arrived in Mandatory Palestine, not forced out, and who were born and raised in other countries. So UNRWA perpetuates refugee status and dependency, whereas the regular UN refugee agency works toward solving the problem and helping refugees become independent. Most refugee problems are settled by not returning but by settling elsewhere. There is no right of return. The UN encouraged a return of Arab refugees in peace, but the Palestinian Arabs do not want peace. They want to resume their struggle to conquer the Jews of Israel and expel and/or exterminate them. What the UN does and encourages is deplorable. The world is not ready for a united nations organization. The current UN is evil. It should be disbanded. At least, the force international law should be removed from its Security Council decrees. 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. |
|
PSYCHOLOGIST: WESTERN QURAN SCHOOLS ARE "TERRORIST FACTORIES"
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 18, 2011. |
|
This was written
by Dr. Nicolai Sennels, psychologist and author and it was archived
23 February 2011 in EuropeNews,
How to turn normal human beings into murderous and hateful psychopaths who blindly obey their totalitarian systems and its authorities suppressing and killing innocent people? In short: How to create a terrorist? Violent and murderous political, ethnic and religious regimes have used the same effective methods throughout history all over the world. The procedure consists of two simple steps that are repeated again and again: 1) You force a person to repeat the system's doctrine again and again for months and years until he or she knows every word by heart and it pervades his or her whole way of thinking and it is the only truth they believe in. In this way you will create a person whose whole being is pervaded by the system's doctrine and who has lost the ability to feel both his own and others' pain. You will have an emotionally cold person that blindly follows his authorities and their political or religious doctrine. If you use this method on a child who is in the process of developing its personality, the learned doctrine will simply become a part of the child's personality. The psychological impact of the physical abuse will also be deeper. As children and youth are dependent on acceptance from adults, they are easier to influence. Being a child psychologist I was shocked to realise that this is exactly what is done to millions of Muslim children in both the Muslim world and the West. Tens of thousand of madrassas and Quranic schools all over the world are making their students repeat the Quran and the Hadiths again and again, until they know them by heart. They are told to believe every word and never to question neither the way nor the goal. It is normal in these schools that the defenceless and innocent children are randomly beaten and humiliated by the teachers and older students — who themselves are emotionally destroyed beings who have been abused the same way as they now use against their pupils. They personify the goal: The abused becomes the abuser. Britain has more than 2,000 madrassas, where more than 200,000 children aged from four to their mid-teens are taught the Quran on weekday evenings. Investigations show that extreme violence is common in the British madrassas: "Students have been slapped, punched and had their ears twisted, according to an unpublished report by an imam based on interviews with victims in the north of England. One was "picked up by one leg and spun around" while another said a madrassa teacher was "kicking my head — like a football" ... Hiba, 7, was slapped across the face so hard by her madrassa teacher that her ear was cut. It later became inflamed and she had to have emergency medical treatment." The teachers are reported to punish the children whenever they mispronounce a word or forget a verse of the Quran. One private investigator reported that "the victims had grown to accept the abuse. 'They all joked about it. There's a culture that accepts it.'" Another investigation disclosed that the children are taught to hate non-Muslims: "'You're not like the non-Muslims out there,' the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. 'All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking. . . you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.'" The same investigation reports that during less than three hours of lessons the teacher beat children as young as six at least ten times. In one occasion during the secret filming one child is held down by an elder student while another elder student threatens to beat him with a small table. These reports are from the West, where thousands of madrassas exist and millions of Muslim children are learning the traditional Islamic teachings by heart, many of them being physically and psychologically traumatized. Research show that in Muslim culture "moral education seems to be neglected in favour of punishment" which may explain the wide acceptance of the abuse by the childrens parents. Everybody is welcome to look for videos on e.g. YouTube about madrassas in Muslim countries, where the conditions and are even worse. Seen from the perspective of a child psychologist, the many thousands of madrassas and Quran schools, are literally terrorist factories creating an army-like Muslim population of youths and adults inside the Western countries. From early age they have been brainwashed to think that every word of the Quran should be taken literally and they have been made hateful and emotionally cold by the physical and psychological punishments. Making the schools non-violent will include emmense amounts of year long of control. This also includes changing a central pattern of the Muslim culture — child raising — and the Muslim cultures massive failing of integration into non-Islamic cultures has proven that changing basic cultural values and behavior within the Muslim communities are almost impossible. Should we in spite of the emmense challenges be able to remove the wide spread abuse, the children are still learning the Quran by heart and are taught to take every word at face value, which is exactly what Islamic terrorists do. Millions of children attend the madrassas and when they and their subsequent generations grow up, the consequences will be big. Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition"
[FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk) |
|
TAKING LEAVE OF THEIR SENSES
Posted by Steve Kramer, March 18, 2011. |
|
In the midst of the tumult overtaking the Middle East, which simultaneously roils global financial markets while raising hopes for the democratization of Arab autocracies, the Quartet members are taking leave of their senses. Composed of the United States, the EU, Russia and the UN, the Quartet seeks to guide Israelis and Palestinians to a resolution of their interminable conflict. To that end, President Obama has lately weakened America's natural support for Israel by adopting the Quartet mantra, which is, "a Palestinian state now, at any price (to be paid by Israel)." One would think that given the state of rebellion among various Arab populations throughout the Middle East, the Quartet would recognize that the lack of a Palestinian state isn't causing the uproar. However, rather than call for a much needed change in perspective on the Middle East, the Obama administration is adopting its partners' viewpoint, that Israel must make all the concessions regardless of consequences to its security. (It must be noted that Congress and the American public don't buy into this appeasement policy.) A case can easily be made that the focal point of world problems is not Israel and its nearest neighbors. There is much more to worry about 500 miles further east, centering on the Persian Gulf, through which 40% of the world's seaborne oil flows. This precarious region contains another people who long for their own state, the Kurds. The Kurds are an indigenous ethnic minority located in "Kurdistan": parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Numbering approximately thirty million people, the Kurds have long and unsuccessfully fought to have their own independent state. Although overwhelmingly Muslim, the Kurds have no backers for their independence. Ironically, the "Palestinian" Arabs have Westerners and Muslims ceaselessly agitating for a 23rd Arab state. Regardless, the world powers are still fixated on Israel and Palestine and are more intent than ever to pressure Israel into unwise concessions. Unwise, that is, because when Israel's security is compromised by Western demands to satisfy the Palestinians, any resulting conflict between Israel and the Palestinian state will be very serious and will spread globally. Currently, the West is infatuated with the Arab revolt. In a recent column, "Egypt and the Middle East: Romanticism Meets Reality," Middle East scholar Barry Rubin throws cold water on the overly optimistic view towards regime change in Egypt, and by extension, on revolts in other autocratically ruled Arab countries. He writes: "All revolutions produce some anarchy. But the divisions between Christians and Muslims, (massive numbers of) Islamists and (tiny numbers of) secularists, treatment of women, and other issues have a structural component that just isn't going to go away easily. The same applies to the underlying hostility toward Israel, the United States, and the West in general. The idea that everything has changed in the Middle East from the winter of dictatorship and extremism into a springtime for democracy is —unfortunately —likely to turn out to be wrong." While the short term view is dark, there are interesting developments which may drastically alter the current paradigm. The Arabs owe their overblown status to energy needs based on oil and gas. What if the West could reduce its dependence on OPEC (mostly Arab and Venezuelan sourced) and Russian oil and gas, which diverts huge sums to problematic regimes? Oil production from oil shale has recently made a giant leap forward, cost and environmentally-wise, opening up huge non-OPEC sources for customers. While oil is a fossil fuel which has inherent ecological disadvantages, it will still be incredibly important in energy production for much of the 21st century. Recent discoveries in Israel include a huge deposit of oil shale, perhaps enabling Israel to be the third largest producer of oil shale behind America and China! A pilot project to test the viability of the undertaking will be finished in about two years.
In addition, the Levant Basin region of the eastern Mediterranean, mostly under Israel's jurisdiction, has huge undersea gas fields. Enough gas has already been discovered to supply Israel's needs for a few decades, with enough left over for export. Further discoveries are expected, which would make Israel one of the largest gas exporters.
In the short term the Middle East is erupting, with doubtful expectations of emerging, friendly democracies. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is doubtful, if only because the Palestinian territories are divided geographically and politically. (There are many other impediments too.) Fatah, which rules portions of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), purports to want peace with Israel while refusing to prepare its population for meaningful concessions. It conceals its intention to replace Israel with a Palestinian state. Hamas, which rules Gaza, makes no pretense about wanting peace and openly calls for Israel's destruction. There is little likelihood of a power sharing agreement between them. For the above reasons, it is not the time for the Quartet to pressure Israel to make more concessions to Palestinians. That applies doubly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who seems to be going backwards, showing Israeli weakness, when he should be going forwards, exhibiting Israeli strength. The world's problems will not be solved by the emergence of a Palestinian state. On the other hand, new developments in energy production and distribution may radically alter the geo-strategic equation, relegating the Arabs, and Iran, to a back seat. Caution is called for, not expediency. Also see Dore Golds' article on the implications of oil and gas finds:
Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." Contact him at mskramer@bezeqint.net and visit www.encounteringisrael.com |
|
WORLD TO ISRAEL: SURRENDER BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
Posted by Laura, March 18, 2011. |
|
This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it is archived at
|
|
The international community — including some Israeli pols, American Jews and the media — are pushing hard. The Obama administration isn't making things any easier. A penetrating analysis that considers claims against Israel's legitimacy Over the past several years, a growing number of patriotic Israelis have begun to despair. We can't stand up to the whole world, they say. At the end of the day we will have to give in and surrender most of the land or all of the land we took control over in the 1967 Six Day War. The world won't accept anything less. These statements have grown more strident in the wake of the slaughter of the Fogel family last Friday night in Itamar. For example on Thursday Ari Shavit , a columnist for Israel's equivalent of the New York Times, Ha'aretz, called Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice line the local equivalent of Japan's nuclear reactors. Like the reactors, he wrote, they seemed like a good idea at the time. But they have become our undoing. The international community's response to the Palestinian atrocity in Itamar is pointed to as proof of that Israel must surrender. Instead of considering what the savage murder of an Israeli family tells us about the nature of Palestinian society, the world media have turned the massacre of the Fogel family into a story about "settlements." Take the Los Angeles Times' for example From the Times' perspective the Fogels were not Israeli civilians. They were "Jewish settlers." They weren't murdered in their home. They were killed in their "tightly guarded compound." And, in the end, the Times effectively justified the murder of the Fogel children when it helpfully added, "Most of the international community... views Israel's settlements as illegal." The Times' report was actually comparatively sympathetic. At least it mentioned the murders. Most European papers began their coverage with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's announcement that the government will permit Israelis to build 400 homes in Judea and Samaria. As for the governments of the world, most were far swifter and more aggressive in their condemnation of Netanyahu's announcement of the building permits than they were in their condemnation of the murders. Then there is the US Jewish community. According to New York's Jewish Week, there is a new consensus in the American Jewish community that imposing an economic boycott on Israeli communities outside the 1949 armistice lines is a legitimate position. The paper interviewed Martin Raffel, the head of the new Israel Action Network, a multimillion dollar effort by the Jewish Federations of North America and other major Jewish groups to counter the delegitimization of Israel. Raffel called the boycott movement misguided, rather than wrong. Then he justified it by arguing, "Being misguided in one's policies doesn't mean one necessarily has become part of the ranks of the delegitimizers." If that wasn't enough, Ron Kampeas, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Washington bureau chief wrote Tuesday that we shouldn't rush to conclude that Palestinians carried out the attack. Kampeas wrote, "We do not yet know who committed the awful butchery in Itamar over the weekend." With American Jews taking a lead role in delegitimizing Israel and flacking for Palestinian terrorists; with the international media ignoring the massacre of the Fogel family and attacking Israel for its response to the event they didn't cover; and with the US government united with the nations of the world in condemning the government's decision to allow Israelis who are Jewish to build on land they own, the despair of a growing chorus of Israelis is understandable. But while understandable, the notion that Israel has no choice but to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians is wrong and dangerous. Like his fellow defeatists, Shavit argues that Jewish communities in these areas are the cause of international moves to delegitimize Israel. If they were gone, so the argument goes, then neither the Palestinians nor the international community would have a problem with Israel. The first problem with this view is that it confuses the focus of Palestinian and international attacks on Israel with the rationale behind those attacks. This is a mistake Israelis have made repeatedly since the establishment of the Fatah-led PA in 1994. Immediately after the PA was set up and IDF forces transferred security control over Palestinian cities and towns in Judea and Samaria to Yassir Arafat's armies, Palestinian terrorists began attacking Israeli motorists driving through PA-controlled areas with rocks, pipe bombs and bullets. Then prime minister and defense minister Yitzhak Rabin blamed the attacks on "friction." If the Palestinians didn't have contact with Israeli motorists then they wouldn't attack them. So Israel built the bypass roads around the Palestinian towns and cities to prevent friction. For its efforts, the Palestinians and the international community accused Israel of building "Jews-only, apartheid roads." Moreover, Palestinian terrorists left their towns and cities and stoned, bombed and shot at Israeli motorists on the bypass roads. Then there was Gaza. When in 2001 Palestinians first began shelling the Israeli communities in Gaza and the Western Negev with mortars and rockets, we were told they were attacking because of Israel's presence in Gaza. When the IDF took action to defend the country from mortar and rocket attacks, Israel was accused of committing war crimes. The likes of Shavit said then that if Israel left Gaza the Palestinian attacks would stop. They said that if they didn't stop and the IDF was forced to take action, the world would support Israel. Shavit himself engaged in shocking demonization of the Israelis living in Gaza. In May 2004 he wrote that they were undeserving of IDF protection and that no soldier should defend them because they weren't real Israelis. But then the Palestinians and the international community threw Shavit and his friends yet another curveball. After Israel expelled every last so-called settler and removed every last soldier from Gaza in August 2005, Palestinian rocket attacks increased tenfold. The first Katyusha was fired at Ashkelon seven months after Israel withdrew. Hamas won the elections and Gaza became an Iranian proxy. Now it has missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv. As for the international community, not only did it continue blaming Israel for Palestinian terrorism. It refused to accept that Israel ended its so-called occupation of Gaza. It has condemned every step Israel has taken to defend itself from Palestinian aggression since the withdrawal as a war crime. The lessons of these experiences prove is that Israeli towns and villages in Judea and Samaria and Israeli are not castigated as "illegitimate" because there is anything inherently illegitimate about them. Like the bypass roads and the Israeli presence in Gaza, they are singled out because those interested in attacking Israel militarily or politically think are an easy target. The Arabs, the UN, the Obama administration, the EU, anti-Israel American and Israeli Jews, university professors and the legions of self-proclaimed human rights organizations in Israel and throughout the world allege these Israeli communities are illegitimate because by doing so they weaken Israel as a whole. If Israel is convinced that it has no choice but to bow to these people's demands, they will not be appeased. They will simply move on to the next easy target. Israeli Jewish communities in the Galilee and the Negev, Jaffa and Lod will be deemed illegitimate. In a bid to pretend that the communities in Judea and Samaria are somehow different from communities in the Galilee, proponents of surrender point to the non-binding 2004 International Court of Justice opinion that the communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. But Israelis who accept the non-binding opinion as a binding ruling for Judea and Samaria ignore that the opinion also asserted that Israel has no right to self defense. The same people who think that so-called settlements are illegal also believe that opposition leader Tzipi Livni is a war criminal. The same people who think the so-called settlements are illegal would condemn as a war crime any attempt to enforce the law against irredentist Israeli Arabs. Israel's bitter experience proves incontrovertibly that bowing to international pressure just invites more pressure. So what can Israel do? The first thing we must do is recognize that legitimacy is indivisible. In the eyes of Israel's enemies there is no difference between Itamar and Maaleh Adumim on the one hand and Ramle and Tel Aviv on the other hand. And so we must make no distinction between them. Just as law abiding citizens are permitted to build homes in Ramle and Tel Aviv so they must be permitted to build in Itamar and Maaleh Adumim. If Israel's assertion of its sovereignty is legitimate in Tel Aviv, then it is legitimate in Judea and Samaria. We cannot accept that one has a different status from the other. Likewise, it is an act of economic warfare to boycott Israeli products whether they are made in Haifa or Mishor Adumim. Anyone who says it is permissible to boycott Mishor Adumim is engaging in economic warfare against Haifa. Once we understand that Israel's legitimacy is indivisible we need to take actions that will put the Palestinians and their international supporters on the defensive. There are any number of moves Israel can make in this vein. For example, following the Palestinian massacre of the Fogel family, Netanyahu highlighted the fact that the PA routinely glorifies terrorist murderers and pays them and their families handsome pensions for their illegal acts of war. He also highlighted the genocidal anti-Jewish incitement endemic in Palestinian society. While all of this is useful, talk is cheap. It is time to make the Palestinians pay a price for their depravity and to put their international supporters on the defensive. Specifically, Netanyahu should ask the US to cut off all US economic and military assistance to the PA. Two PA intelligence officers were arrested as part of the Fogel murder investigation. The US is training and equipping the Palestinian intelligence services. This should stop. Two days after the massacre in Itamar, the PA dedicated a public square in el Bireh to terror commander Dalal Mughrabi. Mughrabi commanded the 1978 bus attack on the coastal highway in which 37 Israelis — including 12 children were murdered. The PA previously named a street, a dormitory, a summer camp and a sports tournament after her. Several popular songs have been written to glorify her crimes. The US is underwriting the PA's budget. This should stop. Were the government to go after international aid to the PA, not only would it begin a debate in the US and perhaps Europe about the nature of Fatah specifically and Palestinian society generally, it would force the Palestinians' myriad supporters to justify their support for a society that is defined by its goal of annihilating Israel. It is hard to stand up to the massive pressure being brought to bear against Israel every day. But it is possible. And whether defying our foes is hard or easy, it is our only chance at survival. Either all of Israel is legitimate or none of it is. Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
THE DEATH OF AN ILLUSION
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 18, 2011. |
|
This was written by Rich Lowry and it is archived at
|
|
In the great Middle East whodunit, the verdict is in: The Jews are innocent. They aren't responsible for the violence, extremism, backwardness, discontent or predatory government of their Arab neighbors. The past few months should have finally shattered the persistent illusion that the Israeli-Palestinian question determines all in the Middle East. In an essay in Foreign Policy magazine titled "The False Religion of Mideast Peace," former diplomat Aaron David Miller recounts the conventional wisdom running back through the Cold War: "An unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict would trigger ruinous war, increase Soviet influence, weaken Arab moderates, strengthen Arab radicals, jeopardize access to Middle East oil, and generally undermine U.S. influence from Rabat to Karachi." Behind these assumptions has long stood a deeply simplistic understanding of the Arabs. Professional naif Jimmy Carter insists, "There is no doubt: The heart and mind of every Muslim is affected by whether or not the Israeli-Palestinian issue is dealt with fairly." This is reductive to the point of insult. Carter thinks that Muslims have no interior lives of their own, but are all defined by a foreign-policy dispute that is unlikely to affect most of them directly in the least. He mistakes real people for participants in an endless Council on Foreign Relations seminar. The Israeli-Palestinian issue certainly has great emotional charge, and most Arabs would prefer a world blissfully free of the Zionist entity. But the Israelis can't be blamed — though cynical Arab governments certainly try — for unemployment and repression in Arab countries. Monumental events in recent decades — the Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq War and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait — were driven by internal Muslim confessional, ideological and geo-political differences. Israel has nothing to do with the Sunnis hating the Shia, or the Saudis hating the Iranians, or everyone hating Moammar Gadhafi. Adam Garfinkle muses in his book "Jewcentricity": "Imagine, if you can, that one day Israelis decided to pack their bags and move away, giving the country to the Palestinians with a check for sixty years' rent. Would the Arabs suddenly stop competing among themselves, and would America and the Arab world suddenly fall in love with each other?" Yet the pull of the illusion is so powerful that even those who don't profess to believe in it, like George W. Bush, eventually get sucked in. Barack Obama came into office ready to deploy his charm and fulfill the millennial promise of the peace process once and for all. He couldn't even get the Palestinians to sit down to negotiate with the Israelis, in an unintended "reset" to the situation decades ago. According to the illusion, the region should have exploded in rage at Jewish perfidy and American ineffectualness. It exploded for altogether different reasons. We witnessed revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt without a hint of upset at the Israeli settlements or America's continued failure as a broker of peace. We've seen the Arab League petition the United States — whose sole function is supposed to be monitoring Israeli housing developments and paving the way for a Palestinian state — to undertake a military operation against another (recently suspended) member of the Arab League, Libya. It'd be easier if the key to the Middle East really were sitting around a negotiating table with a couple of bottles of Evian, poring over a map adjudicating a dispute so familiar that people have built diplomatic, academic and journalistic careers on it. The current terrain of the Middle East as it exists — not as we assume it should be — is hellishly disorienting by comparison: What to do when an ally invades another ally to knock around protesters in violation of our values? When a tin-pot dictator thumbs his nose at us and the rest of West and crushes his opponents with alacrity despite our earnest protestations? When popular uprisings threaten our allies more than our enemies? It makes the old peace process seem alluringly comfortable and manageable. No, the illusion will never die. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
PALESTINIAN ARAB UNITY?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 17, 2011. |
|
Thousands of young Palestinian Arabs demonstrated in Gaza and the P.A. part of Judea-Samaria not for civil liberties but for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. Abbas may visit Gaza in quest of unity (Wall St. J., 3/16/11, A8). The two factions have been meeting for months. Egypt had been brokering these meetings. The two parties seem to agree on much but not on how to share power. For that they are rivals, but not for their program. The implications of the call for reconciliation and the quest for unity have not been discussed much but are grave. Think what the call tells us about Fatah and the youth. It means that the youth don't dispute the violent methods both parties use. It means that both parties do not disagree on their goal, destruction of Israel. It means that Hamas and Fatah both favor terrorism, at least when it is feasible for them. It also means that the P.A. is unified already in its hatred of Jews. Finally, it means that those in the State Dept. and media who tout Abbas and his regime as moderate are trying to fool us or are succeeding in fooling themselves. They are fooling the taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of donations to Fatah (which shares much of it with Hamas) to build a military that supposedly would protect the P.A. from further Hamas takeover. IMRA worried that the arms supplied to the P.A. by the U.S. and other countries would fall into the hands of Hamas. We should be just as worried that the arms are in the hands of Abbas! 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. |
|
WHILE OBAMA AND THE WEST TALK...TYRANNY KILLS
Posted by Frank Salvato, March 17, 2011. |
|
Muammar Qaddafi — Qaddafi, Gaddafi, Ghaddafi, Gadhafi, however you spell the tyrant's name — has to be the only beneficiary of the cruel hardships being felt by the Japanese people in the wake of the horrific and historic devastation of Japan. As the world turns its collective eye toward aiding a genuinely venerable people in their time of need, Qaddafi has taken the initiative to double-down on his efforts to extinguish all opposition to his reign of terror, forty-two-plus years running, in Libya. That he is able to do so serves as testimony to the uselessness of the United Nations and the gutless demeanor of leadership in the West. Before I begin let me state that the people of Japan are most deserving of global attention and aid in this, their most dire of times. That they persevere through the unimaginable chaos in a way that knows no looting, no incivility, that they can maintain order and discipline in a time where other cultures descend into narcissistic bedlam, stands as a testament to their culture. The world, each and every country — no matter their strength of military or wealth, should take notice of the quintessential definition of a civil society. May God take them, in their time of need, into his embrace. But as we look on in awe at the strength and performance of the Japanese people, unadulterated evil can be seen in the hearts of men, and weakness can be found in the leadership of nations founded on principles that demand the protection of and facilitation to freedom and liberty for every man, woman and child, anywhere and everywhere on the face of the planet. By now, everyone is familiar with the series of revolutions that have taken place across the Middle East and Northern Africa. From Tunisia and Egypt, to Yemen and Bahrain, upheaval and revolt are taking hold. While the argument rages in the West as to the forces behind the catalyst for these insurrections, it cannot be denied that in most cases a despotic leader is being challenged, and in many cases driven from power. I am not naïve to the fact that well organized and potent forces, nefarious in nature, have the same opportunity as pro-democracy and pro-freedom movements in these countries, to eventually rise to power. In fact, an honest assessment of the situation mandates that the outcome, at this point, is far from certain; that the proverbial coin of decision is twirling in the air. But with the uncertainty that this situation brings also comes opportunity, and championing that opportunity — an opportunity to see liberty and freedom rise in a region that has known neither but for fleeting glimpses — are brave men and women who have gambled with their lives, and the lives of their families, just for the chance to achieve a goal that just a few years ago seemed generations away. In Libya, a country ruled by a crazed despot in Muammar Qaddafi, just such a battle for freedom is taking place. To touch on a few of Qaddafi's "accomplishments":
To be sure, Muammar Qaddafi is a very bad man; a terrorist; a despotic tyrant who murders and terrorizes. Today, Qaddafi is leading the fight — or, rather, hiding behind the ruthlessness of his loyal military leaders as they lead the fight — against rebel factions that have "bet it all" on this moment in time to affect the end of Qaddafi's reign of terror. They have resigned from political positions, defected from the military and put themselves and their families in harm's way for the opportunity to extinguish a lifetime of fear, oppression and tyranny. And, so far, they are going it alone. Videos of Libyan people in Benghazi pleading for help — pleading to Barack Obama for help — as pro-Qaddafi forces, some consisting of mercenaries from other African nations, shoot people in the streets, beg the chilling question, why isn't the West — and in particular, the United States, and specifically the Obama Administration — doing something to support those who simply want freedom, or, at least, the opportunity to fight for freedom? In Benghazi, many have no weapons and rearmaments are few and far between simply because there are no supply lines and no one to supply them if there were. The situation brings to mind the plight of the Green Movement in Iran, whose brave young people took to the streets, expecting support — tangible support — from the West after years of promises about alliances should they have the courage to rise up against the murderous fist of the mullah's oppression. To date, that alliance consists of President Barack Obama declaring: "Ah, it's not productive, given the history of US and Iranian relations ta (sic) be seen as meddling — the US President meddling — in, ah, Iranian elections. What I will repeat, ah, and what I said yesterday, is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protesters...when I see peaceful descent being suppressed...wherever that takes place, ah, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not, ah, how governments should interact with their people." Meanwhile, pro-Ahmadinejad basiji took to the streets beating and killing Green Movement, pro-freedom protesters, the same protesters who had been led to believe that forces from the West would be there should they summon the daring to rise-up against tyranny. Embarrassingly, forces from the West — tangible support from the United States government, the world's last "superpower" — never arrived. The Green Movement continues today, but without any expectation that the Western voices that cry loudest about liberty, democracy and freedom, will provide anything but the rhetoric that had led them to slaughter in the past. In Eastern Libya, many pro-freedom and anti-Qaddafi factions have come to the conclusion that no help is coming at all, that the rhetoric of freedom, democracy and liberty, espoused by people such as President Obama is just that, rhetoric; hollow words meant to falsely elevate political stature rather than facilitate the founding principles of Americanism. I will give the proper due to Britain's David Cameron and France's Nicolas Sarkozy for at least trying to advance action where Libya is concerned. But, in the end, their best intentions stopped short of ordering unilateral action for fear of being condemned by the cowards who sit as polished desks inside the United Nations. You see, the miscreants of Turtle Bay need to talk about it. They need to come to a consensus as to whether it is a good thing to diminish Muammar Qaddafi's killing power by establishing a "no-fly zone" so that Qaddafi's air forces can't bomb and strafe rebel pro-freedom forces and civilians who just happen to live in the contested regions. This is what the reprobates of the globalist elite at the United Nations do best; they talk about it. The United Nations, and all who claim the organization has worth beyond providing aid to Third World countries — where consequently, warlords usually confiscate the aid and use the facilitation to that aid to lord over the people — have talked about taking action in Rwanda (1,000,000 dead), Iraqi Kurdistan (between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 dead), Congo (5,400,000 dead), Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, talk, talk, talk and more talk. This pathetic cadre of over-paid, stuffed-shirt degenerates is no stranger to corruption either. Oil-for-Food lined Saddam Hussein's pockets under-the-table, as well as the pockets of those who wielded veto power on the UN Security Council (ahem, the French culprit is now facing trial for corruption when he was mayor of Paris). And then there is the true crime against humanity perpetrated at the hands of former UN Secretary Kofi Anan in his gross mishandling of the Rwandan Genocide. Through it all, Pres. Obama abdicates the responsibility of his role as leader of the free world in that he is not insisting that action replace rhetoric; that leaders lead the fight to aid those who simply beg for the opportunity to fight for their own freedom, to have a fighting chance to experience liberty. And as they talk at Turtle Bay, drinking their purified bottled water, eating their Kobe beef and criticizing Japan's nuclear community for having the gall to build nuclear reactors so close to the ocean (an ocean, by the by, that is serving as a water source for their last resort operations in averting a meltdown), Qaddafi inches closer to Benghazi, the location for a literal "last stand" for pro-freedom fighters who had the courage to stand up for liberty, for freedom and justice for all. To be condemned for taking unilateral action by the troglodytes of the United Nations would be to achieve a great honor for me. I truly understand how George W. Bush sleeps at night. I really do. And the clock is ticking... Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org He is a member of the International Analyst Network and has been a featured guest on various TV and radio shows. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us. |
|
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT OPPOSES RESTORING JEWISH RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY BY VICHY
Posted by Esther Green, March 17, 2011. |
|
Few are aware of how much Pres Franklin Roosevelt was opposed to
restoring civil rights to Jews that had been taken away by the Vichy
govt. Here is an updating of the historical record from the Eliyahu
m'Tsiyon website:
Shalom |
|
Many, probably most, American Jews were great admirers of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was considered a great Liberal. He was said to have brought America out of the Great Depression that began in 1929. He showed his Liberalism by formally recognizing the Communist Soviet Union and establishing diplomatic relations with it. He quietly helped labor unions to organize previously unorganized industries. His time was the heyday of the CIO. What most Jews were unaware of at the time or did not understand was how Roosevelt and his Administration, including some Republicans prominent in the Administration's foreign policy & foreign relations establishment (notably the Dulleses, John Foster, Allen, and their sister Eleanor), were allowing Nazi mass murder of Jews to proceed unhindered during the war that the US and Britain were fighting against Nazi Germany. Yet helping the Jews by interfering with railroad transports of Jews to the death camps, bombing the crematoria and gas chambers, supplying weapons to partisans in the forests and the ghettoes could have severely interfered with the German war effort. As we know, these actions were not taken nor was any substantial number of Jewish refugees allowed into the United States or its dependencies nor was significant pressure put on Britain to obey its commitment to foster Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home, Israel, instead of excluding Jews from the National Home. Raphael Medoff has recently come up with the shocking story of how Roosevelt actually encouraged French authorities in North Africa to maintain Vichy Nazi-inspired anti-Jewish laws in effect in that region after its liberation from Vichy control in late 1942-early 1943. This info is new even to me. Its relevance for today is what Jews and Israel can expect from so-called Liberal American politicians. Obama has often been described by his own supporters and admirers as a Liberal in the grand tradition of FDR. This new revelation by Medoff shows us what the grand tradition of FDR actually meant for the freedom and the very lives of Jews. The following is the introduction to Medoff's article by Bataween of the Point of No Return blog, followed by Medoff's own article: At Purim in 1943, Jews in North Africa were celebrating their liberation by US troops from Vichy and Nazi occupation with their very own Megillat Hitler. But Dr Raphael Medoff, in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, reveals how the US authorities dragged their feet when it came to repealing the Vichy regime's anti-Jewish measures : NOTES Rafael Medoff is director of the David Wyman Institute which specializes on research into Roosevelt Administration policy towards the Jews during the Holocaust [here] For info on the coup d'etat —mainly carried out by Algerian Jews — to ease the American landing at Algiers as part of Operation Torch, see: Elliot A Green, "Jewish Anti-Nazi Resistance in Wartime Algeria," Midstream (January 1989)
|
|
ITAMAR RESIDENTS CELEBRATE WEDDING AT JOSEPH'S TOMB
Posted by Hillel Fendel, March 17, 2011. |
|
The army periodically allows and enables Israelis to enter the holy site of Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) — but no previous visit was ever as moving as the wedding there last night. Hundreds of residents of Itamar, still reeling from the Palestinian terrorist massacre of the Fogel family five days earlier, arrived for a special prayer service — highlighted by the wedding ceremony of a resident of an Itamar hilltop, Moshe Orlinsky, and his betrothed, Natalya Zucher. The two had planned to get married in Itamar, but decided to hold the joyous ceremony at the holy site of Joseph's Tomb instead — the first wedding known to have ever taken place there. The intensity of emotion left no eye dry. A video from the wedding can be seen here. The officiating rabbi was Itamar's rabbi, Rabbi Natan Chai, and wedding blessings were recited by Breslov leader Rabbi Shalom Arush, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef (son of Shas leader Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef), Shomron Region Chief Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, Yitzhar Rabbi David Dudkevitch, and the Kabbalist Rabbi Yaakov Deutsch. The ketubah (marriage contract) was read aloud by IDF Shomron Brigade Rabbi Capt. David Feig. The speeches at the ceremony emphasized the resilience of the Jewish Nation whose faith buttresses them as they swing back and forth between tragedy and great joy. Dozens of youths from Itamar added to the elation with their enthusiastic singing and dancing. Rabbi Levanon blessed the couple by first reading aloud verses from the Book of Jeremiah, regarding the consoling prophecy of Yosef's mother Rachel when the Jews were driven into Exile: "A voice is heard, bitter weeping; Rachel is crying for her children, refusing to be consoled... G-d said: Stop your voice from weeping and your eyes from tearing... your children will return to their borders." The local IDF commander, Shomron Brigade Commander Col. Nimrod Aloni, wished the young couple a "Jewish home full of joy, faith, and warmth." Shomron Regional Council head Gershon Mesika noted the residents' emotional roller-coaster of late, and said: "The prophet says, 'With your blood you shall live — unfortunately, we had to go through five 'bloods' [the five murdered Fogel family members — ed.], but in the merit of this exalted occasion, it will strengthen all of us — the people of Itamar, the residents of the entire Shomron, and all of Israel; we will gather the broken pieces together and we will become stronger." Yosef's Pursuit of Unity Supports the Jewish Nation Rabbi Chai said, "We thank G-d for giving us the fortitude to carry on... and we thank IDF Commander Nimrod Aloni, who made great efforts to enable us to hold this chupah here ... It was near this spot that Yosef said, 'I seek my brothers,' and this pursuit of unity and love for Israel is what unites us and gives us the strength; Yosef had a coat of many colors — symbolizing that there are many aspects to the Jewish People, and each tribe has its place, but they are all unified." Other blessings were offered by Yesha Council head Danny Dayan, Rabbi Dudkevitch, and IDF Commander Maki Siboni. Musician and actor Golan Azulai provided the music, at no charge.
Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).
|
|
FORCED MARRIAGES IN OUR OWN BACKYARD
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 17, 2011. |
On February 22, 2011, Jessie Bender, a 13-year-old southern California girl, ran away from home. No, Jessie was not into "sex, drugs, or rock n' roll." On the contrary. Jessie was terrified that her American-born mother, Melissa, a convert to Islam, and her mother's Pakistani boyfriend and acting stepfather Mohammed "Mo" Khan, had decided to send her to Pakistan to be married against her will. Had Jessie gone, her mother and "Mo" would have received $3000.00. Initially, her mother told police that Jessie had been abducted by a Facebook predator. Melissa, in full hijab, made a tearful plea for the television cameras. "If you are holding my daughter, please let her go...Please, I beg you to let my daughter go. She's just 13 years old." This tearful, public, pseudo-honesty reminds me of the Afghan-Canadian Safia family who wept in public, mourning their three dead honor murdered daughters: 13 year-old Geeti, 17 year-old Sahari, and 19-year-old Zainab, and Safia's first wife, 50-year-old Rona Amir Mohammed. In a bid for sympathy, and to throw the police off their trail, the three murderers shed copious tears, grieving, loudly. Jessie Bender's mother went on television and lied about her daughter. Yes, it is true, Jessie had communicated with an adult male on Facebook, but that is not where she ran. Jessie's uncle had hidden her at an Apple Valley motel. Within a week, it became clear that Jessie's mother, Melissa, and her pseudo-stepfather "Mo, " had both been lying. Melissa herself had visited Pakistan and may be seen in a photo smiling broadly, wearing very serious hijab and standing next to a turbaned tribal elder who is holding a gun. Possibly, she is also standing next to "Mo." Patricia "Tissy" Said in Dallas, assisted her Egyptian-born husband Yasir who honor murdered their two daughters, Sarah and Amina, for refusing such arranged marriages. Like Texas's "Tissy" Said, California's Melissa Bender also seems a bit...dim-witted, easy prey for a smart or charming Muslim man who wants (or needs) to bring his Pakistani brother over to America. "Mo's" brother is, apparently, in some kind of trouble and has to get out of Dodge City pronto. Yasir Said hatched a similar plan: He wanted to marry his American-born, American-citizen daughters off to hand-picked Egyptian men who would then be able to become American citizens. Whether Said was doing this for money, "honor," or jihad is unknown. Tunisian-born Samia Labidi, who lives in France, describes such marriages between under-age Western girls and older Muslim foreign men as part of a larger jihadic plan. This may not be true in the California Bender case, but it may be true in other cases. And, by the way, "Tissy" Said herself married Yasir in Texas when she was only 14 years old. She did so with her father's permission. I have no doubt that both she and her father believed that Yasir was the Sheikh of Araby and would provide for "Tissy" royally. Instead, he did what many Muslim Arab men do: He sent his wife out to work and lived off her pitiful earnings. Melissa has six children from six different fathers. She has also lost custody of two children to their maternal grandmother. I do not justify her stupidity and cruelty but it is clear that she may not be in good mental or intellectual health. Nevertheless, her children are at her mercy. Jessie was found hiding about 30 miles from her home. Since then, Jessie and her siblings have been in child protective custody. An estranged family member confirms that Jessie indeed "was going to be married off to [the stepfather's] brother over in Pakistan because he was in some trouble and they wanted to bring him over to the states. They were going to get paid $3000 for this." It is common for Pakistani fathers to sell their young daughters into
marriage in order to make a quick buck. Bride prices range from Rs.
80,000 to Rs. 200,000 (1,400-3,500 USD), and younger girls receive
higher prices. For example, one ten-year-old Pakistani girl was sold
into marriage by her father in order to settle an outstanding debt.
According to Amnesty International, a medical examination showed that
she had been subjected to rape and torture. I am sure there are
thousands of such cases throughout the Islamic world.
Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's
Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer
and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in
Psychology (1969). Visit her website at
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/
This appeared in Front Page Magazine
|
|
P.A. STILL MEMORIALIZING TERRORISTS; P.A. CONDEMNS SLAUGHTER OF ISRAELI FAMILY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 16, 2011. |
|
P.A. Still Memorializing Terrorists The day after terrorists murdered three Jewish children in Itamar, and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) denounced that murder of children, Fatah, the P.A. ruling party, named still another square after Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered Jewish Israeli children. President Obama often denounces Israel over innocent measures, but rarely denounces the P.A. over murder. In this case he did, but failed as usual to denounce the P.A. incitement to murder (ZOA press release, 3/15/11 http://www.zoa.org). No incitement, no murder. Removing checkpoints, that the State Dept. insists Israel do, lets incited terrorists get through to attack innocent people. The State Dept. acts as if an accomplice of terrorists. Israelis are realizing that the P.A. incitement to murder makes peace impossible. Peace is impossible, when the Arab side is bent on murdering the other side. Is that too difficult for President Obama to understand? In any case, by thus memorializing a terrorist, the P.A. contradicts its already ambiguous denunciation of the terrorism in Itamar. Shouldn't such hypocrisy generate skepticism about all other P.A. claims? P.A. condemns slaughter of Israeli family Pres. Abbas, PM Fayyad, and the P.A. Minister of Foreign Affairs condemned the attack that stabbed to death five sleeping family members in Itamar, as "inexcusable." Foreign Min. Maliki said that such an attack is "unprecedented" but that the alacrity with which Israel blamed Arab terrorism impugns the accusation's reliability (IMRA, 3/12/11). The assassins missed two children asleep in a side room and a daughter not at home then. Two intruders were observed fleeing toward a nearby Arab village (NY Times, 3/13/11), a common escape route. What other explanation would the P.A. adduce? Jews in the Territories don't commit aggression and don't stab, whereas Muslims often have. In follow up news, the U.S. and the Quartet also condemned the attackers. The foreign condemnations urge the P.A. to help apprehend the perpetrators. None of the condemnations denounced the P.A. for glorifying such terrorism, as it has. None questioned what kind of a society they are donating a fortune to help prop up even as that society struggles to impose its religion brutally on others. Overnight, a group of Israeli Cabinet ministers approved the construction of hundreds of houses for Jews in Judea-Samaria. That is the Zionist answer to terrorism that Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA had urged. It affirms Jewish national claims and, if persistent, would discourage Islamist attacks. If terrorism leads to a growing Zionist response, the terrorists would not be so lauded by their fellows, as they have been until now. "Unprecedented" and "inexcusable," the P.A. now declares. Has it forgotten the many times its leaders rationalized that attacks on Israeli civilians are not terrorism but "resistance" to "occupation?" They denied that Israelis are civilians, because at some time in their lives they serve in the Army. Actually, before induction and after discharge, Israelis are not soldiers and not all serve. Abbas in particular honors fallen terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians. Among those he memorialized as a paragon was a woman who slew a few dozen helpless Israelis. One of the worst Palestinian Arab atrocities was the attack on Maalot, where the terrorists shot children in a nursery school. Another, more recent example was the terrorist shooting of students at a yeshiva. Guess he forgot all that, too. Although the official P.A. implies that children are non-combatants, P.A. terrorists have used children both as human shields outright and as runners bringing them supplies while they hide from the IDF. We have seen many pictures of young Palestinian Arab children dressed as suicide bombers. The Palestinian Arab culture imbues its society with religious hatred and violence. The West averts its eyes to this. The West European media go so far as to claim, falsely and without documentation that Israel is the society that does that does this. Such is the recrudescence of antisemitism in Europe, a Europe, incidentally, that many of my liberal friends admire. PM Netanyahu complained that the P.A. denunciation of the terrorism pulled its punches. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA wrote to me that the P.A. denunciation was the same in Arabic, which means that the people there can see that the denunciation was half-hearted, meant to stave off Israeli retaliation. Question is, will Western journalists or others in the world remember, or just give the P.A. officials undeserved credit for moderation. Ideally, journalists would point out what I just did, the hypocrisy of the barbaric Palestinian Arab leaders and their culture. 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. |
|
MAINSTREAM JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS: A LACK OF LEADERSHIP
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 16, 2011. | |
|
This is by Jerrold L. Sobel. | |
|
Oh no, once again my mailbox is stuffed with more donation solicitations from some major Jewish organizations. Most of you that ever sent at least chai; $18.00 to the ADL, AJC, B'nai B'rith, Hillel, or countless others know what I'm talking about. What I find disturbing about their fund raising is, that it's fund raising for fund raising's sake alone. It's never a call to action. Their promotions always go the same way: Somebody, somewhere, has done or is doing something bad to the
Jewish people and by parting with anything from $18.00 to the sky's
the limit, this or that group will fight the good fight for the cause.
Not that I begrudge them their shekels, what I begrudge is their lack
of leadership, their failure to unify Jews and their Christian friends
into a cohesive political movement. It's one thing to tell of Jewish
students being intimidated and denied equal access at a Rutger
University public event and another to do something about it.
Rather than forcefully galvanize the community at large to combat anti-Israel/anti-Semitic outrages against Jewish students in the university system, they meekly approach the problem with what they are best at, pontification, then go on with business as usual. Rarely, if ever, is a major Jewish spokesperson seen protesting anti-Israel bias in mainstream media. Activism such as organizing busloads of people to peacefully march in protest at one of these colleges where only the Arab side of the Middle East conflict is taught; where Jewish students are harassed; where Jewish speakers are shouted down or dis-invited, never seem to be an option. Activism such as this would take some chutzpah, some leadership. These advocates fare no better on the international scene and their defense of Israel. Always well behaved, but with the exception of the ZOA, not one mainstream organization has shown a predilection to admonish this Administration for its ceaseless pressure on Israel to commit political suicide. Except to the willfully blind, land for peace has been an abject failure that has resulted in nothing but death and casualties to the Israelis. To continue ceding land to a potential Palestinian state sworn to her destruction would be insanity for any government. A Palestinian state, if created today would be born into war with the State of Israel. What other nation in the world would be asked to create and recognize such a hostile entity? The settlement issue, Jerusalem, the right of return, Israeli security in the Jordan valley, all irreconcilable issues in their own right, yet pale in comparison to the PLO's anti-Semitic incitement of its population. As the murder of the Vogel family this week will attest, a population that has been taught to hate Jews and despise Israel. A constituency fomented by Abbas and his PLO, a quasi government not democratically elected to represent them. A society which immortalizes mass murderers such as Abu Jihad that hijacked and killed 37 people on a bus. All this to the backdrop of a Middle East, unsettled and up in flames. A region increasingly distrustful of the United Stated and rapidly falling within the Iranian sphere of influence. Yet rather than scream bloody murder against the absurd policies and the Palestinian bias of this Administration, by their public silence, mainstream Jewish organizations have given credence to it. As they go around delivering fund raising speeches at $500.00 a plate, perhaps Israel would be better served if their donors were apprised of the relentless coercion and suicidal pressure Obama is fostering upon Israel. Unfortunately, don't expect this to happen too soon. Last week, at the conclusion of a supposed closed door meeting with President Obama, chairman Alan Solow and executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, heading the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations deemed the meeting an "an extraordinary session." What was so extraordinary about it? They claimed it "opens lines of communication with President Obama and his administration" and an "opportunity to articulate the views of American Jews on issues that face the country." Wow, that's powerful. As has become his mantra, Obama once again pledged his loyalty to the State of Israel, her security, and avowed to fight efforts to delegitimize her. Unfortunately, despite these niceties, he made no bones that the road to peace rests squarely through Jerusalem..... Israel's security? With the same assurances he gave Mubarak, Obama would guarantee the peace treaty with NATO troops stationed in a demilitarized zone in the Jordan Valley. We all know how well that's worked out around the world when peacekeepers start returning home in body bags. In the name of peace at any price, President Obama has had no compunction cajoling Israel to return to what Abba Eban referred to as the Auschwitz line, the 1949 indefensible armistice line. A pseudo border, only nine miles between a hostile Palestinian state and the sea. Think of it, nine miles, some people travel further for their groceries. As the meeting progressed, the participants dutifully thanked the president for his recent veto at the U.N. but were perplexed by Administration comments subsequent to the veto. Obama stated he had "to do something to show balance" in view of the delicacy of Arab public opinion during these "sensitive" times. As if by doing the right thing and vetoing the recent U.N. resolution, Israel owed the president quid pro quo by granting the Palestinians further concessions. It's odd, but it seems the president never has a problem labeling Israel the intransigent of this conflict but feels a need to show equanimity to the Palestinians even when forced to vote against them...... Concessions? Israel, from Southern Lebanon to Gaza and Judea and Samaria has continuously made concessions. With the result only to further whet the appetite of the Palestinians and stiffen their recalcitrance. It's hastened war not peace. The president also made it quite clear that despite what's going on throughout the Middle East, tenuous as the the Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is, or the ascendency of Iran in the region; Palestinian statehood based upon Israeli land concessions is foremost in his mind. In light of all this, one has to wonder if any member of the Jewish delegation took out a map to show Obama the topography of the Jordan Valley and the mountainous terrain so vital to Israel's security? Because if they did, it was not publicly spoken of, as it should be. Not one representative drove home the point of Israel's vulnerability to a hostile Palestinian State jutting deep into her middle. Israeli security concerns be damned, If Israel doesn't acquiesce to his demands Obama has threatened to turn the whole issue over to the group 4 to be resolved; the U.N., the European Union, Russia, and the United States; no doubt Israel would get a fair shake from this bunch. Out of politeness and a helping hand of timidity, none of the delegates bothered to remind Obama of U.N. Council Resolution 242 which recognized the 1949 demarcation lines as just that, lines showing where armies stood subsequent to the cease fire, not international boarders. 242 recognized Israel's need for defensible boarders. It's also curious that while remaining gracious guests the members never asked why subsequent to Palestinian statehood, Palestinians could continue to live in Israel, but Jews would be barred from living in the Palestinian state. Didn't progressive Americans fight against such injustice in South Africa? Wasn't that decried around the world as apartheid? Despite all this ambiguity, always fearful of confrontation, ever loyal to the script, and always respectful, the presidents of all the mainstream Jewish organizations felt the meeting a great success just to have a dialogue with Obama. Perhaps at a future meeting they might also remind the president that Israel is the only constitutional, Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East, America's only real friend, the equivalent of a giant U. S. air craft carrier in a region which hates the U.S. as much as it does Israel. To weaken Israel, is to weaken an increasingly less free world. As is his custom, the President saved the best for last. Near the conclusion of this pow wow, he requested the group convince their colleagues in Israel to call for more concessions. You have to wonder if at this point any of these esteemed "Jewish leaders" recognized they were dupes being used to deliver a message without receiving anything in return. This is American Jewish leadership today. This is what they consider an "an extraordinary session."
It's time long overdue for these organizations and the people that run them to either revamp and lead or get out of the way. For Israel to survive, the righteousness of Zionism must actively be taught to all Americans. That's their job. However, before they do, they must begin believing it themselves. A segment of American Jewry in turn must lose that "shtetl;" European, acquiescent, ghetto mentality and rally around sensible support for the Jewish State. Israel's survival should trump petty political affiliations. The unfair political ostracization and double standards by which Israel is judged is a matter that should always surmount silly Republican/Democrat squabbles. When groups such as JStreet, comprised mainly of Jewish youth are angry at Obama for casting a veto against the Palestinians, we're all in trouble. We're in trouble not because a bunch of dopey kids and their old hippy parents are the new progressives but because the major Jewish American organizations have never launched a sustained campaign of educating not only Jewish youth but American youth in general of the difference between a constitutional democracy and the despotic dictatorships which permeate the violent neighborhood Israel lives in. To their credit, mainstream Jewish leadership is rightfully concerned with the Holocaust and sustaining its memory but unfortunately does little to ward off the potential of a second one. At a time when American Jewry of every religious and political persuasion should be united against anti-Zionism and its brother, anti-Semitism, Jewish leadership is in the hands of of fund raisers.
| Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
BIBI IS DIVIDING JERUSALEM
Posted by Hillel Fendel, March 16, 2011. |
|
Long-time Jerusalem lands activist Aryeh King told the audience at the 8th Annual Jerusalem Conference on Tuesday that eight Jerusalem neighborhoods are actually off-limits to Jews. The news, backed up by video clips showing soldiers refusing to allow Jews to enter while Arab cars entered freely, caused a stir not only in the audience, but also among the panel of speakers. The session dealt with Jerusalem, how to prevent its division, and how to strengthen its status as the capital of the Jewish People. Speakers included Education Minister Gideon Saar, who was praised for his initiative in which pupils throughoutIsrael visit Jerusalem at least three times during their school careers. "Our common vision and dream, throughout the generations, to reach Jerusalem and Zion," Saar said, "is what enabled us to exist as 'one nation,' as Haman said in the Book of Esther that we shall soon read, even though we were also 'scattered and separate.' ... More than we succeeded in preserving Zion, Zion was able to watch over us." Saar said he believes it was his first decision upon becoming Education Minister two years ago "to ensure that pupils get to know Jerusalem. A survey beforehand had shown that a full 50 percent of those who graduated from our schools had never been to Jerusalem! ... So we instituted a program, fully funded and recognized, by which students in 5th, 7th and 10th grades take official school trips to Jerusalem, where they visit sites such as the Western Wall, the Western Wall Tunnels, the City of David, Ammunition Hill, and more. Sites that had been all but closed but were opened, with the cooperation of the police, as a result of this program, which brings over a half-million students to our capital every year." King Attacks Netanyahu In contrast to the positive picture painted by Saar and succeeding speakers, King, a familiar face on the Jerusalem activism scene and head of the Israel Land Fund, began his talk aggressively: "Bibi [Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] has already divided Jerusalem! Not with words, but with actions.... There are seven neighborhoods — and now another one has just been added, Isawiya, very close to here — where Jews are not permitted to enter! ... In addition, 7% of Jerusalem area has been transferred to the control of the IDF, in violation of the Basic Law: Jerusalem. "The Israel Police do not enter these neighborhoods, while the PA police direct traffic there! ... Bibi also allows illegal Moslem burials outside the eastern wall of the Temple Mount — something that no prime minister before him allowed... The PA has also paved several kilometers of roads in Jerusalem... Bibi is doing terrible things, things that Barak in Camp David [in the late 90's, when he agreed to give 95-98% of Judea and Samaria to the PA] never dreamed of doing." King screened three video clips, one that showed how soldiers did not allow a Jewish car to enter an Arab-populated neighborhood "just 250 meters from French Hill," while allowing Arabs to pass through unhindered. Another member of the speakers' panel — Shlomo Attias of Shas, head of the Jewish Quarter Development Company — acknowledged that he did not know much of what King reported, and that it was shocking news. Danon Agrees — Mostly MK Danny Danon (Likud) told how he and King worked together to salvage Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem 13 years ago: "At one point, we went to a building in Maaleh Zeitim [Ras el-Amoud], but even though it was totally and legally ours, we had to go at night so as not to [arouse problems]... Arabs saw us and started attacking us with rocks. We called the police, located at the time just 300 meters away, and they made us wait for three hours before arriving! They did it purposely, so that we would get scared and leave altogether — but we didn't, and finally the police arrived and dispersed the attackers. Today, of course, dozens of Jewish families live there, with dozens more set to move in these very weeks..." Danon also related that several years ago, the neighborhood of Har Homa — now populated by close to 30,000 Jews — was the main issue of contention: "Clinton and Albright ordered Netanyahu, who was Prime Minister at the time, not to sign the tenders for construction, because Arafat would never agree to have Bethlehem cut off from the Temple Mount. But we gathered some MKs and exerted pressure and made it clear that the government would fall on this issue — and Bibi signed the papers." Danon agreed that "the situation in Jerusalem is a catastrophe... Just a few weeks ago, plans for developing some new neighborhoods were abruptly removed from the planning committee's agenda..." Despite this, he did not agree with Aryeh King's implied call to replace Netanyahu, and said that it is best to be part of the government and to struggle for change from within. What Happened With Atarot? King said that the solution for Jerusalem is to build large housing projects in and around Jerusalem: "For instance, there was a plan to build 10,000 units for the hareidi-religious public in Atarot, in northern Jerusalem — but for some reason, Mayor Barkat shelved it. It is projects like these that will save Jerusalem!" Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). |
|
NEW STUDY THAT ANTI-ZIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 16, 2011. |
|
European anti-Zionism manifests and masks anti-Semitism, according to a new study, done by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think tank associated with the German Social Democratic Party. British, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Portuguese, Hungarians, Poles, and French were asked questions about Israel and Jews as well as about other prejudices. About half or more of the Germans, Hungarians, and Poles responded that they thought that Israel was exterminating the Palestinian Arabs, and so it is no wonder that people do not like Jews. The social scientists conclude that many Muslims, leftists, and the "elite" in Europe, hardly just neo-Nazis, do not like Jews, so no wonder they do not like Israel. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. This newer antisemitism was unexpected in Germany, which educates youth about the Holocaust. But that is precisely why Germans cling to antisemitism, the scholars believe, because they feel guilty about it. They transfer their guilt to Jewish scapegoats. The poll reveals the success of the campaign to equate Israel with the Nazis. Germans particularly believe that the Jewish people exploit the Holocaust. Antisemitism explains the German media's disproportionate criticism of Israel. Another false equation is between antisemitism and Islamophobia (IMRA, 3/16 from http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=212326) which hardly exists, is not organized, is not part of any ideology, and is not existential. People imagine that information is a total solution, but antisemitism is a mental disorder. Emotional disturbance resists and distorts information. Instead of European journalists informing audiences of the news, they censor news adverse to the Palestinian Arabs, and they distort news so as to present it as adverse to Israel. Actually, Palestinian Muslim society, as the Arab world in general, has been attempting to exterminate the Jews. They cite Islamic religious authority for this. To a great extent, the Muslim Arabs are the new Nazis; but they long have admired the Nazis. These fact are kept from most Westerners. In the case of German Holocaust studies, perhaps information supplied without the proper rationale deepens the disturbance. Germans born after the Holocaust should not feel guilty for it, but many do. That isn't fair to them nor to their new victims. The lesson was not brought home that they are not responsible for the terrible deeds of a prior generation, but that if they perpetuate antisemitism they are accomplices after the fact. The Ebert Foundation should demand that the Social Democratic Party of Germany and of other European countries live up to their liberal and humanitarian precepts and end their tacit alliance with Islamists, who implement illiberal and inhumane precepts. What are the Socialists and other leftists going to do about the antisemitic prejudice that has taken hold of their followers? What can be done to cure the "elite" of their bigotry? There are some signs of hope. Europeans are starting to realize that Radical Islam menaces them. Recently, the leaders of three major European countries repudiated multi-culturalism. (That is, they rejected its excesses that produce disunity. Nobody denies a right of ethnic groups to retain foreign languages and other aspects of their original culture not antagonistic to the countries in which they take haven.) The next step should be repudiation of political correctness. Tolerance and tact remain valuable, but no ideology, including Radical Islam and anti-Zionism, should be above review and criticism. In Europe and Canada, ending political correctness would involve repealing laws punishing intellectual criticism of Radical Islam as "hate speech." Interestingly, the laws against "hate speech" are not enforced against Muslims' explicitly expressed hatred of non-Muslims. In Israel, rabbis' innocent discussions about Jewish law are invalidly denounced as "incitement" to violence and lead to police investigations, whereas Arabs who march to the chant of "kill the Jews," and which does lead to violence, are not denounced by the major media nor investigated by police. The Left's indignity against "incitement" is hypocritical. It is an excuse to repress conservative opponents. Jewish antisemitism is a somewhat different psychosis from the Europeans'. The Europeans think that Israeli leftists' perverse criticism of Israel, championship of Israel's Muslim Arab enemies, and even encouragement of terrorism, is admirable. No, it is sick. When is the Jewish state going to recognize and try to treat that mental disease? In the U.S., political correctness, often neither political nor correct, has plumbed absurd depths. People who privately express tactless jokes or unapproved sentiment that do not reflect upon their work, nevertheless are fired for it. American society now seeks to punish dissidence. This is an unhealthy, European-like attitude. The conclusions from that one study fan out to a program that can yet save civilization and defeat the barbarians and intolerance. 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. |
|
THE WILL OF A LITTLE BOY — THE PRAYER YOAV FOGEL HY"D HAD PLACED OVER HIS BED
Posted by David Ha'Ivri, March 16, 2011. | |
|
Yoav Fogel age 11 was brutally murdered last Friday night along with his parents Udi and Ruth and two of his siblings Elad age 4 and Hadas age 3 month. 
David Ha'ivri is Executive Director, The Shomron Liaison Office. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: VIGILANCE AND CELEBRATION
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 16, 2011. |
|
That is what is required of us, here in Israel. For our enemies are all about. I'm reminded a bit of the old saying, "There is no rest for the weary." But never mind, weary or not, we will prevail. The latest incident demonstrating our ability to prevail follows below. But I first want to let my readers know that unless there is something of major significance that transpires, I will be off-line until next Tuesday at least. ~~~~~~~~~~ One reason is Purim. A story, incidentally, that tells of another instance in which our people — threatened with extinction — bested our enemy, aided by the hidden hand of the Almighty. Purim is a time when we are bidden to hear that story read, in the Megillat Ester, bring gifts of food to friends and charity to the poor. And celebrate. The Fast of Ester (Tannit Ester) is tomorrow. Purim is Sunday, but is celebrated in Jerusalem, which was a walled city, on Sushan Purim, Monday. To all those who will be observing Purim, I wish a Chag Purim Sameach! ~~~~~~~~~~ The other reason is simply a writing assignment I have assumed that will occupy my time at the computer. For that reason, friends, I ask please! that you curtail comments and sharing of information for the next several days. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now as to the latest incident we have confronted that required vigilance: Yesterday, the Israeli navy intercepted the cargo ship Victoria some 320 km off of Israel's coast in the Mediterranean. The captain of the ship — which is German-owned but flies under a Liberian flag, and operates with a French crew — granted permission for Israeli commandos from the elite Shayetet unit to board and offered no resistance when they did. What was discovered was a cache of sophisticated weaponry that had been loaded in the Syrian port of Latakia. The certificates regarding the containers indicated they were carrying cotton and lentils. But the commandos had to open only one container to discover weapons. ~~~~~~~~~~ As you may remember, a couple of weeks ago, two Iranian ships entered the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal, docked in Syria for a while, and left. The port where they docked was Latakia, and it is strongly suspected that the weaponry had been unloaded from Iran at that point. That at least some of the weapons were of Iranian origin is certain: there were manuals in Farsi. ~~~~~~~~~~ When the Victoria left Latakia, it sailed to the port of Mersin in Turkey, where it sat for some days — it is thought, to allay suspicions. When it was intercepted, it was on its way to Egypt. At least some of the containers, which were heavily locked, were bound for the port of Alexandria there. The assumption of course, is that the weaponry would have moved via tunnels into Gaza. The cache of weapons was estimated to weigh about 50 tons and included two Chinese-made C-704 anti-ship missiles — which the Iranians do possess. The missiles — which had the Iranian word for them, Nasr, written on them — would have seriously interfered with Israel's ability to navigate in the Mediterranean and would have threatened strategic installations near the coast. This missile uses advanced radar, has a range of 35 km., and can carry a warhead of 130 kg. of explosives. ~~~~~~~~~~ I shudder, and thank Heaven for the vigilance. There's a history of weapons ships intercepted by Israel, including the Karine-A, and two years ago the Francop. ~~~~~~~~~~ This entirely successful operation began several days ago with intelligence received. The Navy immediately began tracking the ship, and planning that operation. It is being made clear that there is no suspicion that either the Turkish or the Egyptians were aware of the contents of the ship; and the crew was ignorant of what was in those containers. The ship is being brought to the port in Ashdod. And later today, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon will be accompanying foreign diplomats to the port and showing them some of the weapons. ~~~~~~~~~~ You can see videos of the Israeli Navy boarding the ship here:
~~~~~~~~~~ There is no question but that attempts by Iran to arm Hamas and Hezbollah will continue. And it is worth noting that this operation attempting to bring the weapons via sea to Egypt is a deviation from the route that has been used more frequently until now: unloading by boats was often done in Sudan and then a convoy would make its way into Egypt on land. That way is apparently getting more difficult both because of Israeli and Egyptian efforts. Israeli vigilance in this matter requires that many ships be boarded each year. And here is a fact that should be kept in mind: There was no way to know, with regard to the infamous flotilla incident, that there were no major weapons on board the Mavi Mamara. This constant and on-going possibility, as Iran seeks to arm Hamas, is the reason for the naval blockade of the Gaza coast. For all the negative press leveled at us by enemies, there is solid security justification for our actions. Without that blockade, ships would unload weaponry directly into Gaza. ~~~~~~~~~~ I've had neither the time nor the space to devote to discussing J Street that I might have liked. But I want to recommend here an excellent article that solidly puts J Street into perspective, written by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of Z Street (www.zstreet.org). "'Maybe, if this collective Jewish presence' — that is, the Jewish State in the Middle East — 'can only survive by the sword, then Israel really ain't a good idea.' So said Daniel Levy, one of J Street's founders, at the 2011 J Street Conference." ~~~~~~~~~~ And finally, a return — with several observations — to the massacre at Itamar. (There is currently a gag order on the investigation.) I wrote last about how the PA news services were reporting that a disgruntled Asian worker whom the Fogels had refused to pay had killed the family, and not a Palestinian Arab at all. We were, you see, making premature and unfair accusations. Well, Israel National News decided to investigate, and discovered that Itamar has no foreign workers as a matter of principle — all work is done by Jews.
In the interests of guarding truth, share this information wherever you may see promotion of the idea that it was an Asian worker. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then a very pertinent observation by columnist Jeff Jacoby — an observation that applies more broadly than just to Itamar and substantially separates the liberal from the conservative mindset: "There are those who believe passionately that all human beings are inherently good and rational creatures, essentially the same once you get beyond surface disagreements. Such people cannot accept the reality of a culture that extols death over life, that inculcates a vitriolic hatred of Jews, that induces children to idolize terrorists. Since they would never murder a family in its sleep without being driven to it by some overpowering horror, they imagine that nobody would. This is the mindset that sees a massacre of Jews and concludes that Jews must in some way have provoked it. It is the mindset behind the narrative that continually blames Israel for the enmity of its neighbors, and makes it Israel's responsibility to end their violence. ~~~~~~~~~~ In closing, items that point with pride to exactly who we are as a people. This is making the rounds broadly: Every day of shiva (the first week of mourning), Rami Levi — who owns one of the larger super market chains in Israel — comes by the shiva house in Itamar and fills the cupboards and refrigerator himself with food for the family and guests. When on of the relatives expressed appreciation to him. he said "You will get used to my face. I have committed myself that every week I will deliver food and stock your home until the youngest orphan turns 18 years old." ~~~~~~~~~~ I have observed before, with a sort of awe, the incredible strength of the family members left behind after a terrorist attack — a strength that permits no call for revenge and seeks only to move on a path of goodness. These magnificent human beings, you must understand, are the very sort of people who are most frequently vilified by a liberal press as "religious settlers," by which is meant "radical crazies" who do not deserve respect and insist on living where they don't belong. But I submit that these people are among the very finest of our nation. ~~~~~~~~~~ On Monday, Rabbi Yehuda Ben-Yishai, the mourning father of Ruth Fogel, gave an interview, and parts of it were carried by Israel National News. He is seen in this photo by Flash 90 on the left, leaning again his son. 
Mourning at funerals for Fogel family terror "Asked by the interviewer, 'Where do you have the strength and restraint that you can talk now and strengthen us, without anger and without calling for vengeance — that is not in your voice? Where is the strength from?' "Rabbi Ben-Yishai answered, 'I have worked in education many years, and as an educator, I try to strengthen and teach people faith. I understand that I cannot be satisfied with words and that I also must implement the same principles on which I have educated others. This is a test of my faith...' ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, in words that caused me to weep at my computer, Rabbi Ben-Yishai continued: "He said, 'We [the grandparents] will take upon ourselves the difficult task and pave for them the path so that life will be victorious.' ~~~~~~~~~~ With people such as this in our nation, we will prevail, we will prevail.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
U.S.-TRAINED FORCES ARRESTED IN BLOODY SLAYING OF KIDS
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 16, 2011. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in World Net Daily Klein is author of thebestseller, "The Manchurian President." |
|
JERUSALEM — Two members of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' official security forces were arrested in conjunction with this past weekend's bloody massacre in which five family members were brutally stabbed to death inside their home in the Jewish village of Itamar, WND has learned. The names of the apprehended suspects will be released to the Israeli media within hours but were revealed to WND by security officials working on the murder. Two cousins are now in Israeli custody and are suspected in the slayings. Ahmed Awad is an officer in Abbas' Preventative Security Services in the northern West Bank city of Nablis. Iyad Awad is an officer in Abbas' General Intelligence services in Ramallah. Both the Preventative and General Intelligence services of Fatah are armed, trained and funded by the U.S. The duo did not personally carry out the murders, but rather they assisting in the planning and logistics, informed security sources told WND. Since the late 1990s, the U.S. has run training bases for PA militias. The U.S. also has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid and weapons to build up the PA militias. Since 2007, the U.S. has stepped up its efforts at training the PA, including a new, advanced program for Palestinian police to train 500 to 600 cadets at a time at the American bases. The U.S. currently operates training bases for the PA police and other militias, such as Force 17 and the Preventative Security Services in the West Bank city of Jericho and the Jordanian village of Giftlik. Yesterday,
Many Brigades members, including much of the
group's senior leadership, double as members of
Fatah's U.S.-backed security forces.
Top sources in the Brigades leadership in the
northern West Bank city of Nablus confirmed to
WND that members of the Fatah group planned and helped to carry out the attack.
The sources claimed the attack was not sanctioned
by the Fatah leadership but was planned by
Brigades members who were acting on their own.
Also, the sources said the actual perpetrators of
the attack were sleeper cells from Hamas, while
the Brigades leaders planned the attack, provided
logistical support and aided in the Hamas agents' escape.
If accurate, this would demonstrate unusual
cooperation between Hamas and Fatah rivals.
The U.S. administration has labeled Fatah as a
"negotiating partner" for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Just two weeks ago, WND reported exclusively that
members of Abbas' Brigades, now classified by the
U.S. State Department as a terrorist
organization, have been brandishing weapons
publicly in recent days despite a disarmament agreement with Israel.
According to informed Israeli security sources,
messages were passed to the PA by the Israel
Defense Forces and Israel's Shabak security
services that the armed Brigades members must lay
down their weapons or face arrest.
Israeli security officials told WND two weeks ago
they fear the newfound militancy of the Brigades
— evidenced by their publicly brandishing weapons
— may be a strategic decision on the part of the
PA to orient itself in a more extremist direction
following President Obama's championing of unrest
that toppled pro-Western regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.
Last Friday's massacre, in the northern West Bank
village of Itamar, saw Palestinian assailants
stab to death the Fogel family — father Udi, 37;
mother Ruth, 36; 10-year-old Yoav; 4-year-old
Elad; and 3-month-old Hadas — inside their home.
Two other children in the house at the time were
not hurt in the attack, apparently because the terrorists did not notice them.
Israel National News reported the initial
findings of the investigation show the terrorists
stabbed the Fogel family's sleeping 3-year-old in
the heart and slashed the throat of his 3-month-old sister.
The assailants apparently entered the Fogel's
home through a living room window. They did not
notice a 6-year-old boy sleeping on the couch and
continued on to the bedroom, where they slashed
the throats of the father and newborn baby sleeping there.
The mother, Ruth, came out of the bathroom and
was stabbed in the doorway. The evidence shows
she tried to fight the terrorists.
The Palestinians found 10-year old Yoav reading
in bed when they stabbed him to death.
They apparently also did not notice a 2-year old
asleep in his bed but murdered the 3-year old with two stabs to his heart.
After that, the terrorists reportedly locked the
door of the house and exited through the window.
The Fogel's 12-year-old daughter returned home
only to find the horrific scene. She reportedly ran out of the house screaming.
According to reports, she was not able to
initially enter the locked house so she woke up a
neighbor, who assisted her in waking up one of
the sleeping children inside the Fogel home who
had had not been noticed by the terrorists.
Palestinian Media Watch today reported on the
rampant incitement to violence in the PA media in
the days and weeks before yesterday's attack.
Just one day before the assault, Sabri Saidam,
adviser to and under-secretary of the Fatah
Revolutionary Council, delivered a speech in
which he emphasized that weapons must be turned
towards the "main enemy [Israel]" and that
internal differences of opinion must be set aside.
In the week leading up to the terrorist attack,
the PA announced plans for a football tournament
named after the first female Palestinian suicide
bomber, Wafa Idris, who killed one and reportedly
injured more than 150 when she blew herself up in Jerusalem in January 2002.
Earlier, Abbas' representative, Azzam Al-Ahmed,
member of the Fatah Central Committee, was the
guest of honor at a Palestinian scout ceremony in
which buildings representing Jewish residents of the West Bank were blown up.
In December, Abbas granted the relatives of a
Palestinian terrorist $2,000 as part of a regular
PA campaign that supports so-called "shahids" or
"martyrs" who die while attacking Jews.
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. |
|
IT'S ABU MAZEN, STUPID!
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, March 16, 2011. |
|
The March 11, 2011 heinous stabbing to death of a Jewish family — while asleep on the eve of the Sabbath — including a three month old baby, a three year old toddler, an eleven year old child and their parents was carried out by graduates of Abu Mazen's (Mahmoud Abbas') hate-education. This slaughter was not an anomalous phenomenon. The slaughter was a derivative of the infrastructure of hate-education and incitement via school text books, Abu Mazen-controlled media and Abu Mazen-controlled mosques. It was installed in 1994 by Abu Mazen, then Arafat's deputy, and perpetuated, since 2005, by Abu Mazen, the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority. It is an extension of Palestinian incitement and terrorism, introduced by Haj Amin al-Husseini in the 1920s, and 1,400 years of Arab/Muslim hate-mongering and terrorism toward each other, but mostly against "the infidel." While speaking softly, Abu Mazen carries a horrendous stick of hate-education, which is largely funded by US foreign aid (over $2BN since 2007). Since 1994, he has brainwashed Palestinian youth, producing manufacturing lines of hundreds of thousands of potential terrorists/suicide bombers. One's education is the most authentic reflection of one's values, ideology, vision, goals and character. According to Prof. Efraim Karsh, Head of the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies program at King's College in London (Palestine Betrayed, Yale University Press, 2010, pp. 255-6), "For all their drastically different personalities and political styles, Arafat and [Mahmoud] Abbas are warp and woof of the same fabric: dogmatic PLO veterans who have never eschewed their commitment to Israel's destruction and who have viewed the 'peace process' as the continuation by other means of their lifelong war...He [Mahmoud Abbas] described the proclamation of Israel as an unprecedented historic injustice and vowed his unwavering refusal to ever accept this injustice...[There is] no fundamental difference between the ultimate goals of Hamas and the PLO vis-à-vis Israel: neither accepts the Jewish state's right to exist and both are committed to its eventual destruction...." On August 13, 2009, Abu Mazen — who enrolled in KGB courses and coordinated PLO ties with the Communist Bloc — ratified the resolutions of Fatah's 6th General Conference, which state (article 19):"The struggle shall not end until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated." Holocaust denial is promoted by Abu Mazen's school text books, such as Modern World History for tenth graders (p.83). Prof. Karsh notes that Abu Mazen's doctoral dissertation, submitted at the Moscow University, and published in 1984 in Amman, "endeavored to prove...the existence of a close ideological and political association between Zionism and Nazism...[that] fewer than a million Jews had been killed in the Holocaust, and that the Zionist movement played a role in their slaughter." Hence, Mein Kampf and the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers in the Palestinian Authority. Abu Mazen's school textbooks reaffirm the founding document of the PLO, the Palestinian Covenant. It was compiled in June, 1964, aiming at the pre-1967 Israel. Two thirds of the Covenant is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State, as a prerequisite for the attainment of Palestinian goals. Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad pay condolence visits — and authorize the transfer of monthly allowances — to families of suicide bombers. In February, 2011, they named a soccer tournament in honor of Wafa Idris, a suicide bomber. On January 16, 2010, they named a major square in El Bireh (in addition to two schools and a summer camp) in honor of Dalal Mughrabi, who commanded the March 11, 1978 massacre of 38 bus passengers on Israel's coastal road. The school text books of Abu Mazen — who supervised the 1972 Munich Massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and the March 1973 murder of two US ambassadors in Sudan — idolize suicide-bombing, fuel anti-Semitism and repudiate Israel's right to exist. For example, fifth grade Our Beautiful Language (pp. 26, 31, 32, 36, 70), tenth grade Grammar (pp. 30, 146) and Islamic Education (pp. 42-4, 48, 50) and tenth grade Modern World History (p.64). On October 12, 2010, Abu Mazen's official TV channel heralded the terrorists who murdered six Israeli civilians in 1975 (Kfar Yuval) and 1980 (Misgav Am). On January 29, 2010, Abu Mazen's official TV channel broadcast the weekly sermon, referring to Jews as "the enemies of Allah and humanity, modern day Nazis, who must be annihilated." Hate-education is the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has always been over the existence — and not over the size — of the Jewish State. Hate education on one hand, and peace negotiation on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron. Japan and Germany were transformed from hateful — to peaceful — countries by uprooting regimes of hate-education; not merely by condemning hate-education. To ignore the centrality of hate-education, is to reward and fuel terrorism at the expense of peace and Western democratic values. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX If you wish to write to the people of Itamar to express your condolences: itamar@shechem.org Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as
well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for
Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to
Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul
General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of
Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem
Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il
This article appeared in YnetNews
|
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL:
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 16, 2011. |
|
"A good snapshot stops a moment from running away." — Eudora Welty HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Purim is Israel's candy holiday, a day of frivolity underscored by obligations of recalling our miraculous history and giving gifts and charity. The gifts often include candies and baked goodies to sweeten the joy of this celebration. The candy vendors at Jerusalem's Machane Yehuda market use an ancient and not-so-subtle form of salesmanship: their product is eye-catching and mouth-watering, especially to the children who prod their parents to buy it. This subject has a built-in appeal of diverse color and form, not to mention that it charms the child in all of us. I chose a wide angle lens to encompass as many of the different candies as possible. The only other choice I made was to compose the image so the candy bins move diagonally across the frame. This slight tilt gives the photo just what it needs to break up the monotony of seeing all the bins in similar shapes and sizes. Chag Purim Sameach! Technical Data: Nikon D700, 20mm lens, f8@ 1/60th sec., ISO 800.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
PURIM GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED 2011
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, March 15, 2011. |
|
This is based on the Jewish sages. |
|
1. Purim is celebrated on the 14th/15th days of the Jewish month of Adar. Adar is the root of the Hebrew adjective Adir (glorious, awesome, exalted, magnificent). It is, also, a derivative of the Akkadian word Adura (heroism). Jewish tradition (Babylonian Talmud) highlights Adar as a month of happiness, singing and dancing, prohibiting eulogies and fasting on Purim. The zodiac of Adar is Pisces (fish), which is a symbol of demographic multiplication. Hence, Adar is the only Jewish month, which doubles itself during the 7 leap years, during each 19 year cycle. Purim is celebrated on the 14th (in non-walled towns) and (in Jerusalem) on the 15th day of Adar (February 28 and March 1, 2010), commemorating the national liberation of the Jewish People in Persia and the 161 BCE victory of Judah the Maccabee over Nikanor, the Assyrian commander. Moses - whose burial site is unknown — was born, and died (1273 BCE) on the 7th day of Adar, which is Israel's Memorial Day for soldiers, whose burial site is unknown. The events of Purim occurred following the destruction of the 1st Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (586 BCE) and the exile from Zion, during the leadership of Ezra who returned to Jerusalem, and the inauguration of the Second Temple (3rd of Adar, 515 BCE) by Ezra and Nehemiah. Nebuchadnezzar 2. Purim's Hebrew root is fate/destiny), as well as "lottery" (to commemorate Haman's lottery which determined the designated day for the planned annihilation of the Jewish People) "to frustrate", "to annul", "to crumble" and "to shutter", reflecting the demise of Haman.
3. Purim commemorates a 522 BCE War of Civilizations between Mordechai the Jew and Haman the Iranian-Amalekite. It constitutes an early edition of the war between Right vs Wrong, Liberty vs Tyranny, Justice vs Evil, Truth vs Lies, as were/are the precedents of Adam/Eve vs the Snake, Abel vs Cain, Abraham vs Sodom and Gomorrah, Jacob vs Esau (grandparent of Amalek), Maccabees vs Assyrians, Allies vs Nazis, Western democracies vs Communist Bloc and Western democracies vs Islamic terrorism.
4. Purim is the holiday of contradictions and tenacity-driven-optimism:
Grief replaced by joy, Esther's concealment replaced by the disclosure of her national/religious identity, Haman's intended genocide of the Jews replaced by redemption, Haman replaced by Mordechai, national and personal pessimism replaced by optimism.
5. A Purim lesson: Life is complex, full of contradictions, ups and downs and difficult dilemmas and worthy of principled-determination.
6. Mordechai, the hero of Purim and one of Ezra's deputies, was a role model of principle-driven optimism in defiance of colossal odds, in the face of a global power and in spite of the Jewish establishment. According to Judaism, deliverance is ushered by the bravery of faith-driven individuals, such as Nachshon — who was the first to walk into the Red Sea before it was parted and Mordechai. Mordechai was a politically-incorrect statesman and a retired military leader, who practiced "disproportionate pre-emption" instead of defense, deterrence or retaliation. The first three Hebrew letters of Mordechai spell the Hebrew word Rebellion, which is consistent with the motto/legacy of the American Founding Fathers: "Rebellion against Tyrants is Obedience to G-D"). Mordechai did not bow to Haman, the second most powerful person in the Persian Empire. Mordechai was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the only son of Jacob who did not bow to Esau. The name Mordechai is also a derivative of Mordouch, the chief Babylonian god.
Mordechai was a descendant of King Saul, who defied a clear commandment (to eradicate the Amalekites) and spared the life of Agag, the Amalekite king, thus precipitating further calamities upon the Jewish People. Consequently, Saul lost his royal position and life. Mordechai learned from Saul's error. He destroyed Haman, a descendant of Agag the Amalekite, and Haman's entire power base, thus sparing the Jewish People a major disaster.
In Gimatriya, "Cursed Haman" equals "Blessed Mordechai", 502.
7. Queen Esther, the heroine of Purim's Esther Scroll (the 24th
and concluding book in the Hebrew Bible) was Mordechai's niece. One
cannot comprehend Purim without studying the Esther Scroll. Esther
demonstrates the centrality of women in Judaism, shaping the future of
the Jewish People, as did Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, Batyah, Deborah,
Hannah, etc. Sarah was the first Jewish woman, and Esther was the last
Jewish woman, mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Sarah lived 127 years and
Esther ruled over 127 countries. The name Esther is a derivative
of the Hebrew word meaning "clandestine", "hidden", "subtle", which was reflective of her (initially) unknown Jewish identity and subtle-style at the royal court. The name Esther is also a derivative of Ishtar a Mesopotamian goddess, Astarte a Phoenician goddess. In fact, the one day pre-Purim Fast of Esther (commemorating the three day fast declared by Esther in order to expedite deliverance), was cherished by the Marano in Spain, who performed Judaism in a clandestine manner. The Scroll of Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Bible, in which G-D's name is hidden/absent. It has been suggested that the explicit name of G-D is absent because the Scroll of Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Bible, which deals exclusively with the Diaspora and not with the Land of Israel. According to Michael Bernstein, the noun "King" appears 182 times in the Esther Scroll, which is the total sum of 26 (numerical value of G-D) times 7 (days of creation). Esther's second name was Hadassah, whose root is Hadass (myrtle tree in Hebrew) which constitutes a metaphor for eyesight 20:20.
The name Esther is identified with the planet Venus (hence, Esther's other Hebrew name Noga, a glaring divine light, which is Venus in Hebrew). In Gimatriya, Esther and Noga equal 661 and 58 respectively, and the sum of 6+6+1 and 5+8 is 13 (the number of G-D's virtues). In "small Gimatriya" both Esther (1+6+4+2) and Noga (5+3+5) equal 13, which is also the total sum of one in Hebrew which represents monotheism, as well as the total sum of love in Hebrew.
Noga is also the name of my oldest granddaughter!
8. The Persian King appointed Mordechai to be his top advisor, overruling Haman's intent to prevent the resettling of Jews in Zion, the reconstruction of the Temple and the restoration of the wall around Jerusalem. He foiled Haman's plan to exterminate the Jews. The king prospered as a result of his change of heart and escaped assassination. That was the case with Pharaoh, who escaped national collapse and starvation and rose in global prominence, once he appointed Joseph to be his deputy.
9. Purim's four commandments:
*Gifts to relatives and friends emphasize the importance of family and community.
*Charity (at least the value of a meal) indicates the value of compassion and responsibility. Purim calls for social/community involvement! According to Maimonides, "there is no greater or more glorious joy than bringing joy to the poor."
*Celebration and Happiness sustains the element of optimism and faith as the backbone of an individual and a nation.
<./blockquote>
10. Lethal enemy destroyed and lethal threat commemorated. The pre-Purim Sabbath is called "Memorial Sabbath", commemorating the war of extermination launched by the Amalekites against the Jewish Nation, since the Exodus from Egypt.
11. A Purim lesson: Be wary of enemies, posing as partners of peace, concealing a strategic goal of extermination.
Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
"I WILL BE THEIR MOTHER" SAYS 12 YEAR OLD TAMAR FOGEL
Posted by Uzi Baruch, March 15, 2011. |
|
The eldest daughter of the Fogel family, 12 year old Tamar, promised her relatives: "I will be strong and succeed in overcoming this. I understand the task that stands before me, and I will be a mother to my siblings". The orphaned youngster's words were quoted in the Hebrew daily Yisrael Hayom. In their home in the town of Neve Tsuf in Samaria, Tsila and Chaim Fogel, parents of Udi, are sitting on low benches for the traditional "shiva" week of mourning alongside his three brothers and sister. There is a constant stream of comforters going in and out of the house, VIP's and ordinary citizens from all over Israel, whose hearts go out to the bereft family that lost son, daughter-in-law, and three young grandchildren in a barbaric terrorist slaughter on Friday night. Chaim Fogel continues to retell the story of terrible hours from 3 a.m. on, when he received the horrific news, drove to Itamar, met his 12 year old granddaughter and then entered the family's home. The authorities were forced to ask her to tell what she saw when she returned from her youth group activity to find her family's bloodsoaked bodies at 12:30 a.m. Chaim himself had the heartbreaking task of identifying the bodies. "We came to take the surviving grandchildren out of the Valley of Death, he said. I don't wish on anyone in the world the sight I saw. It is horrendous, beyond description, beyond comprehension". The grandparents recalled the last time they saw Udi, Ruti and the children, a week and a half ago on Saturday night. They celebrated the start of the month of Adar Bet in Itamar, danced, sang and laughed. "At least they had a taste of Purim", said Udi's mother Tzila. "I didn't feel any premonitions. Why should I have thought that I will never see them again? I am not trying to remember if there was anything of that nature in my mind. We were happy together. We have photos of the children playing and happy". The family is against any personal revenge or taking the law into civilian hands. Their slain children felt the same, they said, unequivocally. The Ben Yishai home of Ruti's parents in Jerusalem, where the surviving grandchildren are now, is also crowded with comforters. After the mourning week is over, the family will decide where the children will live. Meanwhile, they are having difficulty in explaining to the youngest child what happened to his parents. "What shall we tell them?" they said. "What does a two-year-old understand when he cries over the loss of his parents? They tell us that children heal quickly, mentally and physically. We hope so".
|
|
STILL HIDDEN GENOCIDE FACILITATORS; TRAGIC RESULT OF ASSIMILATION; EGYPT AND ME: ROMANTICISM MEETS REALITY
Posted by Steven Shamrak, March 15, 2011. |
|
Refined (still Hidden) Genocide Facilitators
29 September 1938 — The Munich agreement of German, Italian, British and French leaders agrees to German demands regarding annexation of the Sudeten borderland of Czechoslovakia. 9 November 1938 — Kristallnacht begins in Germany with the "night of broken glass" begins as Nazi troops and their sympathizers loot and burn Jewish businesses. (The all night affair saw 7,500 Jewish businesses destroyed, 267 synagogues burned, 91 Jews killed, and at least 25,000 Jewish men arrested). 4 June 1939 — The SS St Louis, a ship carrying 963 Jewish refugees, is denied permission to land in Florida and was forced to return to Europe. Most of its passengers later died in Nazi concentration camps. 30 June 1939 — A drastic Immigration Restriction Bill passed through congress, suspending all quota immigration to the US for five years. The bill also called for the immediate registration of all aliens in the US at the time. 6 July 1939 — The last remaining Jewish enterprises in Germany are closed. In 1939 — The British government issued the 'White Paper'. It reversed the support of the Balfour Declaration and announced a limitation on future Jewish immigration to Palestine. Most countries agreed with and followed the guidelines set by the United States, France and Great Britain. It took brave and honorable men like Raul Wallenberg of Sweden, who saved hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews and Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese diplomat stationed in Lithuania, who issued thousands of transit visas to the desperate Jews. But, Wallenberg and Sugihara were exceptions and an embarrassment to their governments. Since WWII, the same genocidal tendency has prevailed. Millions of people were exterminated, facilitated by international apathy and hypocrisy. The memory of the Pol Pot and Rwanda genocides is still fresh. The on-going slaughter of innocent civilians has been perpetrated in the Sudan and Congo for many years. Even now, nothing is done to force Turkey to take responsibility for the genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1905, which paved the way for the Holocaust. The only news that is fed to the public by the international media is that of a fictitious Arab nation — Palestine. The same facilitators of the Holocaust have been generating their justifications for the blood-thirsty terror unleashed on Jews during the last 60 years by Arabs. The intentions of the Arab leadership and the Islamic terrorist infrastructure to destroy Israel and kill Jews are completely ignored. The rights of Jewish people to live in peace on the Jewish land are deemed by them to be non-existent! These ugly genocide facilitators are still in control of the world's future. What makes them even more dangerous is that they have not repented of their sins of the past, like Germany did, and arrogantly continue shaping our future using with the same power-hungry, disrespectful, xenophobic methods! This is Declaration of War! The Israeli military says PA terrorists had infiltrated a Jewish West Bank settlement (Itamar) and killed five people — parents and three children. The initial findings of the investigation into the massacre show that the Fatah 'Freedom Fighters' stabbed the Fogel family's sleeping three year old in the heart and slashed the throat of his three-month-old sister. Anti-Israel movie to be screened in U.N. General Assembly The United Nations has a history of hostility toward Israel. If the General Assembly goes through with the screening, it will be added to the long list of anti-Israel actions the body has taken over the past 60 or so years. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak The road of "the Road Map" to nowhere has quietly ended! Nobody talks about this useless farce any more. Enemies of Israel are still firing rockets and terrorizing Jews, but the Israeli government is cowardly unwilling to take the path of national self-determination and reunification of the Jewish land. A Jew is Arrested — Arabs and Self-haters are Free to Provoke A Jewish resident of the community of Talmonim in Samaria was arrested on Shabbat by Israeli police. Arab residents of Bitilu along with anti-Judea and Samaria agitators came near Talmonim with intent to create a media event. (Not having a clear national agenda, the Israeli government is fighting Jewish patriots, but not the enemies!) Berkeley Asked for This A Jewish student at the University of California at Berkeley who was attacked by a Muslim student last year has filed suit against UC Berkeley for failing to provide a safe atmosphere. In her suit, 21-year-old Jessica Felber alleges that UC Berkeley did not effectively deal with harassment and intimidation by Muslim and pro-Arab student groups, leading to "a dangerous and threatening environment." (Berkeley University has become well-known for fostering an anti-Israel climate. It is time for bigots to pay!) Enemies Must be Removed from Jewish Land A Jerusalem fire fighting crew that was sent to put out a car fire in the northern neighbourhood of Shuafat was attacked by rock throwing Arabs while performing its duty. The fire engine was damaged and the fire-fighters were forced to retreat without gaining control over the fire. Obama Accepts Prospect of Nuclear-armed Iran An annual intelligence report to Congress has dropped language stating that Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are a future option and speaks in terms of the present. As rocketing oil prices triggered by Arab uprisings wiped out the sanctions damage to Iran, Washington confirmed the worst Saudi and Israeli suspicions that Barack Obama had come to terms with a nuclear-armed Iran, after the US long restrained Israel from nipping this menace in the bud. Whom are IDF Troops and Israeli Police Protecting? On Shabbat, a group of Jewish worshipers who had just finished morning prayers at a synagogue adjacent to the Tomb of Shimon Hatzaddik in Jerusalem were savagely attacked by an Arab mob with stones and bricks. One of the stones hit the face of Mordechai Mizrahi, who was there with his 12-year-old daughter. His jaw was broken by one of the rocks, while another nearly poked his eye out. IDF troops and police who came to their aid apparently did not consider his broken jaw worthy of a police report. (Complacency toward enemies and routine disrespect for religious Jews must end) Hypocrisy of the Headlines: We need Democracy in the Middle East and Israel the Big Issue — guardian.co.uk — Islamic hate toward all infidels, love for terror and the Islamic ideology of world domination and Wahhabism, are not the obstacles for democracy in the Middle East? Release is Long Overdue United States Senator John McCain said he supports the release of Jonathan Pollard, who has been in prison for 25 years for passing classified information to Israel. (The US government had broken the plea-bargain agreement and sentenced Pollard to life in jail. Even Soviet spies were not treated so cruelly!) At the Time of 'Peace' Soldiers stationed at the Tapuach junction in Samaria found several weapons when searching a suspicious Arab man on Tuesday evening, including five pipe bombs, three fully prepared firebombs, and one knife. Several attacks on Israeli drivers were reported on Tuesday evening. Terrorists threw firebombs at cars between Gush Etzion and Hevron, and in Jerusalem, PA Arab men stoned two buses, causing damage and wounding one woman. (This 'routine' way of Israeli life does not attract international attention and is considered not newsworthy!) Quote of the Week: "Israel is a convenient whipping boy for European leaders who know this can't go on, but also believe that it must. Their assents to denunciations of Israel by such solid UN citizens as Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are acts of moral cowardice by men and women who would rather collaborate than lead." — Sultan Knish Tragic resut of Assimilation John Galliano, the former creative director of the Paris-based fashion giant Christian Dior, whoes fell from grace for his anti -Semitic outbursts, reportedly told a member of his inner circle that he has Sephardic Jewish roots. &on the Fertile anti-Semitic Soil According to reports in the German and British press, Christian Dior (1902-1957), the founder of the fashion empire, designed attire for the wives and mistresses of leading Nazis during the occupation of France. (Quite often the biggest anti-Semitic bigots are the ones who hate a drop of Jewish blood in their own veins!)
"Egypt and ME: Romanticism Meets Reality"
The projected million-women march in Egypt turned out just 400 and they were harassed and in some cases attacked. Meanwhile, thousands of Muslims and Christians demonstrated and clashed in part due to the burning of a Christian church by Muslims. The new government has been outspokenly anti-Israel and that doesn't mean criticism but real hostility. Crime has reportedly zoomed upward, including armed robberies, arson and street battles between rival criminal gangs over territory. One innovation has been for gangs to stop cars, partly by throwing eggs on the windshield so the driver can't see, then demand that the driver sign a bill of sale for the automobile and hand it over, or else. All revolutions produce some anarchy. But the divisions between Christians and Muslims, (massive numbers of) Islamists and (tiny numbers of) secularist, treatment of women, and other issues have a structural component that just isn't going to go away easily. The same applies to the underlying hostility toward Israel, the United States, and the West in general... Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
AN OFFICE OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE MORAL BANKRUPTCY
Posted by Barbara Taverna, March 15, 2011. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared
in the Spectator
|
|
On Saturday, after the massacre of the Fogel family, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague said: Last night, five members of a Jewish family, including a baby, were found stabbed to death in the Itamar settlement near Nablus on the Northern West Bank. The friends and relatives of the family killed in Itamar have my deepest sympathies. This was an act of incomprehensible cruelty and brutality which I utterly condemn. We hope the perpetrator is swiftly brought to justice. Today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: We are extremely concerned by the Government of Israel's approval of 400 new housing units in settlements in the West Bank. We have consistently made clear, including at the UN with France and Germany, that settlements are illegal, an obstacle to peace and a threat to a two-state solution. Further steps to advance settlement construction are counterproductive and undermine peace at a time when all possible efforts have to be made to return to the negotiating table. So to the British Foreign Office, when the Arabs slaughter a Jewish family including a three month-old baby this does not constitute an obstacle to peace, but when Israelis build on land to which they are legally and morally entitled this does. This is an expression of incomprehensible moral bankruptcy which all decent people should utterly condemn. Today the massacred Fogel family was buried in Jerusalem. And as anticipated, the moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American 'liberal' media — a sickening form of armchair barbarism which is also in evidence, it has to be said, on the comment thread beneath my post below. Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity — or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as 'hard-line settlers' or extremists. Given that three of the victims were children, one a baby of three months whose throat was cut, such a response is utterly degraded. The New York Times blamed Israeli 'defiance' over renewed 'settlement' building in the wake of the massacre for throwing already shaky peace efforts into a new tailspin. So to the New York Times, it's not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised 'peace prospects' — because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages — but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick. Both CNN and the BBC, meanwhile, along with Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian, gave the impression that this was not a terrorist attack but the actions of an 'intruder' — for all the world as if this was a burglary that got out of hand. CNN said: Five members of an Israeli family were killed in the West Bank early Saturday morning in what the Israeli military is calling a 'terror attack'...According to a military spokeswoman, an intruder entered the Israeli settlement of Itamar near the northern West Bank city of Nablus around 1 am, made his way into a family home and killed two parents and their three children. The BBC similarly reported: The family — including three children — were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported... Honest Reporting finds the BBC treatment of this massacre, all but burying the details of the attack on the Fogel family beneath a story about those wicked settlements, the most shocking and callous of all this dreadful coverage. For those who don't appreciate the role played by the 'moderate' PA in glorifying terrorism and inciting the mass murder of Israelis, Palestinian Media Watch has assembled some recent examples here — including the award by Abbas of $2000 to the family of a terrorist who attacked and tried to kill Israeli soldiers two months ago. (Graphic pictures of the bodies of the slain Fogel family are circulating on the net and on YouTube. The relatives of the massacre victims have made them publicly available in order to show the world the full horror of the Arab barbarism in Itamar. However, I have decided not to link to these pictures. The reported wishes of a distraught family cannot in my view justify what is inescapably a gratuitous invasion of the privacy and dignity of the dead. But read this, and weep.) What is being deliberately ignored through this travesty of reporting is not just the human tragedy of this terrible massacre. It is the politically crucial fact that it was apparently carried out not by Hamas but by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the terrorist wing of Fatah. Fatah is the party of Mahmoud Abbas, the Holocaust denier who is the allegedly 'moderate' Chairman of the PA — and who not surprisingly couldn't even bring himself to express unequivocal horror at the atrocity. This diabolical deed therefore gives the lie to all those who have been supporting, promoting and funding the PA as 'moderates' who deserve a state of their own. The fact is that America, Britain and the EU have been not only promoting this bunch of neo-Nazi fanatics and baby murderers. They have also been forcing their putative victim, Israel, to offer them its own throat to be cut, along with that of Jewish babies. And these craven governments in turn are being egged on by the bigots, useful idiots and worse of the British, European and — it has to be said loud and clear — Israeli 'liberal' intelligentsia. Truly, this is beyond desolation. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
PA TV GLORIFIED TERRORIST WHO KILLED 3 IN 2002 TERROR ATTACK
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, March 14, 2011. |
|
A Palestinian Authority video TV tribute to "Martyrs" three weeks ago included the terrorist who killed three Israelis in a 2002 terror attack in the West Bank town of Itamar. Itamar was the scene of Friday's terror attack, in which Ruth and Udi Fogel and their three children were murdered. http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4794 "Martyrs (Shahids) of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Nablus. The Palestinian National Resistance Brigades." [PA TV (Fatah), several times daily Feb. 21-24, 2011] The video was in honor of the anniversary of the founding of the DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and was broadcast on PA TV several times daily for four days. It featured a collage with photographs labeled "Martyrs (Shahids) of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Nablus." It included the picture of terrorist Habash Hanani, who in May 2002 entered Itamar and murdered three students in the local high school. (Shown at bottom right of photo.) PA TV glorified additional terrorists with photographs, including Ahmad Yasser, who carried out a shooting attack in the town of Yitzhar in June 2002, injuring three soldiers (shown at lower left corner of PA TV collage above), and Hani Al-Akad, who in 2004 recruited female suicide terrorists and planned a double suicide attack in Tel Aviv (holding a machine gun, shown at upper right of PA TV collage above.) "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Heroes of the special operations in northern Palestine" [PA TV (Fatah), several times daily Feb. 21-24, 2011] Another photo collage in the video labeled "Heroes of the special operations in northern Palestine" showed 16 photographs of DFLP members from the past posing with weapons, some dressed in military uniforms, others making V-signs. The DFLP has carried out several terror attacks in the north:
This PA TV video is an example of the Palestinian Authority's policy of continued terror glorification. http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=448 Click to see Palestinian Media Watch's report From Terrorists to Role Models. here. Itamar Marcus is director of PMW — Palestinian Media Watch — (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. |
|
SOMETIMES ENOUGH IS MORE THAN PLENTY
Posted by Leslie Korshak, March 14, 2011. |
|
Okay, sometimes enough is more than plenty and the myths about Israel's founding go to the very core of the matter. To begin, Israel is situated where three great continents meet (Africa, Europe and Asia) it is only appropriate that human life began there, but there is where truth both begins and concludes... Israel was never supposed to happen, it was intended to be a form of global apology for the atrocities of the Nazis throughout Europe. When the British had control, under their mandate, Israel was shaped as a roughly hewn rock, both round and defensible, what the rest of the world carved out was just the opposite a sliver constrained by a bottle neck and divided east to west. While the sate was intended to go from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River the rest of the countries saw to it that it would never happen... those 16,000 Freedom Fighters (my Great Uncle among them) were supposed to be left to die in the sand of the ever encroaching desert. Truman's first 'friendly' official act was to throw a blockade around the nascent country and a blockage is an aggressive act announcing impending war... some friendly... Here's where the real richness of our history becomes decayed by governmental truth... Were it not for the likes of Myer Lansky, Sid Korshak and Frank Sinatra who both bribed and charmed the Mexican government to run the blockade those brave, rare people would be left for dead. As a Jew, one is allowed to claim their birthright as a full citizen as did Lansky prior to his testimony in front of a hostile senate sub-committee. After two years Israel caved into the threat of America's demands, ironically, he never did testify and was acquitted... he died at the age of ninety, ironically he was born on the Fourth of July. No safe harbor meant no more safely large, deposited money and so American Jewish support for their state was left to the likes of Steven Spielberg who during the last years of the Intifada sent one whole million dollars to the children of terrorism while at the same time spent twelve million dollars so that his wife and her horse could have their privacy during their dancing classes (dressage) near the beach. If he continues as "Mr. Israel" it will tale all of Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts and energy to keep the state afloat. My next question is why is Lansky's name so offensive to American Jews? He helped the CIA defend against Nazi gatherings here in the 'land of the free and the home of the brave...' He organized the American run on the blockade, so why all this shuddering, why all this shame? Was he a thug or a gangster? He most certainly was not, he was an accountant who found crime and along with the likes of Korshak (an attorney) organized it keeping normal people out often ridding the country of greater evils. Hasn't the time come to get over all of this tangled web we have woven? In Israel, four generations of children ate meals with their parents while living together, raising themselves. My closest friend is a Sabra (first generation Israeli woman) and to see the strength of their union is to see something truly fine and rare. I was lucky enough to claim my citizenship during the worst days of the last (?) Intifada and what I learned was astoundingly simple... wars, differences, belief systems nothing mattered after all these years Israel has learned the essential magic of simple everyday kindness... you can buy flowers anywhere but if you want a big motherly hug along with them go to the German Colony on Shabot... it never fails. The sheer civility of a people of every nation has brought back a language long thought to be dead, there is a magic in Jerusalem that exists nowhere else... when embraced by stranger after stranger when asking for simple directions, when tears roll down their beautiful, young faces and they tell you your being there gives them hope, you walk forever with a new and deeply ingrained humility — for they have learned that kindness brings with it, hope and hope is life it is the future... as the old American folk song asks..."when will we ever learn? Oh when will we ever learn...?" A proud and most humnle citizen,
Contact Leslie Korshak by email at lesliekorshak@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: DAY BY DAY
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 14, 2011. |
|
There is no other way to cope with matters now, I think. The Fogel funeral yesterday was attended by some twenty-thousand (according to the JPost count). 
~~~~~~~~~~ Former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, the first to deliver a eulogy, spoke with an immeasurable sense of pain: "There are situations, there are days there are hours where you are at loss for words. You feel and sense the pain, feel the anger and mostly, feel the powerlessness... ~~~~~~~~~~ The rabbi is a Holocaust survivor and his tortured words are born of his experience. But I would suggest that we are not powerless today, and what calls out to us now is our obligation to assert our power, in order to protect our own, rather than deliberately shackling it. ~~~~~~~~~~ Rabbi Lau then shifted themes, and his words here were echoed over and over by others: "We will not bend, we will not give up, we returned to the land of our fathers and it is our home, and the children shall return within their borders and nothing will prevent our faith in the righteousness of our path." To this I say amen v'amen! ~~~~~~~~~~ We Jews are a special people. And it is a source of immeasurable pride that we don't respond to diabolic hatred by returning hatred and invoking the need for violence. Instead we invoke the need to take steps that are positive and enhance our heritage. This was a major theme at the funeral. Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger declared that only G-d can avenge the blood of the murdered family: "We don't have the option of avenging their blood" Instead, "Itamar needs to become a major city in Israel as a response to this murder...Another neighborhood, that's the answer. More building, that's the answer." And Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin declared: "We will live, we will continue to build and to plant, we will continue to grip onto the land of Israel: in Itamar, in Beit Hagai, in Hebron and in Jerusalem, everywhere and any time. "More construction, more life, more hanging onto the land. This is our answer to the murderers, so that they know they haven't gotten the better of us. "We will awaken our right to build anywhere and at anytime." ~~~~~~~~~~ It's the last sentence I cite from Rivlin, however, that generates unease. Why, I ask, should it take a terrorist massacre to "awaken our right to build"? Why don't we feel strong in this right all of the time? And then the very unsettling corollary: When things return to normal, whatever that means here, does that mean that our sense of entitlement will once again become dormant? ~~~~~~~~~~ If there is any message to my posting today, this is it: There is no turning back to what was. There is new-found recognition of the realities and new determination to hold fast to our land and to build on it. We must, at all cost, sustain this. For if we let go, it is at our own peril. ~~~~~~~~~~ During a shiva call to the bereaved family last night, Prime Minister Netanyahu sounded a similar theme; The terrorists shoot, and we build, he told them. "They say Eretz Yisrael is acquired through pain and suffering, but we didn't think the pain and suffering would be this great. This heinous act has led all of us to say, 'Enough.'" Yes, enough! if only he will remember for all his time as head of the government that it is enough. And if he will accept that if his government had been stronger from the start, with more of any eye to the security of the people, the pain and suffering might not have been so great. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu's statement followed a decision that was made just hours before by the Cabinet: to accept a Motzei Shabbat recommendation by the Ministerial Committee on Settlements — which includes Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Home Front Minister Matan Vilnai, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon — to approve the building of 500 housing units in Judea and Samaria — in Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma'aleh Adumim, and elsewhere. The announcement alluded to "measured building" and indeed that is what it is. What is more, these are all housing units that were in the planning stages but were halted as a gesture to get the Palestinian Arabs to the negotiating table. So...good, but not sufficient, of course. ~~~~~~~~~~ The issue here, of course, remains one of concessions. Will our government truly take to heart the talk about an awakened "right to build anywhere at any time"? Or will there still be tip-toeing in deference to the demands of the international community and in some deluded expectation that slow building will help foster a "peace process."? ~~~~~~~~~~ Naturally, we're already being condemned for this small amount of building. By the PA: Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh said, "The climate that this decision creates only causes problems." By the UN: Special envoy Robert Serry declared himself "concerned" about the report of renewed building, saying that it "is not conducive to efforts to renew negotiations and achieve a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace." By the US: A statement by the US Embassy declared, "We're deeply concerned by continuing Israeli actions on settlements in the West Bank. As we said before, we view these settlements as illegitimate and as running counter to efforts to resume direct negotiations." ~~~~~~~~~~ Is there a diplomatic way to tell them, "Stuff it"? ~~~~~~~~~~ Maddeningly, incredibly, Defense Minister Barak, speaking at the Institute for National Security Studies yesterday, said that we are going to see a "political tsunami" following international recognition of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. "Israel's de-legitimization is in sight and it would be wrong to ignore this tsunami. A political initiative [that is, an alternate 'peace plan'] will minimize the chances along the road." To promote this on the very day the Fogels were buried, seemed to me the ultimate in obtuse statements, devoid of sensitivity to the mood of the nation. Can we also tell Barak to "stuff it"? ~~~~~~~~~~ There is one other issue that I want to examine here in some depth: that of PA incitement. Last spring, the Israeli government had announced establishment of an "incitement index" that would be based on a mechanism for monitoring and quantifying PA incitement on a quarterly basis. It was to be managed by Brig.-Gen. (res) Yossi Kuperwasser, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry (which is headed by Moshe Ya'alon). Until now, the index has been kept behind closed doors. The reason, most certainly, was because it was not "politically correct" to make much of it when we were supposed to be "pursuing peace" with the Palestinian Arabs. But now, in response to the massacre, the government has gone public with it. Yesterday, the Prime Minister's Office released a paper documenting recent acts of incitement, and Kuperwasser said that Israel was going to ask Western nations to stop funding the Palestinian educational system and Palestinian TV until there was a significant supervisory body. A bit vague, in terms of what was expected, but the point, hopefully is being made. ~~~~~~~~~~ While many examples were provided by the Prime Minister's Office, I'll restrict myself here to one pertinent example of the sort of incitement that is being addressed: Yesterday, Fatah, the primary faction of the PA, named a town square in El-Bireh, adjacent to Ramallah, after Dalal al-Mughrabi, who directed the Coastal Road Massacre — one of the most heinous terrorist attacks in Israel's history: a bus hijacking in 1978 in which 37 Israelis, including 13 children, were killed and 71 wounded. That this sort of action by the PA or its primary faction should be exposed to the world is all to the good, and it's heartening to see Israel going on the offensive. ~~~~~~~~~~ There is, however, one proviso here that must be taken seriously. Because Abbas has just denied that there is incitement in the PA schools, and has invited a committee to investigate, I placed a call to Dr. Arnon Groiss, a scholar in ME studies with ten years of experience in studying and analyzing PA textbooks. I sought an authoritative statement from Dr. Groiss; what I got from him was enlightening: There is no direct incitement in PA texts, said Dr. Groiss. No statements abjuring people to "kill the Jews" or "liberate Jerusalem." They are clever and in this sense have deniability. What we see in the PA texts, instead, is "a sophisticated hidden incitement." Thus they teach that jihad is praiseworthy and that martyrs are to be honored. The implications are obvious. They are setting up a mental set that leads to war — educating for a delayed war with Israel, says Dr. Groiss. There are three aspects to this education: 1) Non-recognition of Israel. Israel has no rights nor history in the region that is acknowledged in the texts. With a couple of recent and very specific exceptions, there are no maps with Israel on them and no cities are acknowledged to be Jewish cities. 2) Demonization. Israel (or Jews) as the source of all evil. 3) Non-advocacy of peace with Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ If incitement is understood this way, the PA might indeed claim that the naming of a square after al-Mughrabi is not "incitement." No one has said that people today should go out and do what she did. This is merely the honoring of someone from Palestinian Arab history. Technically, true. But most obviously, the message is that what she did was worthy of honor and something to be emulated. It may be that a word other than "incitement" would serve better here and make our case even more effectively. Technical deniability is the last thing we want them to have. ~~~~~~~~~~ With regard to incitement, in the broader sense, please see, "Let's stop pretending," a piece by Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch: "Everyone involved in the peace process is making a tragic mistake by assuming the incitement is just another issue that has to be dealt with, like the issues of water, borders, and refugees. All of those are issues that must be negotiated as part of a peace process. But as long as the Palestinian Authority continues to teach these messages [of hate], clearly there is no peace process. ~~~~~~~~~~ The nature of the terrorist attack at Itamar was so horrendous that there are PA officials working overtime to deny that their people were involved at all. First we had PA Minister for the Settlements Wall Maher Ghanaim, who said Jews may have been behind the "incident" (incident?) because it would "justify [settler] crimes" and permit the establishment of more housing in the West Bank. I found that to be a breathtakingly obscene libel. Today we have something else. Khaled Abu Toameh reports that several Palestinian news outlets are saying that it was a foreign worker that committed the murders. According to one version, a family in the nearby village of Awarta said that an Asian worker did it because the Fogels refused to pay him his salary. ~~~~~~~~~~ Interesting that the Arab village of Awarta, close by Itamar, was mentioned. For the trail out of Itamar seems to have led to Awarta, which is where the IDF is focusing its search — doing a house to house search, I believe. Said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, "We will not rest until we lay our hands on the murderers."
I have no doubt of this.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
ANGER AND FRUSTRATION
Posted by Marc Prowisor, March 14, 2011. |
|
The pictures of the attack in Itamar bring back the nightmares of the last round of violence during the uprising that started in the year 2000. Even then, people refused to realize the horror and intensity of the attacks. Many of these attacks were not even shown to the world, let alone our people. Our Arab foes do not have courage, do not have honor, they never did, and who knows if they ever will. I am not being derogatory, simply factual. Arab terror prefers the weak, the unarmed as targets, and as shields. Do they not use schools and hospitals as staging grounds for attacks? The rebellions in the Arab nations and their history prove these points, their own treatment of their own populations show us that, INCLUDING how they treat their brethren in Judea and Samaria. This is what many of them are rebelling about! What a fitting end to Israel Apartheid Week, by showing the world who gets hailed as a hero in the Arab world, just as these heinous celebrations in Gaza, Ramallah, Nablus and other places prove. Their leaders hesitate to condemn this attack or do so while explaining how it is "understandable" and these same Arab leaders are the same people our own weak minded, misdirected, deceived youth in college campuses flock to. These are the new heroes of so-called "Liberal thinkers", these are the people who get invited to so many Jewish events, and these are the speakers at J STREET and other and ignorant and self hating organizations. My own personal frustration regarding this particular attack comes from my own experience in the Security world. I watch the outpouring of hearts from around the world to bond with the remaining members of this dear family. The majority of the Jewish world is crying, and giant efforts are being made to assist the family in any need they may have. WHAT ABOUT PREVENTING ATTACKS LIKE THESE? Why do we only wake up when we are victims, why will we only see major efforts being made then? Of course we come across those who say, Jews shouldn't be there, then this would not have happened... really? Has terror against Israel only started in 1967? Has it only been limited to Judea and Samaria? All of this is ONLY because we are in our historic homeland? How ignorant can someone be? I know, VERY ignorant. I am frustrated and angry because I have worked years at trying to convince our own that we must protect our people, we must defend and fight against our enemies, just like anyone else in this world! The concept of Jews defending themselves and standing up to their enemies is still relatively foreign to many outside of Israel, even to a few inside of Israel. Defense and Strength are multi dimensional, and each side must be addressed and dealt with. Standing up to Politicians, Hate groups, wrongful legislatures are only a few of the dimensions. Building, populating, LIVING are more, and my realm; Security is another. I am frustrated that we act only "after" and not "before". Why do most people not realize that the point is to PREVENT and STOP terror attacks against us? We have proven to the world that we excel at being victims, our Arab neighbors have even jumped on the bandwagon, they figure it worked for the Jews, "why not us?" Except in this case they have duped an entire generation and world from seeing just who is really victimizing whom, these Arab leaders have hidden themselves from the world and their own people's eyes. They have portrayed the Jews and Israel as enemies (for years and generations) to veer attention away from their own despicable acts against their own and humanity. As parents we try to safeguard our children, we do whatever necessary and then some. We take precautions regarding our property and watching over those dear to us. We try to prevent problems from occurring, we are considered wise and "sharp" if we have the insight to foresee possible problems and act in a pro-active manner. Shouldn't it be the same in how we act towards our people in Israel? I know standing up and defending yourself and people is not for everyone, I know fighting back against terror doesn't speak to most. Many people feel easier comforting victims or the hurt. Many even prefer this. I would like to prevent more of our people from becoming victims... I would like to stop the hurt. I would like to fund projects that may prevent attacks from occurring and watch children grow, marry, and become parents. I know, many of you are saying, "he's a dreamer." No I am not a dreamer, I "hang" with a bunch of people (and majority of a country) who feel and act the same way, I also know that many of you reading this feel the same way. We can make this happen. Lets make this happen! Chesed (Kindness) has always been known as a Jewish characteristic, Gevorah (strength) is also. No More Jewish Victims! Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And
visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com
Visit his websites at
This article is archived at
|
|
A LETTER TO OUR SON HAGAY
Posted by Dov Shefi, March 14, 2011. |
|
We are the parents of Hagay Shefi who was killed in the course of the Mega-Terror attack on USA, 9/11/2001. We were asked by the Ntiopnal Memorial and Museum to send photos and documents about our son. We decided to send a virtual letter to our son, a copy of which is here: |
|
Hagay Shefi, 24/10/66- 11/9/2001, WTC. 106th fl. Son of Esther and Dov Shefi Husband of Sigal Shefi-Asher Father of Roy (14) and Naomi (12) Shefi Brother of Yishai Shefi (56) and Pazit Baum-Shefi (51) Our unforgettable and beloved son Hagay Shefi (34) On 9/11/01, 15:55 Israel time (08:55 US time) your mother and myself were at home, in a suburb of Tel-Aviv, Israel. We intended to go out for arrangements, however when I looked at my watch, I decided, as usually I do, to wait for the Radio news at 16:00. The news broadcast was opened with description that "a small airplane crashed into one of the WTC Towers". After 2 seconds our TV was opened on CNN channel. We watched that suddenly a big passenger's airplane crashed into the south Tower of WTC. Your mother started to worry and suggested that we shall call you immediately. I tried to convince her that there is nothing to worry about, since your business as the Co-Founder and President of GoldTier Technologies Inc., was in New Jersey. Mother refused to agree (Mother is always a mother), so I tried to get you by phone. There was only a recorded answer with your voice. Your mother insisted that we call, without delay, your wife. Sigal's phone was occupied 10 minutes but finally she answered and said: "Yes, Hagay is there, at WTC, north tower, 106th floor. He was invited to speak as a keynote speaker at a Conference of Directors of Banks at "Windows on the World". Sigal told us that "just now he called me and said that "a bomb has exploded and there is a lot of smoke in the building. He added that he does not believe that the people at this floor will survive and used words of farewell." We shall never forget the moment that we heard this shocking news. We felt that the heaven fell on us. Mother and I were shocked and started to cry. While the CNN breaking news continued describing the crash into the south Tower. Then we saw how the south and the north towers crashed down one after the other. We cannot believe that 10 years passed since we were informed by your dear wife- Sigal, that you have been on 9/11/01 at WTC. You were brutally killed with 3000 other fellows Americans by the Al-Qaeda Mega-Terror attack on USA. We cannot believe that you will continue not to be with us physically. However, your memory has been and will be preserved by every one of our greater family. You have been a most loyal son, a loyal husband to Sigal and father to Roy, 5, and Naomi, 3. You were loved and appreciated by your brother Yishai and your sister Pazit and their families. All of the greater Shefi family admired you for your distinguished achievements: You were born in Tel-Aviv, Israel. You started to show interest in business at the age of five (5) !! by "negotiating" terms and conditions with a grocery's owner (without disclosing us), offering him that you would be ready to guard that every customer that will take ice-cream from the box will not "forget" to pay. You demanded and so was agreed that in consideration you will receive one ice-cream every day. You didn't ask us for our permission weather to do it and just reported us only after you summed up the T&C. You requested from mother that as from that conclusion of the "transaction" you will have to finish your lunches when arriving from your kindergarten in a speed, "to be free for your work". When you reached the age of 12 you started a business of selling, early in the morning, fresh rolls to over 1000 families in our residential area-Ramat Ilan. Later, when in high school, you started to import rock- records from U.K., after receiving requests and money in advance from your class- mates. You sold your business for a high price and bought a car at the age of 17. You were an excellent soccer player as a boy, a distinguished Cadet & officer of the I.D.F., a distinguished student who completed Bar-Ilan University with an MBA (magna cum laude). Four years after your arrival to U.S.A., at the age of 29, you were appointed as president and C.E.O. of a company. The president of the mother company, Sungard Data Systems (SDS) — Mr. Chris Conde. — most appreciated you and used to call you "Hagay what a guy." All your many friends in the U.S. and in Israel are missing your wisdom, loyal friendship and your sense of humor. It has been always said that you were the heart and the dynamo-buster-turbo of every company you were running. All of us in the family will remember you forever and you will continue to be in our hearts and our source of pride. We shall provide Sigal and your kids — our beloved grandchildren Roy and Naomi — the best of our love and care. Your kids are excellent pupils. Roy was awarded in a ceremony on February 24, 2011 the title of "the best pupil of high school." Your compulsory service in the Israeli army was postponed because you were admitted to the "Academic Unit" to enable you to study at Bar-Ian University Economics and Business Administration. You concluded your studies in 1992 and were awarded BA in Economy and Master in Business Administration (MBA) (Magna cum Laude).Parallel, you ended school of officers as a distinguished Cadet. Upon concluding your military service as a Captain you were awarded in 1992 by the then Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Ehud Barak a "Distinguish Officer Certificate." You were awarded annually "student prizes" (stipends) from the University of $500.00. Due to your integrity, you attempted to give your parents who paid for your tuition, these awards; however we kindly rejected these attempts. We told you to keep the money for yourself, since they were awarded due to y o u r o w n achievements. Since 9/11/01 your father persuaded 10 Mayors in Israel to construct and inaugurate 10 memorials in 10 cities to commemorate the 2,980 victims of 9/11. Recently your father managed to persuade Bar-Ian University to initiate the construction and the inauguration of the "Hagay Shefi Gate" at the Bar-Ilan University's Amphitheatre. This ceremony took place, on September 1st, 2010, with the presence of the President of Bar-Ian, the acting US Ambassador. the Dean of School of Business, our friends and many guests. All Memorials can be seen at www.hagayshefi.info. This site was created by your loving brother Yishai. Rest in peace, our beloved and admired Hagay, Esther and Dov Shefi, Brig. Gen. (Ret.) -
|
|
ENSURING ISRAEL MILITARY SUPERIORITY IS VITAL TO MAINTAIN PEACE TREATIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Posted by Tawfik Hamid, March 14, 2011. |
|
The recent e-revolutions that swept several countries in the Middle East have created a new situation that can seriously affect the current peace treaties between some Arab countries and Israel. These include the Camp David peace treaty with Egypt. Arab regimes that pretended to be friends with Israel have allowed -for several decades-unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism to flourish in their societies. Unlike anti-Semitism in the Arab world during the 1950s and 1960s that was predominantly political, the current form of anti-Semitic views in the Arab world is predominantly religious in nature. This change makes addressing anti-Semitism much more complicated and difficult to solve. It appears that some of the former Arab leaders allowed anti-Semitism to develop to pathological levels so that they could always blame Israel for the problems within their countries. For example, it was normal for some government officials in Egypt to blame "foreign hands" (referring to Israel) to put the blame on Israel for any problem they face — including terrorist acts. Currently, there are two important trends that can affect the course of the relations between Arabs and Israel. The first trend is caused by having more hostile governments toward Israel as a result of these revolutions. The worst case scenario of this trend is if such governments decided to end their peace treaties with Israel. The second trend is one that can have a positive impact on Arab-Israeli relations and is based on the following observations: 1 — Arab countries are now more concerned about their local national problems after the revolutions than with the Palestinian issue. For example, despite the attempt of some religious scholars such as Sheikh Al-Quradawy attempting to resurrect the Palestinian issue with Egyptians, the general theme of the revolution in Egypt has been focused on the domestic situation rather than the Arab-Israeli conflict. This trend was also noticed in other Arab countries such as Tunisia and Bahrain. Israel cannot rely solely on the above positive trends as Islamist based anti-Semitism is deeply imbedded in the minds of millions of Muslims. In fact, ensuring Israel military superiority is the best antidote for wars in the area. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) that repeatedly stood against the peace treaty with Israel has recently announced that they will respect the treaty. This was not simply because they changed their views about Israel and the Jews but it was primarily because of the 'fear' of the Israel Military retaliation. The MB knows very well that if they came to power and cancelled the peace treaty with Israel, the Israel military retaliation in such a case can paralyze the country and prove beyond doubt to many Muslims that the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood "Islam is the solution" is hoax. It is important in this context to mention that 'fear' is an important component of Islamists minds. The fear of "Hell Fire" is for example an essential component of the religious education of millions of Muslims. The fear from retaliation of "Allah" is what makes many follow the religion so strictly as they are afraid of the punishment. Israel MUST learn the lesson that all its negotiations with the Palestinians to stop terrorism inside Israel were virtually fruitless. On the contrary, a single powerful attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009 that created 'fear' in the mind of the Palestinians from the Israel Military power managed to almost stop Palestinian terror attacks inside Israel until today. The existence of the security barrier has also possibly contributed to such an effect. In brief; "fear' is an important and influential component of the Arab Muslim minds. If Israel lost its Military superiority in the area, the new Arab governments will be encouraged to end the peace treaties with Israel which can drag the whole area into wars. The best guarantee to maintain peace treaties in the area is to ensure the Military superiority of Israel in the Middle East.
|
|
ITAMAR MASSACRE: BLOGGERS GET IT, MSM DOESN'T
Posted by Laura, March 14, 2011. |
|
This is from Honest Reporting
|
|
A delegation bloggers understands the Itamar massacre better than the legions of Israel's foreign press corps. Out of everything I've read about the grisly murders, Claire Berlinski's take is the most humanizing and intelligent I've seen: One very quick point I'll make is that this was clearly not a family above all of "settlers" —some alien species that exists primarily as a political bargaining point —but of human beings. In the home next door to the one that was invaded, kids' clothing was hanging on the line next to a child's bicycle. You simply cannot look at that and think, "This story is above all about land and politics." This story is above all about murder. They were children and they were murdered. Two more children were orphaned. The children were targeted deliberately. This was a premeditated murder —not a crime of passion or self-defense — and it was a psychotically savage crime. Unfortunately, the MSM regards the Fogels as simply "settlers;" that "S word" dominated headline after headline after headline, while the BBC placed politics ahead of murder. (Sky News skewed priorities too.) The Fogels were a family. Other bloggers in the delegation — arranged by Act for Israel — include Chuck DeVore, Tim Mak and Judith Levy. More about their visit to Itamar at YNet News. Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
A CHALLENGE TO THE 'PEACE' CAMP
Posted by Susana K-M, March 14, 2011. |
|
This was written by David Suissa "Even if you're a passionate peacenik, you have to admit that this is a bad joke. What does Jewish construction have to do with a Jew-hatred that has been burned into Arab hearts since before the first settlement or even Israel ever existed? " |
|
Now you have a chance to make amends and bring some balance to your message It is fashionable when talking about the "peace process" to focus on hope — to try to nurture the moderate elements among our "peace partners" and constantly inject good faith and good will to keep the process moving "forward." Because I crave peace by nature, I've always had some sympathy for this approach, which is why I have many friends on the left and why I occasionally take a break from my hard-nosed realism to indulge in more dreamlike and wishful prose. This is not one of those times. When I saw the horrifying pictures of the Jewish family members in Itamar who were stabbed to death in their own home — Udi and Ruth Fogel (36 and 35 years old), and their children Yoav (11 years old), Elad (4) and their 3-month-old daughter, Hadas — I thought of recent reports on the glorification of terrorism in Palestinian society. It was impossible not to connect the dots. In the reports, from Palestinian Media Watch, I learned that the terrorist responsible for the most lethal attack against Israel, Dalal Mughrabi, is now immortalized in two elementary schools, a kindergarten, a computer center, summer camps, football tournaments, a community center, a sports team, a public square, a street, an election course, an adult education course, a university club, a dance troupe, a military unit, a dormitory in a youth center, a TV quiz team and a graduation ceremony. I also learned that today, a Palestinian child can walk to school along a street named after the terrorist Abu Jihad, who planned a bus hijacking that killed 37, spend the day in a school named after Ahmad Yassin, the man who founded Hamas, play soccer in the afternoon in a tournament honoring terrorist Abd Al-Basset Odeh, who killed 31, and end his day at a youth center named after Abu Iyad, who was responsible for killing 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich. These are the heroes of Palestinian society — not Abraham Lincolns and Albert Einsteins and Martin Luther Kings but murderers who crave the spilling of Jewish blood. Before you rush to defend our "new and improved" Palestinian "peace partners," note that it was Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas who funded a computer center named after Dalal Mughrabi in 2009, and who supported the naming of the square in her honor in 2010. "Of course, we want to name a square after her," he said to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on Jan.17, 2010. And who sponsored a sporting event named after one of the most prominent terrorist of all, Abu Jihad, in May 2010? None other than PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the man who is building the "new" Palestine. Just last year, Mahmoud Al-Aloui, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, said in an interview in Al-Hayat Al Jadida: "It is our right and our duty to take pride in all of the Shahids (martyrs), and it is our duty to convey this message in the most direct manner to the generations to come." He wasn't kidding. Only a month ago, PA President Abbas awarded $2000 to the family of a terrorist who attacked two Israeli soldiers in December. And the very day before the Itamar murders, PA presidential advisor Sabri Saidam delivered a speech reported in Al Ayyam, in which he emphasized that "the weapons must be turned towards the main enemy [Israel] and internal differences of opinion must be set aside." This glorification of Jew-hatred and murder in the name of martyrdom — which marinates all strata of Palestinian society — is happening under the watchful eyes of our Palestinian "peace partners," who have convinced most of the world, and many Israel supporters, that the real obstacle to peace is not Palestinian incitement to murder but Jewish building of apartments in East Jerusalem. Even if you're a passionate peacenik, you have to admit that this is a bad joke. What does Jewish construction have to do with a Jew-hatred that has been burned into Arab hearts since before the first settlement or even Israel ever existed? What else but Jew-hatred can explain the consistent refusal by Palestinian leaders to recognize a Jewish state and prepare their people for the inevitable compromises that peace with Jews will require? As Sari Nusseibeh once said, "How can we Palestinians expect Israel to think we want co-existence when our position on the refugee issue has been tantamount to a call for Israel's destruction?" So, here's my message to my friends in the peace camp. You've done an amazing job of telling the world that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is really, really important, and that Israel is primarily responsible for the absence of this agreement. In fact, you've done such an amazing job of blaming Israel that my friend Gary Rosenblatt, editor of the Jewish Week, wrote last week that Israel has become a "source of embarrassment" for many American Jews. Imagine that. Well, now you have a chance to make amends and bring some balance to your message. In honor of the children who were stabbed to death in Itamar, you can release this statement to the world: "It is really, really important, for the sake of peace, that Palestinian leaders eliminate the glorification of terrorism and Jew-hatred that permeates their society, and begin immediately to teach the benefits and compromises of peaceful co-existence with a Jewish state." Who's brave enough in the peace camp to sign their name to that statement? Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
UPRISING IN MIDDLE EAST NOT DEMOCRATIC FROM THE HORSES MOUTH
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 14, 2011. |
|
This was written by Keith of the Walid Shoebat Foundation. |
|
Friends Here is an interview conducted with spokesman for Islamic terror organization Uthman Badar, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia.
Our media lies or are so ignorant they do not know enough to even ask the right questions. Our politicians are selling us out and the only thing we can do is pray for "the Peace of Jerusalem." Let us also pray for the communities in Judea and Samaria and the Fogel family that was brutally murdered. May G-d protect Israel and judge the enemies of his people accordingly to their wickedness. Here is one the pieces of scripture that predicts the propaganda and violence against Israel Ezekiel 36: 1-6 1"And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord G-d: Because the enemy said of you, 'Aha!' and, 'The ancient heights have become our possession,' 3 Therefore prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord G-d: Precisely because they made you desolate and crushed you from all sides, so that you became the possession of the rest of the nations, and you became the talk and evil gossip of the people, 4 Therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord G-d: Thus says the Lord G-d to the mountains and the hills, the ravines and the valleys, the desolate wastes and the deserted cities, which have become a prey and derision to the rest of the nations all around, 5 Therefore thus says the Lord G-d: Surely I have spoken in my hot jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave my land to themselves as a possession with wholehearted joy and utter contempt, that they might make its pasture lands a prey. 6 Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel, and say to the mountains and hills, to the ravines and valleys, Thus says the Lord G-d: Behold, I have spoken in my jealous wrath, because you have suffered the reproach of the nations. 7 Therefore thus says the Lord G-d: I swear that the nations that are all around you shall themselves suffer reproach. Keith
|
|
"CHILD MURDER" IN THE VILLAGE OF ITAMAR: THERE MUST BE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY INCITEMENT
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, March 14, 2011. |
|
UN Security Council Resolution 1377 "reaffirms its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed." Incitement is the Weapon Political and religious incitement plays a crucial role in mobilizing and motivating Palestinian terrorism. After the horrendous 2002 suicide bombing of a Passover Seder in a Netanya hotel, Fouad Ajami, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University, wrote: "The suicide bomber of the Passover massacre did not descend from the sky; he walked straight out of the culture of incitement let loose on the land, a menace hovering over Israel, a great Palestinian and Arab refusal to let that country be, to cede it a place among the nations, he partook of the culture all around him — the glee [that] greets those brutal deeds of terror, the cult that rises around the martyrs and their families." Despite pledges to renounce violence against Israel, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas continue to incite, inflame and encourage Palestinian Arabs to pin every problem they face as individuals and as a society on Israel. This strategy of channeling frustrations into hatred and the desire for revenge against Israel is adopted both by Israel 's immediate Palestinian neighbors and Arab leaders throughout the Muslim-Arab world. Arab leaders and the European Union [EU] lend support to the Palestinian cause with money and a combination of anti-Israeli and anti-American messages from government-controlled media outlets and educational systems. Sermons that legitimize violence in the name of Islam are encouraged, delivered by extremists throughout Muslim countries and in free countries in the West. The Effect of Indoctrination These anti-Israeli actions have a profound impact on generations of Arabs fed a steady diet of poison-filled propaganda. Arab opinion polls find there is little desire for peace with Israel. Survey after survey shows that the majority of those polled believed the Arab-Israeli conflict should continue; and in most cases over 50 percent want Israel to eventually disappear from the Middle Eastern map. But those polls also signify more worrisome effects. Arab incitement, now broadened to include anti-Western sentiments, as well as anti-Israeli and antisemitic sentiments, is producing the greatest threat to the civilized world since World War II. For non-Arabic speakers, it is hard to grasp just how pervasive the propaganda is in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority and throughout the Arab world. It is omnipresent: In state-controlled media outlets, in schools and mosques, at rallies, in speeches and articles. Whether in print, music, religious sermons, or on the radio, television and walls, the propaganda that incites permeates the refugee camps, villages and towns on the West Bank and Gaza. It touches those in radical Islamic schools in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. All who watch Arab-controlled television and movies, read state-controlled newspapers and government-controlled schoolbooks are affected by hate-filled propaganda. Terrorism against Israel and the West has reached epidemic proportions. Since September 11, not a day goes by when new terrorist attacks, failed attempts, or plots in Europe, the United States, Africa, and Asia go unreported. Those attacks have captured not just the imagination and support of the radical fringe, but of rank-and-file Arabs as well. Palestinian Arabs danced in the streets after September 11, just as they shouted with glee from the rooftops when Iraqi SCUD missiles smashed into Tel Aviv during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. A Culture of Hatred — Incited from Birth Incitement is so prevalent in parts of the Arab world that it even permeates the cultural milieu. One proud Palestinian father celebrated his toddler's first birthday by strapping a fake suicide bomb to him and taking pictures of the child. As the shocking photo of the smiling "suicide" infant and his happy father made its way around the world, the baby's paternal grandfather dismissed the incident as a bad "joke." The joke is the result of a vexing phenomenon. Schools controlled by authoritarian Arab regimes and Islamic extremists provide children everywhere in the Muslim-Arab world [including mosques in America and Europe] with textbooks that espouse a bitter hatred of Israel and the West. Maps of Israel show no such country. Instead, teachers within the Palestinian Authority teach their students that territory delineated by former British Mandate — from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea [including Israel proper] — is theirs. They say Israel is land that was "stolen" from the Arabs in 1948. A similar message is hammered home on children's television programs. From elementary school through high school, textbooks foster hatred towards Israel and the West, with Israel described as "a country of gangs, born in crime." Antisemitic expressions portray Jews as arrogant, sly traitors. Zionism is described as a racist movement and a "germ." By second grade, the concept of jihad, or holy struggle — used by Osama bin Laden to characterize the September 11 attacks — is introduced and taught as an enshrined value. By the sixth grade, a child is encouraged to become a shahid [martyr]. When all is said and done, absent from the "texts" are the principles of normalization and co-existence with Israel.
Pictures of the massacre.
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
For the entire article including footnote see
Incitement — The engine Driving Global Terrorism
|
|
THE PALESTINIAN NIGHTMARE
Posted by Zeev Shemer, March 14, 2011. |
|
"What are you crying about?" are the remarks of radical Muslims and anti-Zionists across the globe. "Stop playing the victims when you deliberately bomb entire villages, wiping out dozens of families; and now, that one of yours is dead we are supposed to feel bad about it?" Now think about this for a moment. There is really nothing we can say that will make Jew-haters change their point of view. And why is it we feel compelled to argue? Why do we feel the need to reason with these people? The answer remains the same: We need the world. We can't survive in isolation. And Israel's left will continue to feed us with the notion that we can achieve peace with Arab Jew-haters if we only.... Yes, if we only... First, there was Shimon Peres who wholeheartedly believed that if we gave these primitive people toilets and microwave ovens, they'd grow to love us. We built cities for them. Universities, hospitals, enterprises, and then we noticed that the most fervent of haters were rich 'Palestinian' young men. They became the worst of murderers, and they used the weapons that Peres and his cronies provided them with. Then came Barak and Olmert with the idea that these invented people need a country of their own, and since the 'royalty' of Jordan doesn't want them, then it is up to tiny Israel to provide them with land for the fulfillment of their nationalistic dream. Olmert expelled thousands of Jews from their homes, yet rockets continue to fly in from Judenrein Gaza. Barak turned a blind eye to Palestinian murderers, removed check posts and forbid Jews from building homes. Not surprisingly, they found that these barbarians don't really want a country, but rather, they don't want Jews to have one. So we stand today. Still trying to appease the world. Trying to fight the lies and defamation with reason they do not want to listen to; trying to explain that Arab lies are baseless vilifications. The Palestinians will continue to murder and then make up excuses as to why they do it. Jews will be to blame. "It is because Jews bombed villages in Lebanon," or "Jews built homes in Arab land" or it will be something else, some other lie, another fantasy, another pretext. And the world will buy into it. Even if deep down they know it isn't true. If we as Jews want to put an end to terror, there is only one way to do it: We announce to the world, that we tried living with them, but 'we' are just too rotten, and we simply cannot coexist. So for their sake, we have decided to part with them. We take the self-hating leftist morons together with this invented Palestinian people and we throw them into Jordan (or the Sinai). Sounds like a fantasy? Probably is. Then again, back in the late 1800's when Herzl dreamed of a Jewish homeland, it sounded as a far-fetched illusion as well. Maybe it is time to make dreams come true. Ze'ev Shemer is author of "Israel and the Palestinian nightmare." He lives in Naharia, Israel. |
|
ARAB CELEBRATIONS IN LUBAN, AFTER THE BARBARIC MURDER, COULD BE HEARD IN MAALE LEVONA
Posted by Avodah, March 13, 2011. |
|
This was written by Batya Medad and appeared on
her website:
|
|
Arab Celebrations in Luban, After the Barbaric Murder, Could be Heard in Maale Levona http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2011/03/arab-celebrations-in-luban-after.html I spoke to someone who lives in Maale Levona today. He said that on Friday night, their Shabbat peace and quiet was disturbed by riotous celebrations in the nearby Arab village of Luban. They couldn't understand what was going on. It sounded a lot more joyous than the usual weddings. The next day they found out what had made the local Arabs so happy. Those Arabs were celebrating the barbaric massacre of five members of the Fogel family of Itamar, the young parents and three of their children. I'm a pragmatist, a CPA's daughter. I look at facts. These Arabs aren't capable of making peace. They don't want peace. They celebrate and reward murder. They aren't a nation, a people. All of those politicians, diplomats, media etc. from all over the world, including Israel, who insist that there must be a Pseudostinian aka Palestinian State sic are really planning the annihilation of the State of Israel. I'm not interested in being the focus of a Memorial. Get real. Read the writing in blood. It's very clear. There can be no peace with these Arabs. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
HAMAS ORDERED FIVE ISRAELIS MURDERED FOLLOWING SECRET ISLAMIST KHARTOUM PARLEY
Posted by Avodah, March 13, 2011. |
| This comes from the DEBKAfile. |
|
Palestinian Hamas websites quickly hailed the murder of a mother, father and three of their children, aged, 11, three and a baby of a month, whose throats were slashed in their sleep at Itamar, south of Nablus Friday night, March 11 as "a heroic operation." The escape of at least two Palestinian killers long before the alarm was sounded after midnight was eased by the dismantling of most Israeli security checkpoints on the West Bank and slow military vigilance. debkafile's intelligence and counter-terror sources disclose that the Itamar attack was the first result of an Iran-funded secret conference in Khartoum last week of the heads of the national branches of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Arab world, at which a plan was charted for Hamas to launch a multi-casualty terrorist assaults against Israel on both sides of the Green Line — over and above missile attacks from the Gaza Strip in order to ignite the third Palestinian uprising (intifada). The Egyptian Brotherhood is the parent organization of Hamas. This decision was a facet of a comprehensive plan drawn up in Khartoum for Brotherhood activists to fire up the uprisings in the various Arab countries. With Iranian backing and funding, the different branches resolved to coordinate operations for using the unrest to take control of Arab capitals Iranian intelligence officers attending the conference used the occasion to set up direct contacts with Brotherhood leaders who came from Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Syria, Jordan, Great Britain. The Palestinian delegation representing Hamas-Gaza was headed by Mahmoud A-Zahar and Hamas-Damascus headed by Khaled Meshaal. The plan for Hamas to revive terrorist on the West Bank and inside Israel was an important part of the Iranian-backed resolutions reached at the Khartoum conference. debkafile notes that not a single Arab government — not even Israel — prevented the Brotherhood and Hamas delegates from setting out for Khartoum. No word of the conference was allowed to leak to the Israeli public and Israeli security authorities appear not to have adapted their practices to the decisions reached by the Islamists there. This could explain why there was no prior terror alert for the Itamar killings or apparent IDF redeployment for an upsurge of multiple terrorist murders even though Hamas networks had been known to be regrouping in Judea and Samaria for the purpose of attacking and kidnapping Israelis on both sides of the Green Line. Several Palestinians were recently detained at the few remaining West Bank checkpoints carrying pipe bombs, knives and fire bombs. Despite appeals from West Bank Israeli community leaders, the military did not recommend putting any of the checkpoints back — even though the Palestinian Authority's security services had slowed down their counter-terror cooperation and intellience-sharing with Israel, therefore failing to keep their side of the bargain for the removal of the checkpoints. For more than a year, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak acceded to relentless US and European pressure to grant West Bank Palestinians almost unrestricted freedom of movement and generous aid for their economic development as a means of persuading PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas to return to the negotiating table. This policy failed in its purpose while leaving Israelis vulnerable once again to terrorist attacks. None of these alarming developments were brought to public notice in Israel. Jerusalem is still trying to pretend that Egypt remains faithful to its 1979 peace treaty, whereas nothing of those relations appears to have survived the fall of Hosni Mubarak. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
FOLLOWING ATTACK, LEFTISTS MUST DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE 'USEFUL IDIOTS' OR ANTI-SEMITES
Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, March 13, 2011. |
|
This was written by Assaf Wohl and it appeared March 12,
2011 in Ynet
|
|
Hello there, global leftist: Almost every day, Israel's citizens are told of more displays of hostility by you against us. Often we are informed of various boycotts imposed on Israeli goods, the cancellation of cultural events in Israel, and even attempts to boycott Israeli academia. This past week I watched Pink Floyd's Roger Waters urging a boycott on Israel. His arguments included an embarrassing combination of charges, including the finest lies taken from al-Jazeera's propaganda. The most prominent argument was Israel's portrayal as a racist "apartheid state" that sets up a wall separating Arabs and Jews. Now, listen to what happened Saturday. One or more terrorists infiltrated the community of Itamar, which is located beyond the protective fence. They butchered five family members with knives, including an 11-year-old child, a four-year-old boy, and a three-months-old baby girl. 
Gaza residents celebrated the massacre, so this is not a case of individual madness. These are the same Palestinians who celebrated the death of thousands at the Twin Towers. These are the same people who are standing at the squares of Tehran, Damascus, Beirut and even Istanbul, screaming "Death to Israel." As it turns out, "Israel" can also be a baby. Israel's "peace partners" mourn slaughter of Israeli family by Israel's peace partners Let's put ideology aside for a moment and only talk numbers. Before the fence was built, premeditated acts of horror were perpetrated within Israel regularly. In 2002 alone, some 189 Israelis were massacred in 53 terror attacks. As the fence kept expanding, hostilities declined, until in 2009 they stood at zero. So these are the numbers. My conclusions, which are only premised on the data presented above, are simple: With a fence in place, there are no massacres. Without a fence, hundreds of civilians are massacred. Hence, those interested in removing the fence support the slaughter of Israelis. So why do you, dear leftist, endorse massacres in practice? Useful idiots Ask yourself the following question: Why do you compare the premeditated slaughter of civilians to unintentional harm to civilians who serve as a human shield for rocket launchers and suicide bombers? There are two possible answers here. The first answer, my leftist comrade, is that you're simply an idiot. Don't be insulted, my friend, you're not "just an idiot." You are an idiot of the type Lenin referred to as "useful idiot." What does that mean? You're simply being exploited. You are being exploited by global Islam in a bid to eliminate a democratic state. After all, you would not be able to survive even five minutes in the alternative they prepare for you. If you want, you can look into the state of freedom of expression, prosecution of Christians, stoning of women and hanging of homosexuals in the Muslim world. You likely believe that you are legitimately criticizing the State of Israel. Yet here you're lying to yourself a little. There is no state like Israel, surrounded by an ocean of billions of people calling for its extermination. Its neighbors, who realized they cannot defeat it on the battlefield, are simply exploiting you: They fire rockets at our kindergartens from the safety behind your back — yes, you, the one calling for boycotts and screaming "apartheid." Anti-Semitism The second and less flattering possibility is that you're not a "useful idiot," but rather, a mere anti-Semite. Is there another way for you to explain your obsession with Israel? Do you show the same determined disapproval towards China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela or North Korea? The campaign against the Jewish state is disproportional in a way that cannot be explained away. I too admit that the Jews are an especially annoying people. Yet we do not tend to explode on buses as a form of revenge; not even in Germany. At most we'll argue with you until you die of boredom. Perhaps you believe that you'd be able to clear you conscience of the persecution of Jews and the Holocaust if only you prove that we're worse than you. Perhaps the fact that the annoying Jews, according to the Bible at least, introduced to the world the morality which Islam and Christianity are premised on drives you nuts. Maybe you are interested in highlighting our injustices because someone branded us as the "Chosen People." One way or another, I have no intention to again march into the gas chambers because of a 3,000-year-old story. By the way, guess what the next target for extermination is? You really don't know? Go ahead and look in the mirror. In Brussels, Paris, London and Malmo you shall soon be an extinct species fighting for its survival under Islamic laws. And while you're at it at the mirror, look at yourself and say the following: "Now, after I read this, I am no longer a useful idiot. Rather, I am an anti-Semite who is assisting the murder of Jews, in practice." Does it seem exaggerated to you? Maybe so. But in the bottom line, as far as the outcome is concerned, this is precisely what you're doing.
Doriss Wise Montrose belongs to Children of Jewish Holocaust
Survivors (CJhs), which is
"committed to the promotion of Western values against the dual threats
of complacency at home and political Islam abroad. We believe that a
safe and secure Israel, prospering as a Jewish State, is a
prerequisite to long-term global peace. CJHS insists that the last
Holocaust imposes upon all people of good will a moral and political
imperative to prevent the next one." Visit their website at www.cjhsla.org
|
|
FASCINATING ARTICLE: MARK TWAIN ON THE JEWS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 13, 2011. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to to see more of his graphic art at
|
|
BE CAREFUL NOT TO OFFEND ISRAEL
Posted by Ari Bussel, March 13, 2011. |
|
There is nothing that can stop Israel or destroy her completely, if she only sets her mind on standing up and fighting back, if she only makes a decision to survive. Something touched a raw nerve in the Israeli Government when Palestinian terrorists entered a home, murdered the parents, 35 and 36, and three of their children, 11, four and a three-month old. Three children survived — the eldest daughter who was out while the stabbing massacre was in progress and two of her younger brothers who were in a different room. What is different this time than all other times? These horrific murders have happened before. Lip service by the Palestinian Authority and their backers, primarily the EU and the White House, could be heard, speaking out of both sides of their mouths, in a way understood differently according to the various audiences. Hamas went on the attack, claiming the deaths were absolutely justified in retaliation for the atrocities committed by Israel and as part of the continued struggle to rid the land of the Zionist Occupiers. Even a ranking officer in the IDF seemed to think along the same lines, albeit more subdued, when he expressed his opinion that it was a quid pro quo for a "day of rage" by the "Settlers." American Jewry, from Americans for Peace Now to Jews for Peace to everything in between, will likely subscribe to the same old same, the usual approach: "They were settlers. They were in the Occupied West Bank. If only Israel would give back the land and allow the Palestinian refugees to return and create, finally, after sixty three years of immense suffering, a state of their own with Jerusalem as its capital, OH THEN THERE WILL BE PEACE, TWO STATES LIVING SIDE BY SIDE." What utter nonsense and rationalized tripe this is. "It is all for Israel's sake, for her safety and security" that these measures must take place they proclaim, while handing out millions to local anti-Israel organizations. "The murder is horrible, but it is just an outlet for steam, for the poor, victimized Palestinians have no other way to protest, to engage in civil disobedience and a non-violent struggle." This foolishness is what those on the Left to Extreme Left and their vocal decrees will say, and then be echoed by Israelis. The melody, so familiar and horrific, that it is all Israel's fault, and that the burden and responsibility fall on Israel's shoulders to usher in the elusive peace, resonates too well. The reason: NO ONE ELSE IS TALKING. The Government of Israel is silent and that silence screams volumes about their capitulation. Those last defenders of the Jewish state, standing on the front line of the public diplomacy front around the world, are exhausted, but more so they are frustrated to the very core. There is no back up; no support — regular or intermittent — so they battle alone. They must fight the enemy that surrounds them and they need to respond and counter the attack from their own back as some Israelis and Jews do everything to help the enemy. The Government of Israel, its elected and appointed officials and layers and layers of bureaucrats, must be doing something to earn the billions spent on and by them. When one listens to an Israeli ranking minister, it seems that the material is understood, well versed and analyzed. So at the very least they are aware of the situation. They may even condemn work by the likes of the Olive Tree Initiative, J Street and others, but this condemnation does not reach the ground. If the Olive Tree Initiative is bothersome enough to mobilize Israel's Minister of Public Diplomacy and the Diaspora to fly to Los Angeles and San Francisco, why do Jewish Federations support this initiative? What is the local Consulate doing about it both before the Minister's visit and after his departure? While Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister calls J Street (George Soros's so-called "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace" lobby) an "anti-Israel organization" and the President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles puts in writing that the Federation "does not support J Street," several Members of the Knesset, primarily from Kadima, the Opposition party that had enjoyed the popular support of Israelis, fly for an all-expense paid appearance before J Street. The end result: any effort to fight Israel's delegitimization is completely neutralized. While the same script plays over and over again — Israelis murdered, their blood quenches the thirst of the land, there is some condemnation, but more acceptance and understanding and the wheel turns again toward the very same point — something very different happened on the last Shabbat. The Palestinian Terrorists stabbed three children to death. The pictures were released, probably for the first time, and Israel is shocked, hopefully, finally moved to action. One does not know how long this determination will persist, and a betting person would have the odds in his favor presuming it will soon die. But allow me to enjoy the moment since it provides a glimmer of hope I so rarely see. Like a tsunami wave, miles long and tree-high, Israel has roared to life. The President, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, the Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora and the Prime Minister's Government Press Office they all — as if suddenly awakened at once — speak in unison. It is no longer relegated to the lower echelons. Everyone seems to be personally engaged, listening and acting. Finally, they are on the attack. "Despicable murder, a terrorist attack, a loss of humanity, the murder of Jewish infants." Like a person who has just awakened and is not quite clear on the direction, they call the UN, the EU and the US to condemn the terror act in deeds and action, not with the regular lip service. Most importantly, they went on the attack. It turns out that the Government via its Ministry of Strategic Affairs has been consumed for the past 15 months creating an "incitement index" in the Palestinian Authority. This index follows the following building blocks: (1) direct support of terrorism and terror attacks (2) promoting a culture of terror and violence (3) promoting hatred and demonization of Jews and Israelis (4) the building of a culture of peace. Investigative journalist David Bedein in Jerusalem and the NGO Palestinian Media Watch have been engaged in this research for much longer than 15 months. Their work is published, regularly disseminated and available on a timely basis to everyone who asks for a copy. Thus, in essence, the index exists, as do experts in the field, who can provide the information at a moment's notice. What they lack is two-fold: first, the financial backing, and second, the huge organization and power of the Israeli Government. In essence, the time a Ministry has spent on gathering and studying the information, and the resources it still intends to spend to make them available, are a waste. That same money could have been channeled to those organizations that are experts in the field and the Ministry could, with very little investment, put its huge back to moving the work forward and disseminating it internationally. Israelis do not understand that it is this back wind that is so necessary. Those who know that the "military marches and advances on its logistics support (without gas even tanks will not be able to continue and without food and water, soldiers will only survive so long) have deserted their forces on the front line to survive on their own. The Director General of the Ministry, when asked if the results of the study can be made available, said "soon." A website will "soon" be up and running. Why wait if all the information is readily available, compiled, analyzed and presented, just take it and move it forward. Israel still does not comprehend the forces at her fingertips, but she will. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, just to change the frame of reference and her mindset. It is tantamount to changing from a defensive posture to an offensive one, but to do that a strategic vision must be provided. Leadership must set the objectives and road maps that need to be achieved for the culmination of the agenda. Israel seems to have achieved consciousness, but the real litmus test is will the talk at the very top percolate down to all levels? For instance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent out a Newsletter to its subscribers. But the Ministry has offices throughout the world, each with its own database of subscribers. The same has not been disseminated throughout. Where are the full-page ads in local papers condemning these murders? We must not expect others to do the work for us — the United Nations will not condemn the murders of Jewish children, nor would Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. But the Jewish Communities throughout the world can and should. A day will come and another murder, not much different than this Shabbat's murder of the innocents, will finally mobilize the Jews, all 14 million of them. Then rather than asking for money and debating if we should do even more for our enemy, we will be out demonstrating, purchasing ads, billboards and banners to send a clear message. When we finally set our minds on protecting Israel's future and her survival, we will do a fantastic job, since no one is better at it than us. But until that day, not much seems to change, despite the tiny sliver of hope I witnessed in the past 24 hours.
|
|
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY STUDENT EXPLAINS FACTS OF LIFE TO ANTI-ISRAEL RECTOR COMMENT
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 13, 2011. |
|
This was written by Kerry Mendelsohn
and it appeared March 11, 2011 on the National Post
Queen's University student explains facts of life to anti-Israel rector Comment |
|
Nick Day, student Rector at Queen's University, recently published a letter in his official capacity as a represenative of the Queen's student body to Michael Ignatieff on rabble.ca, accusing the Liberal leader of supporting Israeli genocide. An online campaign to begin the process of impeaching Mr. Day has succeeded, a school-wide referendum will be held in two weeks to determine whether or not Mr. Day remains in office. The campaign was driven by outraged students offended that their student leader has chosen to advocate causes they have no interest in, or explicitly do not support. One such student is Kerry Mendelsohn, whose open letter to Mr. Day, with her permission, we reproduce below. (Please note that letter has been edited for spelling and grammar, but is otherwise true to the original version sent to Mr. Day.) Dear Mr. Day, I would like to share with you my thoughts on your response to Michael Ignatieff's condemnation of Israel Apartheid Week. I believe, as my student representative, you owe it to me to read my response in its entirety. What you have to know about me is that both my parents immigrated to Canada, my mother as a refugee and my father under his own free will. My mother was born in Germany, as her parents were displaced from Poland after World War II. Both my maternal grandparents suffered through and survived the Holocaust (you may have heard of it). They faced a true genocide, not like the fictitious one occurring in Israel that you have made up. My grandparents were rounded up like animals, forced onto cattle cars that brought them to concentration camps where their people were gassed. That, Mr. Day, is genocide, the systematic and deliberate murder of a people. Now I would like to tell you about my father. He was born in South Africa and unlike my mother, left his country by choice. South Africa, as you may know, from 1948 until 1993 was under control of the National Party who implemented the institutionalized separation of blacks from whites, known as Apartheid. From a young age my father felt disdain towards his government, towards the people that instilled such racism and hatred into such a beautiful country. He tells me stories about the separate housing, beaches, parks, buses and much more that troubled him as a young child. This was true Apartheid, separation of people based purely on skin colour. My father, who has actually experienced true Apartheid, knows better than I do that there is no such thing going on in Israel. The Palestinians, unlike the blacks of South Africa, have the power to vote, and as a people voted in leaders that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and strive for her destruction. I have been to Poland and seen the remains of the concentration camps where my grandparents suffered. I have been to South Africa and seen the reverberations of almost 50 years of racism and hate. Finally, I have been to Israel and seen a country that thrives and celebrates its diversity. Have you been to these countries, Mr. Day? If so, you would have seen what I have seen. I spent six weeks in Israel this past summer volunteering for their national ambulance service, Magen David Adom. I can tell you first hand that we treated every patient with the same consideration and respect regardless of whether they were Jewish, Muslim or any of the other many religions of Israel. Before my volunteering began I was prepped [for the uncommon possibility] of getting an emergency call into a Palestinian settlement. I was told that we would have to switch to a bulletproof ambulance and have soldiers lead us in. This was because when Israeli ambulances enter Palestinian territories, to lend aid to Palestinians, they are usually shot at. Tell me, Mr. Day, how do you consider Israelis risking their own lives to save Palestinians genocide? How do you consider it Apartheid? You, like everyone else, are entitled to your political opinion and you are also entitled to make your opinion public. However, you have no right to say you represent me, as a Queen's student, when voicing such opinions. You have not only offended me but you have offended my history. You do not speak for me; you have abused and disgraced your office. Sincerely, Kerry Mendelsohn Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
SECURITY GUARANTEES
Posted by John Cohn, March 13, 2011. |
|
Bogged down in two wars, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a no fly zone to stop massacres in Libya as too costly and with inadequate benefit. America has failed to restrain Iran's nuclear program and stood helpless as Hezbollah seized control of Lebanon while stockpiling tens of thousands of rockets in violation of UN resolutions. But the administration insists Israel withdraw to the militarily indefensible armistice line that separated Israel and Jordan from 1948 to 1967 in exchange for "security guarantees". If there is a lesson from current events it is that such promises are worthless to allies such as Israel — which surely won't have the Arab league to give a veneer of international support to requests for help. We should not be demanding Israelis take risks based on commitments we won't keep. Contact John Cohn at john.r.cohn@gmail.com |
|
WHY SHOULD THE WORLD CONDEMN?
Posted by Ari Bussel, March 13, 2011. |
|
"We will not rest until we lay our hands on the murderers. This incident is atrocious, its perpetrators capable of beastly crimes. Its scenes are horrific, the viewer unable to really grasp what happened. "Israel expects the world to condemn the Palestinian incitement to terror and hatred in the strongest terms." Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Israel's Chief of Staff Israel expects the world to focus its attention on five members of one family who were murdered on Shabbat evening in their home by a Palestinian Terrorist. Israel is apparently in shock, but why would she be? It is Israel that has termed the Jews living in Judea and Samaria "Settlers" and branded them bad, the root cause of evil. It is Israel that removed most of the roadblocks that minimized the free movement of terrorists. They may have made life more difficult, but it is a small price to pay for security. When I am searched at an airport, my water bottle taken from me, when I have to arrive three hours before a flight, and when my family's nude images appear on a screen, I am greatly inconvenienced too. What a small price to pay for safety and security. It is Israel's leading English paper, Ha'Aretz that participates in the incitement with its leading journalists' articles used as evidence throughout the world to validate the alleged "Blood Bath" Israel perpetrates on the Palestinians. It is Israel's internal calls for the creation of a Palestinian state and the mere possibility that the holiest essence of Judaism, of Israel's very existence, may soon be divided, torn into parts. It is Israel's de facto making Tel Aviv her capital rather than insisting that EVERY Government function be held at her eternal capital, Jerusalem, that sends the wrong signal, allowing every nation that has representation in Israel to be located outside of Israel's true capital. It is Israel that does little if anything to send clear signals from the trunk of the tree to every leaf on every branch that she has a right to exist. Her failure to express that she is the only Jewish nation on this planet, rightfully in the Land of Israel, that causes distractive noise to turn into chaos. If Israel does not believe in its own right to exist, why would anyone else? It is Israel that is embroiled in the self and the personal, rather than the common and the collective that allows the wrong priorities to control. Thus, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was engaged in work stoppage for almost a year, not caring one bit about the damage their actions caused the wellbeing of the Jewish State. Thus, the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora is manned at the top positions by political appointments rather than experienced professionals from the front lines and commanders from the ground. Thus, people at the highest levels engage in bickering and internal fighting rather than cooperating and working together to achieve common goals for the good of Israel. It is in Israel where the Leader of Opposition attacks the Prime Minister instead of standing united in strength and battling foreign enemies. But most importantly, it is Israel that has allowed a true craving for peace to be degraded into an 18-year-long journey in which every passing day strengthens the enemy and weakens the chances for peace. Peace will never occur once the enemy has rewritten the past. After they have erased millennia of written history and archeology in favor of a new narrative designed for their own devices. Peace will not arrive when the Muslim Palestinians have brainwashed their children to hate. Peace will only arrive once a tremor shakes the area, an earthquake and a tsunami so big that people return to their senses. Until then, Israel is sick. It is the Israel I love, the Israel I attempt with all my will and might to help. But she refuses to fight for herself, dying in my very hands as I watch the life slowly ooze out of her body. Until such time that Israel wakes up and fights, do not be surprised that more families will be butchered in their homes, innocent babies only months old. Until Israel goes on the offensive, déjà vu will be the word of the day, because the Third and Final Intifada has started, the one designed to bring Israel to her knees and then topple her once and for all time. A vision, once successfully executed by Hitler, is a nightmare we are living over again, with greater intensity than before. Is it not far more frightening when our children are not marched into death camps to be killed, but butchered in their own beds? This murder is proof the mindset that others should protect and stand up for Israel must change. Strength is the answer, and Israel must now fight her own battles. The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century. The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover. This point — and often — counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world. Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com |
|
ISRAEL'S FUTURE IN THE 'NEW MIDDLE EAST'
Posted by Louis René Beres, March 13, 2011. |
|
For Israel, the basic Jewish philosophic choice between life and death, between the "blessing" and the "curse," has always been clear. What remains problematic, of course, is precisely how to best ensure the former. And in these especially uncertain times of a "New Middle East," the strategic search for Jewish national survival has become even more complex and perilous. From their very ingathered beginnings, and even before the United Nations conferral of sovereign statehood in 1948, Jews in Israel have faced war, terror and extinction. Now, Israel confronts existential destruction from two increasingly plausible sources: (1) the already-constituted and nuclearizing state of Iran; and (2) the still-aspiring state of "Palestine." Together, largely in various unrecognized and even unimagined synergies, the interactive effects of these two mega-threats portend strong reason for very deep concern. The fragile existential situation in an incrementally chaotic region is made more worrisome by U.S. President Barack Obama's misguided support for a "Two-State Solution," and, correspondingly, by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's formal acceptance of a Palestinian state that has been "demilitarized." The Palestinian side (Hamas, Fatah, it makes little difference) still seeks only a One-State solution (on all their maps, Israel is already drawn as a part of "Palestine"). As for a demilitarized Palestine, it could never actually happen. This is true, in part, because any post-independence abrogation of earlier pre-state agreements to demilitarize by a now-sovereign Palestinian state could be entirely permissible under international law. Iran is an established state with an expanding near-term potential to inflict nuclear harms upon Israel. The so-called "international community" has effectively done absolutely nothing to stop Iranian nuclearization. Metaphorically, the "sanctions" have represented little more than a mildly-pestering fly on the lumbering elephant's back. The Palestinian Authority, with its Fatah "security forces" now expertly trained by the U.S. military in unstable Jordan (under American Lt. General Keith Dayton), maintains exterminatory plans for Israel. These unhidden plans are shared by the Hamas-led configuration of assorted terror groups that collaborates regularly and systematically with Iran, and that now draws renewed sustenance from its quickly-growing Muslim Brotherhood "parent" organization in Egypt. Still rapidly-developing Iranian-Syrian war plans against Israel from Lebanon that would involve Hezb'allah proxies could add yet another decisive synergistic threat to the explosive genocidal mix. What shall Israel do in this more and more confusing regional maelstrom? If President Obama's openly expressed wish for "a world free of nuclear weapons" were ever realized, the survival issue would become moot. Fortunately, this presidential hope is not only foolish, but wholly unrealistic, and Israel will likely retain the critical deterrence benefit of its "bomb in the basement." The extent of this particular benefit, however, may vary, inter alia, according to a number of important factors. These include Jerusalem's observable willingness to make limited disclosures of the country's usable and penetration-capable nuclear forces, and also the extent to which the Israeli government and military selectively reveal certain elements of Israel's nuclear targeting doctrine. From the standpoint of successful deterrence, it will make a major difference if Israel's nuclear forces are recognizably counter value (targeted on enemy cities), or counterforce (targeted on enemy weapons, and related infrastructures). In turn, Israel's decisions on targeting policy may be affected, more or less, by current and ongoing regime transformations across the Middle East and North Africa. "For what can be done against force, without force?" inquired the Roman statesman Cicero. The use of force in world politics is not inherently evil. On the contrary, in preventing nuclear and terrorist aggressions, force, though certainly not a panacea, is almost always indispensable. All states have a fundamental ("peremptory," in the language of formal jurisprudence) right of self-defense. This right is explicit and unambiguous in both codified and customary international law. It can be found, in part, at Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, and also in multiple authoritative clarifications of anticipatory self-defense. Israel has every legal right to forcibly confront the expected (and possibly mutually reinforcing) harms of both Iranian nuclear missile strikes, and Palestinian terror. Albert Camus, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, would have us all be "neither victims nor executioners," living not in a world in which killing has disappeared ("we are not so crazy as that"), but one wherein killing has become illegitimate. This is a fine expectation, to be sure, but the celebrated French philosopher did not anticipate another evil force for whom utter extermination of "The Jews" was its declared object. Credo quia absurdum. "I believe because it is absurd." Not even in a still-crazy world living under the shadow of Holocaust did Camus agree to consider such an utterly preposterous prospect. Israel lacks the quaint luxury of French philosophy. Were the Jewish State to follow Camus' genteel reasoning, the result could be another boundless enlargement of Jewish suffering. Before and during the Holocaust, at least for those who still had an opportunity to flee, Jews were ordered: "Get out of Europe; go to Palestine." When they complied (those who could), the next order was: "Get out of Palestine." My own Austrian-Jewish grandparents received "special handling" on the SS-killing grounds at Riga, Latvia. Had they somehow made it to Mandatory Palestine, their sons and grandsons, now Israelis, would likely have died in subsequent genocidal wars begun by Arab forces to get the Jews "out of Palestine." Cicero understood. Failure to use force against a murderous evil imprints an indelible stain upon all that is good. A similar point can be found in the Talmud, which clarifies that by being merciful to the cruel, one becomes cruel to the merciful. By declining the right to act as a lawful executioner in its struggle with annihilatory war and terror, Israel would be forced by Camus' stylized reasoning, and by neglect of its own authoritative scriptures, to embrace disappearance. Why was Camus, who was thinking only in the broadest generic terms, so badly mistaken? The answer lies in the philosopher's unsupportable presumption of a natural reciprocity among both individual human beings and states in the primal matter of killing. We are asked to believe, by Camus, that as greater numbers of people agree not to become executioners, still greater numbers will follow upon the same brotherly course. In time, the neatly mathematical argument proceeds, the number of those who refuse to accept killing will become so great that there will be fewer and fewer victims. Sounds nice. But Camus' presumed reciprocity simply does not exist. It can never exist, especially in the still-Jihad centered "New Middle East." Here, the unhidden Islamist desire to kill Jews (always "Jews," not Israelis) remains unimpressed by good intentions, or by Israel's disproportionate contributions to science, industry, medicine and learning. Here, in the basically unchanged "New Middle East," there are no identifiable Iranian or Palestinian plans for rational coexistence. Their only decipherable "remedies" are for an all-too- familiar Final Solution. Exeunt omnes. Martin Buber identifies the essence of every living community as "meeting." True community, says Buber, is an authentic "binding," not merely a "bundling together." In true community, each one commits his whole being in "God's dialogue with the world," and each stands firm and resolute throughout this dialogue. But how should the dialogue be sustained with others who refuse to "bind" in the absence of murder? How can there ever be any conceivable solution to the genocidal enmity of Iran and "Palestine" to Israel so long as this enmity is presumably indispensable to their very lifeblood meanings in the world? These are not easy questions to answer; moreover, they will never be answered by political leaders in Washington, Jerusalem or anywhere else. The time for clichéd "wisdom" is over. In national self-defense and counter-terrorism, Jewish executioners require an honored place in the government and army of Israel. Without them, evil would triumph again and again. For Iran and for an emergent "Palestine," murdered Jews are not so much a means to an end, as a prayed-for end in themselves. In this unheroic Islamist world, even while so much of the region is now seemingly struggling for "democracy," sacrificial killing of Jews by war and terror is still widely-presumed to be a religious mandate, and also a distinctly coveted path to personal immortality. It follows that any Israeli unwillingness to use all necessary defensive force could invite both individual and collective Jewish death. Cicero understood. Legally and morally, killing is sometimes a sacred duty. Faced with undisguised sources of genuine evil, all civilized states sometimes have to rely upon the executioner. To deny the Israeli executioner his proper place at this eleventh-hour of danger would make a mockery of "Never Again." Just as importantly, it would open the floodgates of several new man-made human catastrophes. In the best of all possible worlds, Buber's "binding" would supplant all "bundling." But we don't yet live in the best of all possible worlds, and there is absolutely nothing in the "New Middle East" to suggest any real chances for meaningful improvement. In their present condition, Jews in Israel must still remain utterly prepared to fight strenuously for Jewish survival. Life is always better than death. Better the blessing than the curse.
Louis René Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) lectures and publishes widely on issues concerning international relations and international law, especially war and terrorism. He is the author of some of the earliest major books on nuclear war and nuclear terror.
This appeared in the American Thinker
|
|
TENS OF THOUSANDS AT FUNERAL FOR MARTYRED FOGEL FAMILY
Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, March 13, 2011. |
Tens of thousands attended the funeral for five members of the Fogel family massacred at Itamar. The entrance to Jerusalem was blocked off by police and vehicles diverted to an alternative entrance after the huge attendance brought traffic to a standstill. Israel's major television channels provided live coverage of the eulogies for the victims. More building for Jews is the "revenge" for Arab terror, Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger said at the funeral Sunday afternoon for the five members of the Fogel family who were stabbed to death by Arab terrorists Friday night. "The Creator, and not us, will avenge the spilled blood," he said. Former Chief Rabbi of Israel Yisrael Meir Lau said, "There are times when there are no words and when one feels helpless with pain and anger." A survivor of the Holocaust, Rabbi Lau said that one would think the vicious circle of violence ended 66 years ago but "the river of blood continues to flow, and we stand here today helpless. "What can you say when you see a two or three-month-old baby stabbed to death? We read this past Shabbat the Book of the Torah that begins with sacrifices, but who thought of sacrifices such as these?" He turned to the surviving Fogel children and said, "Your mother and father need you. You are the ones who will say the Kaddish [mourner's prayer] and you will recite, "May His great Name be glorified and sanctified. He Who makes peace in the Heaven will make peace for us and for all of the People of Israel. Amen." Hillel Ben Yishai, brother of Ruth Fogel, sobbed that the victims were "holy and pure and the People of Israel will learn to know who they were — holy and pure. No one was sweet as Hadas," the baby daughter of the Fogels who was among those murdered. "The people of Israel are strong, like Ruth, an iron lady," He added.
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article
appeared today.
|
|
THE OLD MAN'S LEGACY
Posted by Asaf Romirowsky, March 13, 2011. |
|
It is 38 years since the death of Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, or "the Old Man," as he was called. Only a few today remember Ben-Gurion the leader and politician, but his influence can be found everywhere. He declared the Jewish state, set the tone for its relationship with its Arab neighbors, did not commit himself to specific borders, refused the Palestinian "right of return," affirmed Jerusalem as the country's eternal capital, built the IDF and engineered massive immigration. Moreover, nuclear capability and the decisions not to have a constitution and to keep a religious status quo were all his doing. No other leader combined vision and politics as he did. Shlomo Aronson, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his latest book David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Renaissance tackles the legacy of the Old Man in the context of what he calls Jewish renaissance. Aronson offers a timely reexamination of Ben-Gurion's role in Jewish- Israeli history from the perspective of the 21st century, in the larger context of the Zionist renaissance, of which he was a major and unique proponent. Many have described Ben-Gurion's Zionism as a dream that has gone sour, or an unattainable utopia that would never come to fruition. Now 62 years after the creation of modern Israel, Aronson is able to comb through the recently released documents in the archives and assess the statesman-intellectual and his successes and tragic failures during this "Jewish renaissance." He examines the relationship between Ben-Gurion's hard-nosed political leadership and his deep, often eccentric intellectual commitments, and takes the reader through a review of major issues and events that engaged Ben-Gurion and shaped Israeli history. One of Aronson's important contributions is showing the Jewish code that Ben- Gurion lived by during all the years of his leadership, from the pre-state era through the post Six Day War period. Moreover, he is right to describe the Zionist approach of Ben-Gurion and his peers in terms of collective individualism; "the individual should assume the weight of the responsibility for Jewry at large and for the collective that was then gathering in Eretz Israel — the practical translation of which was a subject of dispute within the Zionist Labor Movement itself." A comprehensive understanding of Israel requires an understanding of Ben-Gurion and his mark on its leadership. Ironically, the last two students of the Old Man were Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres. Sharon rose through the military and became prime minister, while Peres has culminated a long career in government and politics as president. Though they represent two opposite sides of the political map, they both saw themselves as continuing Ben- Gurion's legacy. In this sense Ben-Gurion's actions can be interpreted as aligning with both the Left and the Right of Israel's political map. On the Left, the Labor Party prefers to remember his support for partition of the land and his agreement to a cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence. On the Right, the Likud prefers to remember his aggressive policy toward the Palestinians and the forceful military tactics implemented on the Jordanian border. Peres believed that Ben-Gurion would have negotiated any amount of land to achieve peace. "Ben-Gurion, who said that for real peace he would have given back most of the territories, was not at the helm. His words were heard, but as the words of a statesman, not as the commitment of a leader. Peace with Egypt would have led to peace with Jordan. And King Hussein would have been the one to manage the Palestinian issue (as was proved in the agreement I reached with King Hussein in London in 1987, an agreement that Yitzhak Shamir thwarted, and which I know many of his supporters regret to this day)." Sharon remembered a different Old Man, the defense minister who supported strong reprisals against Egypt in February 1955 after a Jewish cyclist was killed and an IDF patrol was ambushed. This resulted in Operation Black Arrow led by a young Sharon. At the time, when Ben-Gurion was asked by prime minister Moshe Sharett to comment on the latest military actions, he said, "Our isolation is not a result of [the operation]; it came [about] earlier when we were pure as doves." Aronson is able to illustrate how Ben- Gurion and his colleagues used the lessons of the Holocaust to their advantage as a springboard to promote moral and political support, as well as distinguishing between the enemy and those who simply decided not to assist. Ben-Gurion and his peers used the Holocaust as a popular form of condemnation against "democracies" that refused to fight against Nazi Germany. Sharon and now Binyamin Netanyahu tried to follow in their mentor's footsteps with regard to foreign policy; each strongly believes that Israel's strength will determine the reality only if he can ensure a relatively good relationship with Washington. Ben-Gurion in 1919 said, "Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution!... I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours even if we learn Arabic... and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew... There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." Israel in 2011 is very different from that of 1948, but Aronson is able to show that the infrastructure that Ben-Gurion and his colleagues laid out is still relevant. This understanding would serve policy makers well when they attempt to negotiate the Middle East today and the role Israel plays in the tragic puzzle we call the Arab-Israeli conflict. Aronson creates an illuminating portrait that challenges the recent litany of attacks that have become standard fare in the relentlessly negative discussions of Israel. His sympathetic rehabilitation of Ben-Gurion is also a timely and intricate refutation of its critics. Asaf Romirowsky is a senior fellow at EMET (the Endowment for Middle East Truth) and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum
This appeared March 11, 2011 in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
DEAR REP. KING: FORGET 'RADICAL' — ISLAM IS THE CULPRIT
Posted by Amil Imani, March 13, 2011. |
|
Republican Congressman Peter King has strengthened his security in the wake of "hostile phone calls" and threats from overseas, as he is getting ready to chair a hearing on Islamic radicalization in the United States today. The Congressman's hearing on this important issue, though much overdue, is perhaps the first step towards recognizing that Islam is the culprit, not radical Islam. Islam by its mere existence is radical. "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it," said Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and he's absolutely right. Decades ago Marshall McLuhan observed, "The medium is the message." As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping views and the behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other hand, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation. Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The overlords of the media can deceive the public more easily when political correctness is used as a subterfuge for the promotion of certain ideas. A case in point is the media's portrayal of Islam, articulated by politicians and pundits — the talking heads on television and radio, as well as the analysts who write for newspapers and magazines. Time and again we hear and read that Islam is a religion of peace, in spite of the fact that Islam has been a religion of violence from its inception to the present. This mantra, "Islam is a religion of peace" is repeated so often that it has become an indisputable statement of fact in the minds of many. Even a cursory examination of Islam's history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite. Islam was, and continues to be, a movement of unbridled violence. Former President George W. Bush along with President Obama on several occasions have repeated the mantra and attributed the horrific violence committed under the banner of Islam to a small band of extremists. Both Presidents' assertion is either based on ignorance of the facts about Islam or their attempt at political correctness. Perhaps President Bush's reticence to speak about the true nature of Islam was due to his desire to avoid inflaming the already charged feelings by many about Islam and President Obama's appeasing the Muslim world is another story. In any event, truth is sacrificed and the public continues to cling to the false notion that Islam is a peaceful religion. People who dare to disclose the true nature of Islam run the risk of being castigated as bigots and hatemongers. Meanwhile the courageous Congressman Peter King said: 'I'm not going to give in to political correctness.' Surrounded by a noticeably heavier security presence, Congressman King told CBS 2: "I'm getting a lot of hostile phone calls now, but the main threats I'm getting are from overseas." What more one can expect from "the religion peace?" The pundits, the analysts and the politicians are doing a great disservice to the public, each segment for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. As a matter of fact, the so-called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam. Admittedly, from time to time and place to place, Muslims have shown a degree of tolerance for non-Muslims. This tolerance dates back to the very early years of Muhammad himself. Early on Muhammad was meek and proclaimed, "For you, your religion, and for me, my religion." This assertion lasted but a few years until Muhammad's movement gathered strength and Islam became the only alternative to death or heavy taxation. The imposition of 'jizya' was a clever ploy for filling the Islamic coffer to support its armies and to finance its further conquests. The liberal media and pundits engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as "Political Islam," or "Radical Islam," for instance, are contributions of this group. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter — the Quran — is a radical political movement. It is the liberal media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that "real Islam" constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate. Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political. We must recognize that Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and State are one and the same — the mosque is the State. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even "moderate" Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well deserve being maltreated compared to believers. While I salute Congressman Peter King for having the courage to discuss the issue of Islamic radicalization in the U.S, I warn my fellow Americans: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part in pointing out that Islam is the culprit and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized way of life and our republic. Amil Imani is the author of the book "Obama Meets Ahmadinejad".
|
|
ADDRESSING ISLAM: THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND DEMOCRACY
Posted by Laura, March 13, 2011. |
|
This was written by N.M. Guariglia yesterday in
Culture,Homeland Security,Media,Religion,US New. It originated
in Pajamas Media
|
|
There is one silver lining to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: it will eventually force the United States to adopt an international policy on Islam itself. Given his Cairo speech [1] in 2009, littered with historical inaccuracies and undue politically correct praise of Islam, we shouldn't expect President Obama to take upon himself this task. Perhaps another statesman will. But that it must be done — alas, ten years after 9/11 — is no longer a matter of debate. The national discourse is petty. Policymakers talk as though the problem were merely 500 terrorists cave-hopping around Waziristan. This is not so. The issue is societal. Europe is on the precipice of cultural implosion. The issue is also imminent. The entire Persian Gulf and Arab Levant is up for grabs. Atomic bombs are in question. Radical Islamists have entrenched themselves in the West's political mainstream — even into the U.S. government. For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood has had more power within the United States than in Egypt. Take Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi [2], a former advisor to President Clinton and the State Department. Amoudi also ingratiated himself to then-Governor George W. Bush. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Amoudi was one of the Muslim "moderates" championed by the administration. He spoke at the Washington National Cathedral honoring the victims. Three years later, Amoudi was arrested [3] for conspiring to work with al-Qaeda and Moammar Gaddafi of Libya in an assassination attempt on the Saudi king. There's Omar Ahmad [4], founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim organization in the United States. CAIR was involved with the Holy Land Foundation [5], an operation that guised charity funds as subsidies to terrorist groups. And then there's Nihad Awad [6], the co-founder of CAIR. Awad is an operative of Hamas and yet served on Vice President Gore's commission for aviation safety and security — the irony! — and was invited to stand alongside President Bush after 9/11. Ismail Elbarasse [7] worked with Amoudi and was involved with the Holy Land Foundation. He also conspired with Hamas leader Mousa Marzook and the "Virginia Network," a cell of Pakistani terrorists. In 2004, Elbarasse was arrested. Documents seized in his basement revealed the Muslim Brotherhood's archives [8] for the United States. CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Students Association (MSA) is a front [9] for the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood [10]. And the Muslim Brotherhood spawned [11] Egyptian Islamic Jihad and subsequently al-Qaeda. These are just a few of the men running the Islamic mosques, schools, campus organizations, and charities in the United States. They are all avowed jihadists and see no distinction between Palestinian "resistance" and al-Qaeda terrorism. The entire apparatus of U.S.-Muslim dialogue is controlled by our enemies. And we have accepted this — so much so that to acknowledge this reality is political suicide. It's time to address this. Embassies have been burned, diplomats and newspaper editors have cowered, cartoonists have been hunted down, film directors have been hacked, operas have been canceled, and books have been taken off the shelf. We are losing the Enlightenment [12] out of fear of offending others. Canada is flirting with Islamic law. Europe is allowing "group rights" in unassimilated Muslim ghettos. That is to say, their democratic constitutions do not apply for those who wish to abide by Islamic law. Therefore, the legality of murdering one's daughter differs depending on what country you originally come from, or your personal convictions about the truths of the universe. In the United States, there were terrorist attempts on Penn Station [13], at a military recruitment center in Arkansas, on a federal building in Illinois, against other landmarks in Manhattan [14], and on a Dallas skyscraper. Then there was the Christmas Day plot against Northwest Airlines Flight 253, which would have killed more than 300 people had the al-Qaeda operative been more competent; the Times Square plot, which would have been worse than the Oklahoma City bombing [15] had the operative been more competent; and the Fort Hood massacre, which could have been avoided had we been less afraid [16] to appear intolerant of intolerance. And all this happened in just the past year and a half. They're here. There is the prevalent argument that this is not representative of real Islam. Fine. Then let's at least have a discussion as to what "real Islam" actually is. Surely it makes little sense to define all the good things as real Islam and all the bad things as a perversion of real Islam, no? Can we no longer think objectively? Have we become that terrified into silence? The truth is this: Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is a complete way of life: theological, political, social, and legal. Islamic law is the literal word of the Koran, which is supposed to be the direct word of God. It claims to be unalterable. There are no metaphors. It claims to be timeless. What was true in the seventh century is true today and cannot be reinterpreted to conform to contemporary mores. Should the Koran omit something of concern, it states to follow the Hadith (59:7) — or the life, traditions, and actions of Muhammad, the perfect man, God's final messenger. Should the Hadith omit something, Muslims are to follow the Ijma, or the unanimous consensus of Islamic scholars. This is why, even amongst the disparate schools of Islam, there are no distinctions of Islamic law. All of these interpretative matters have been addressed long ago. It is what it is and it cannot be anything else. The Koran is said to be progressive revelation. Should one verse instruct friendliness to non-Muslims and another instruct the murder of non-Muslims, the doctrine of abrogation is to be applied. In other words, since there can be no contradictions within the Koran — that is the book's foundation — the most recent revelation is the one that is applicable. Unfortunately, the most recent Koranic revelations are the unfriendly ones; the homicidal ones. "Jihad" is not a yoga-like exercise for internal spiritual discovery [17]. It is the killing of non-Muslims and the enforcement of Islamic rule throughout the world. "Peace" is not coexistence. It is Islamic dominion over the planet. "Freedom" is not individual liberty. It is submission to the supernatural. Where is the United States to go from here? We ought to shut down the internal jihadist infrastructure controlling the American-Muslim community. We ought to challenge the ten-year plan [18] of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference to stifle freedom of speech, thought, and expression in the West. We ought to more passionately defend the superiority of democratic and liberal values — in ethics, in philosophy, and in practice. We ought to call for explanations on behalf of the Islamic world. What is it they actually believe? What actions are they willing to take on behalf of these beliefs? Rather than tell them what they want to hear, we ought to begin insisting they tell us what we want to hear. And finally, we ought to devise a foreign policy whereby we officially oppose the inclusion [19]of fascist theocratic movements in new democratic governments — whether Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — and proclaim our support for true freedom. As with Hitler's Germany, democracies can easily be destroyed in their infancy through the tactic of "one man, one vote, one time." There's no need to be bigoted or mean-spirited. We can do this, as Reagan did with Soviet communism, with the confidence of a happy heart. Good humor, in fact, might go a long way. We should distinguish a doctrine from its adherents and respect the world's Muslims enough to be honest with them. But first, we must be honest with ourselves. They'll respect that more. Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
MEETING ANOTHER NEIGHBOR
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 17, 2011. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. For more of his graphics, visit http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/ |
|
THREE YEAR OLD STABBED IN THE HEART, BABY'S THROAT SLASHED.
AND STILL WESTERN 'LIBERALS' SUPPORT THEIR MURDERERS
Posted by Israel National News Staff, March 13, 2011. |
|
The initial findings of the investigation into the terrorist massacre in the Israeli town of Itamar in Samaria Friday night show that the Fatah 'Freedom Fighters' stabbed the Fogel family's sleeping three year old in the heart and slashed the throat of his three-month-old sister. [cbh] Click here for photos on the murder victims (Warning: Extremely Graphic) The IDF and police forces are conducting widespread searches in the vicinity of the community since the barbaric terrorist murder of five members of the Fogel family in their home on Friday night. It is not yet clear how many terrorists took part in the massacre. About 20 Arabs have been arrested up to now. One area in which the IDF is concentrating its investigations is whether there were any intelligence warnings of terrorist plans before the attack that might have alerted residents. The community of Itamar has had no terrorist attacks since 2002, when an advanced protection and security system called the Special Security Area was installed. The electronic system, which includes varied methods of observation and a wired fence, is kept in repair by the regional authority rather than the IDF. In addition to an electronic fence surrounding the community, there is an inner, coiled wire fence. The community is allotted six non-army security personnel from a recognized security firm who are on patrol all the time. All signals go automatically to a central operations room in the town staffed by two of these guards, and in addition there is a company of soldiers on the adjoining hill. The IDF investigation of the attack has discovered that at 20:59, terrorists entered the community. They jumped over the fence and an alert sounded. The guard on duty went to the spot from which the warning was heard, but saw no evidence of infiltration and therefore, made the erroneous decision that an animal had activated the electronic fence's warning signal. There are many false alarms of that nature in the winter, but cameras would have shown the terrorists. However, the IDF did not agree to fund a request to keep cameras working on the fence. A security person who was in the vicinity said that since the fence was not cut, the guard thought there was no infiltration and did not inform the IDF unit that was less than a kilometer away. The terrorists first entered one home, which was empty. They found a weapon there, which they do not seem to have used. A group of youngsters was having a Sabbath evening party at the Fogel house nearby, and at 22:20 they left, along with the Fogel's 12-year-old daughter, for an activity at the local Bnei Akiva youth group. Between 22:20 and 22:30 the terrorists entered the house through the living room picture window, did not notice the 6-year-old boy sleeping on the couch and continued on to the bedroom where they slashed the throats of the father and newborn baby who were sleeping there. The mother came out of the bathroom and was stabbed on its threshold. The evidence shows that she tried to fight the terrorists. They then slashed the throat of the 11-year old-son who was reading in bed. They did not notice the 2-year old asleep in his bed, but murdered the 3-year old with two stabs to his heart. After that, they locked the door, exited through the window and escaped. Exactly two hours after the infiltration, there was another warning signal from the same spot on the fence, as the terrorists left the way they had come. Once again, the patrol did not identify the source of the signal as infiltration. The 12-year-old daughter returned home at 00:30 and found the door locked. She asked a neighbor, Rabbi Yaakov Cohen, of the Itamar Yeshiva, to help her. He brought a weapon with him once he noticed tracks and mud near the house. The two woke up the 6-year old sleeping in the living room by calling through the window and when he opened the door, the Rabbi returned to his home. When she entered the bedrooms, the young daughter saw the horrific bloodsoaked scene and ran out of the house screaming. The neighbor ran back and fired several shots in the air to alert security personnel. Within a short time, large police and IDF forces arrived and began intensive searches to see if the terrorists were still in the community. At 03:30 a.m., military trackers discovered footprints leading to the Arab village of Avrata. "Sky Riders" Israeli UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicles), continued the search Saturday morning. The IDF Chief of Staff, General Benny Gantz, arrived at the family's home during the morning hours and said: "We will not rest until the murderers are in our hands. This is a bestial act perpetrated by barbarians. It is impossible to grasp the horrendous scene before us. We are working non-stop on the intelligence and operational fronts." Defense Minister Ehud Barak held a situation meeting in IDF Tel Aviv headquarters. Attending were the Chief of Staff, ISA head Yuval Diskin and other high ranking IDF intelligence and security personnel. Barak instructed those present to use every means at their disposal to find the murderers as quickly as possible. He called on the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to condemn the murders and on the Judea and Samaria Regional Authority Heads to exercise restraint.
This article is archived at
To see the video at click here. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: TRUTH BE TOLD
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 13, 2011. |
|
There is no shying away from this ugly truth, just because it's unbearably painful to contemplate. It's time to face it square on. I began my report on the family slaughtered in Itamar late last night. Here I continue: It was members of the Fogel family who were slain in their home on Shabbat. Rabbi Udi Fogel, 36, who taught at the Itamar yeshiva. Ruth Fogel, 34. Yoav, age 11. Eldad, four. Tiny baby Hadas. Here you have a picture of Eldad, with the beautiful (unabashedly I say, kissable) face of a happy child. Look well, and then understand that he was stabbed in the heart. His baby sister had her throat cut. ~~~~~~~~~~ There is a fence around Itamar, and I'm receiving conflicting stories about how the terrorists got in. What seems to have happened is that some alarm was set off by the fact that the fence was touched, but as the Itamar security guards did not find a break in the fence — it apparently had been jumped — they assumed it was an animal and pursued it no further. ~~~~~~~~~~ Inside the Fogel home, the parents fought their attackers; there is evidence of this. The murderers missed two of the children sleeping in another room: Ro'i, eight, and two-year-old Shai. The Fogel's twelve-year-old daughter, Tamar, was out at a Shabbat youth group gathering. When she returned, she found her slaughtered family. Can you imagine? ~~~~~~~~~~ Brace yourselves, but don't spare yourselves. See here photos of what Tamar found when she entered her home:
When there have been terrorist attacks here in Israel it has not been the norm to put out photos like this because of a sensitive desire to protect mourners. But these pictures were released by the Yesha Council with the permission of the family, because it's time to take off our gloves. It's time for the world to "get it" with regard to what Jews here endure. ~~~~~~~~~~ With the help of neighbors who came running at her piercing screams, Tamar brought out her two live siblings. They are all being cared for by their grandparents, Chaim Fogel and his wife (whose name I do not have) of Nevei Tzuf, in Samaria. The senior Fogels were given the terrible news in the middle of the night by Nevei Tzuf emergency service workers, who then brought them to Itamar. There, they saw the scene of horror for themselves and brought the living grandchildren back with them. The funerals are taking place now — at 1:30 PM — as I write, at Har Hamenuchot Cemetery in Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ May the Almighty embrace the souls of those who were murdered in a flood of light and total peace, while avenging their deaths. May He be ever with the surviving children. May there be strength for the senior Fogels and other friends and family who will care for the surviving children. And may the love of the caretakers who will tend to them bring succor to the Fogel children, so that in time they may re-build their lives for good. And, finally, may our people Israel know this sort of tragedy no more. ~~~~~~~~~~ More words, in a televised statement last night, from Prime Minister Netanyahu: "I noticed that several states which rushed to condemn Israel for building a house in some place are taking their time in condemning the murder of children." Netanyahu said he was shocked by the ambiguous condemnation of the attack by PA leaders — which I shared last night which I will repeat below for your use, along with some new information on incitement). He further stated: "I am disappointed by the weak and mumbled statements. This is not how one condemns terrorism. This is not how one fights terrorism...there has never been anything like this, in which terrorists entered a home and cut children's throats. ~~~~~~~~~~ Well OK. Netanyahu has finally said it. It's been time for him to say this for a long while. The fact that he says this now means he knew all along, of course. Knew of the PA duplicity and continuing incitement. Now we must hold him to what he has said, demanding that he mean it: Not a single concession. Not for Obama. Not for the EU. Not out of fear of being isolated internationally. For nothing. Those concessions bring no peace. They simply make us weaker and more vulnerable. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu must know and fully internalize this fact: His responsibility is to the safety of the people of Israel, not to the larger world. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has particular culpability with regard to this situation, because he has always been so eager to make concessions to show the world how prepared we were to "make peace." In the area around Itamar, there have been checkpoints taken down, and security checks relaxed. And so not only should there be no more concessions, there should be a reinstatement of security measures, in line with the government's responsibility to protect the people. Since 1984, when Itamar was founded, 20 of its members have been killed by terrorists. No more! Netanyahu should fire Barak now, and replace him with Moshe Ya'alon. And if he refuses to do so, at the very least, he must take the helm of his government and himself make the necessary tough decisions to protect the Israeli people. ~~~~~~~~~~ And there is yet one action that should be taken by the government of Israel now: Civil law should be applied to all of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. It's time to stop the charade of proceeding for peace, and to assert our rights. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, my friends, there are some actions I now request of you: Share this posting very broadly. Put it out everywhere. With the news focus on the tragedy in Japan, most people will not know of this. And people must know, in order to understand. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, please, contact Prime Minister Netanyahu. As always, I ask that you be respectful, brief and to the point. * Tell him that he must be strong. Now that he has publicly faced the truth of the duplicity of the PA, he must not fall back into a pattern of making concessions. Not for any reason. Concessions bring death to Israeli innocents and make Israel weak. Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369) E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses Remember that numbers count. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, please, I ask US citizens to contact your representatives in Congress. Tell them you are informing them about the situation in Israel, as full information may not have come to them. Without that information, they would not be able to make proper decisions. Then describe the attack, briefly. Don't be afraid to include the link to the pictures of the slaughtered children. Say that a four-year-old was knifed in the heart and an infant had her throat slit. Explain that it is crystal clear that the PA is not a partner for peace and that it only weakens Israel to make further concessions. Use the material I've provided in this posting to bolster your position, especially with regard to what PA leaders said and how PM Netanyahu responded. Tell them that it would be wrong to demand more concessions of any sort from Israel, and that Israel has an obligation first to protect her civilian population. Provide them with this link from Palestinian Media Watch, which
exposes PA incitement:
~~~~~~~~~~ For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ One day before the terror attack, Sabri Saidam, who is an advisor to President Mahmoud Abbas and under-secretary of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, delivered a speech. In that speech, according to the newspaper Al Ayam, "He emphasized that the weapons must be turned towards the main enemy [Israel] and that internal differences of opinion must be set aside." This was picked up by Palestinian Media Watch http://www.palwatch.org. ~~~~~~~~~~ Comments on the attack by PA officials: After an initial silence, PA president Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday that he rejects "all violence against civilians." But look at all of the qualifying: Abbas, in his statement, said, "violence produces violence and what is needed is to speed a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict." What violence produces violence? There is nothing, but nothing, even remotely that Israeli Jews have done that is "violent" in the sense that this attack is violent. So Abbas is drawing a false and obscene moral equivalency. And then this becomes a sort of justification. If only we will stop our "occupation" and give them their state, then the violence would stop. Of course, that is not so either, twice over. Not so that we are "occupiers." And not so that our pulling back would stop the hatred and the terror. To further obfuscate the issue, PA foreign minister Riad al-Malki said that his ministry condemns the killing of Israelis by "people whose identity remains unknown." "The killing of an infant and the slaughtering of people in this way was never carried out by any Palestinians for national motives or revenge. This puts a question mark over the swift accusation made by the Israeli side — to the effect that Palestinians had carried out the attack." Al-Malki, ever concerned about how his people look to the outside world, attempted to deny the patently obvious. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE OSLO MASSACRE OF CHILDREN IN ITAMAR
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 13, 2011. |
|
Following attack, leftists must decide whether they're 'useful idiots' or anti-Semites 1. "Moment of truth for leftists:
Hello there, global leftist: Almost every day, Israel's citizens are told of more displays of hostility by you against us. Often we are informed of various boycotts imposed on Israeli goods, the cancellation of cultural events in Israel, and even attempts to boycott Israeli academia. This past week I watched Pink Floyd's Roger Waters urging a boycott on Israel. His arguments included an embarrassing combination of charges, including the finest lies taken from al-Jazeera's propaganda. The most prominent argument was Israel's portrayal as a racist "apartheid state" that sets up a wall separating Arabs and Jews. Now, listen to what happened Saturday. One or more terrorists infiltrated the community of Itamar, which is located beyond the protective fence. They butchered five family members with knives, including an 11-year-old child, a four-year-old boy, and a three-months-old baby girl. Gaza residents celebrated the massacre, so this is not a case of individual madness. These are the same Palestinians who celebrated the death of thousands at the Twin Towers. These are the same people who are standing at the squares of Tehran, Damascus, Beirut and even Istanbul, screaming "Death to Israel." As it turns out, "Israel" can also be a baby. Let's put ideology aside for a moment and only talk numbers. Before the fence was built, premeditated acts of horror were perpetrated within Israel regularly. In 2002 alone, some 189 Israelis were massacred in 53 terror attacks. As the fence kept expanding, hostilities declined, until in 2009 they stood at zero. So these are the numbers. My conclusions, which are only premised on the data presented above, are simple: With a fence in place, there are no massacres. Without a fence, hundreds of civilians are massacred. Hence, those interested in removing the fence support the slaughter of Israelis. So why do you, dear leftist, endorse massacres in practice? Useful idiots Ask yourself the following question: Why do you compare the premeditated slaughter of civilians to unintentional harm to civilians who serve as a human shield for rocket launchers and suicide bombers? There are two possible answers here. The first answer, my leftist comrade, is that you're simply an idiot. Don't be insulted, my friend, you're not "just an idiot." You are an idiot of the type Lenin referred to as "useful idiot." What does that mean? You're simply being exploited. You are being exploited by global Islam in a bid to eliminate a democratic state. After all, you would not be able to survive even five minutes in the alternative they prepare for you. If you want, you can look into the state of freedom of expression, prosecution of Christians, stoning of women and hanging of homosexuals in the Muslim world. You likely believe that you are legitimately criticizing the State of Israel. Yet here you're lying to yourself a little. There is no state like Israel, surrounded by an ocean of billions of people calling for its extermination. Its neighbors, who realized they cannot defeat it on the battlefield, are simply exploiting you: They fire rockets at our kindergartens from the safety behind your back — yes, you, the one calling for boycotts and screaming "apartheid." Anti-Semitism The second and less flattering possibility is that you're not a "useful idiot," but rather, a mere anti-Semite. Is there another way for you to explain your obsession with Israel? Do you show the same determined disapproval towards China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela or North Korea? The campaign against the Jewish state is disproportional in a way that cannot be explained away. I too admit that the Jews are an especially annoying people. Yet we do not tend to explode on buses as a form of revenge; not even in Germany. At most we'll argue with you until you die of boredom. Perhaps you believe that you'd be able to clear you conscience of the persecution of Jews and the Holocaust if only you prove that we're worse than you. Perhaps the fact that the annoying Jews, according to the Bible at least, introduced to the world the morality which Islam and Christianity are premised on drives you nuts. Maybe you are interested in highlighting our injustices because someone branded us as the "Chosen People." One way or another, I have no intention to again march into the gas chambers because of a 3,000-year-old story. By the way, guess what the next target for extermination is? You really don't know? Go ahead and look in the mirror. In Brussels, Paris, London and Malmo you shall soon be an extinct species fighting for its survival under Islamic laws. And while you're at it at the mirror, look at yourself and say the following: "Now, after I read this, I am no longer a useful idiot. Rather, I am an anti-Semite who is assisting the murder of Jews, in practice." Does it seem exaggerated to you? Maybe so. But in the bottom line, as far as the outcome is concerned, this is precisely what you're doing. 2. The "Palestinian" Nazis return:
See also http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10060 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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
EVALUATING MIDDLE EAST CRISES; NETANYAHU DECEIVES RE
JORDAN VALLEY?; ABOUT JIHAD
Posted by Richad H. Shulman, March 12, 2011. |
|
How to discuss Mideast and other public issues Have you noticed how people discuss the Arab-Israel conflict in a strikingly different way from other Mideast issues? Consider Libya. The big question is whether and how the U.S. should intervene. Each commentator argues plausibly for one or the other position. Most acknowledge opposing arguments. Consumers choose among a variety of facts and logical arguments to evaluate. Considerations mentioned: (1) Is it in the U.S. national interest to remove Ghadafi; (2) Should the U.S. risk troops for humanitarian purposes; (3) Should the U.S. act unilaterally, if necessary; (4) Do we know who opposes and who would succeed Ghadaffi; (5) Do we need Arab government approval to pre-empt claims we are out to kill Muslims; (6) Can we schedule an end to any war or would we spend years and billions on nation-building; (7) Can we help depose Ghadaffi short of war; (8) Why did the U.S. subordinate action to UN approval, and one that may ban all arms shipments to Libya, even to anti-Ghadaffi forces; (9) Would our support for rebels succeed; (10) I wonder why we embargoed Libyan oil back when the rebels controlled almost all the oil outlets; (11) Since Arab Muslim society discriminates against minorities, why take sides; (12) Why bother if the Obama administration does not act promptly, adequately, consistently, and in the national interest; (13) Shall we exhort to democracy, but ignore revolutions against dictators. Now consider discussions about the Arab-Israel conflict. The cause of the conflict, Islam and Mideast culture, are overlooked or distorted. Pundits erroneously assume that Muslim culture shares Western values and ways of thinking. Commentators ignore the U.S. national interest, which would be harmed by setting up still another, anti-Western, jihadist, terrorist state. The whole discussion, except by a few of us, is what concessions Israel should make to terrorists undeserving of concessions and rejecting peaceful coexistence. Discussions about the Arab-Israel conflict are stereotypical, close-minded, and deceitful, whereas discussions about Libya are creative, open-minded, and more factual. Why? It would be easy but simplistic to attribute the difference entirely to antisemitism, though that is a factor. Many Jews have absorbed some antisemitism. These Jews retain the medieval urge to appease gentiles. Some of them implicitly endorse the antisemitic notion that dislike of Jews is caused by Jews, rather than by gentile psychosis. Hence they imagine that if Jews act "nicely" to the Arabs, the Arabs will see that there is no reason to hate Jews. Islamic hatred is not based on legitimate grievance. Imams derive this hatred from their holy books, written centuries before the current Arab-Israel conflict. The notion of appeasing ideological fanatics is as foolish with Islam as it was for Nazism and Communism. But Westerners keep getting taken in by totalitarian propaganda. Israel's dominant left wing increasingly is anti-Zionist. One may trace that back to Martin Buber, who reject Jewish sovereignty because it could be abused. He would cede sovereignty rest to Jews' persecutors. Brilliant! Arab popular uprisings are new. Americans realize they know little about Libya, so they are more open-minded about it. They do not realize how little they know about the Palestinian Arabs and their allies. They have fallen into an ideological rut on the Arab-Israel conflict. The ideology on Israel is politically and multi-culturally correct. That is, it censors history, international law, and discussion. The only originality in most discussions about that conflict lays in finding new terminology for variations of the same failed and misrepresented remedy, land-for-peace. Inability to discuss and evaluate public issues afflicts domestic matters, too. A hot new topic is the coming federal ban of incandescent bulbs. On that issue, as on many political ones, the New York newspapers discuss generalizations and conclusions, but not basic facts. The premise of the proposed compact fluorescent alternative is that it uses less electricity and lasts longer. Recent studies find that it saves only about half as much electricity as supposed and burns out more frequently than incandescent bulbs. Frequent replacement of bulbs increases their price and the electricity used in manufacturing them. Price evaluation is distorted in much of our economy, because of government subsidy. Drop subsidies, and we would know how much things really cost. The proposed ban was not defined. My reading lamps use full spectrum incandescent. Will they be banned? Not mentioned. Full spectrum bulbs reduce eye strain, nourish house plants, help against winter depression, use less electricity than regular incandescent bulbs, last longer than regular bulbs, and are more expensive than regular bulbs but not more than compact fluorescents which strain the eyes. Another current issue is food irradiation. Processors want to irradiate unsanitary meat. I would prefer they clean up the filth. Their main method of advocacy is to deride opponents by setting up a straw man argument. They pretend that the main objection is a supposition that radiation stays with the meat. Serious opponents know better. I read all the experiments' reports. The reports concluded that irradiation is harmless, but the text of the reports indicates harm. The reports admit a degradation of vitamins. Irradiation changes the meat in ways that do not seem to have been tested sufficiently. The reports admit that irradiation releases into the meat the same chemicals that cause radiation poisoning. Perhaps the dose is not high, but it adds to all the other assaults on the body, as by pollutants and stress. We need more honest discussion that gets specific. Last example, fluoridation. Officials promoted it with bandwagon propaganda and by calling opponents "nuts." Opponents raised serious doubts about untested safety, dose and dental efficacy, probable cause of periodontal disease that is worse than cavities, unnecessary cost, and violation of civil liberties. Publicity may have gotten people to improve dental hygiene. Opponents warned that the supposed doses were understated, did not take other food, air, and water sources into account, and would have stronger side-effects. This year, the government reduced the amount released into water from 1.2 parts per million to .7, after finding that the supposed doses were understated, did not take other food, air, and water sources into account, and had stronger side-effects. The side-effects mentioned were dental mottling. Doesn't sound significant, but when stains show up on teeth, systemic poisoning has begun. Nine European countries have banned fluoridation. It wasn't opponents who were crazy. Public issues should not be determined by personally shaming people and ignoring reasonable doubt. Society needs to resolve public controversy more maturely and honestly. NETANYAHU DECEIVING PEOPLE ON JORDAN VALLEY? Israel's PM Netanyahu made a ringing statement that for Israeli national security, the IDF must stay in the Jordan Valley. Netanyahu's endorsement of retaining the Jordan Valley did not impress Dr. Aaron Lerner. Dr. Lerner pointed out that experience has shown that unless a civilian people remains in an area to represent the national claim to it, the Army won't stay (IMRA, 3/8/11 http://www.imra.org.il/). In any case, if only the Army stays, then Israel would be admitting it has no national claim to the area. Israel would appear to be an occupier of Arab territory. Since other countries do not care about Israel national security, they would pressure Israel to withdraw the Army, too. In abandoning civilian settlement to the Arabs, the Arabs would build up sufficient presence as to imperil or embroil the troops. They would have to leave. Is Netanyahu aware of Dr. Lerner's observation? I think so. I count this as another example of Netanyahu's clever wording, crafted to give a nationalist impression while actually taking a position of appeasement. Netanyahu's statements need a truth squad. Better would be a people's non-violent uprising against the Israeli Establishment. What to do about jihad? Most Muslims, not just the more Radical ones, want to set up a caliphate, impose Islamic law, and commit offensive jihad against the rest of the world. The threat is permanent and complex. What should non-Muslims do about it, where the Muslims are not yet waging jihad by arms? Hundreds of years ago, Islam started imperial expansion as a caliphate whose purpose was conquest. A new caliphate means perpetual war. The foe would be ideological. Jihad cannot be bought off by concessions and diplomacy. Unless thwarted, it eventually would prevail. "In this context, what, exactly, is the Western world prepared to do about it — now, before the caliphate becomes a reality? Would it be willing to launch a preemptive offensive — politically, legally, educationally, and, if necessary, militarily — to prevent its resurrection? Could the West ever go on the offensive, openly and confidently — now, when it has the upper-hand — to incapacitate its enemies?" [Note the suggestion that the solution depends on the Western world, although jihad is fighting against India, Russia, Philippines, Thailand, and African countries. Why not a global, anti-jihad alliance?] Jihad isn't a clearly identifiable army to fight or illicit arms to confiscate. It is an ideology whose champions at times are civilians. If we wait until a country is seized for the caliphate, it would be too late. At this time, the West lacks a concept of opposing religious aggression. Nor is the West yet able to pierce the veil of feigned moderation by Islamists. [A Wall St. J. Op.-Ed of 3/12/11 did state that the FBI finally was dissuaded from recognizing as a legitimate Islamic representative the pro-terrorist organization CAIR.] The Obama administration thinks it can engage the Muslim Brotherhood, although the brotherhood is just like al-Qaeda. Obama thinks he can engage Iran, although Iran continues for years to develop nuclear weapons. An answer is imperative.
It is difficult to expect leadership from the West. Europe is declining in power and in loyalty to its own civilization. Liberals don't want the U.S. to lead. They want it to follow the UN, as if the UN were not anti-American. It is true that the U.S. has over-extended itself. Unless we get our economy in order, including reducing government funding for lobbies, we cannot remain a great power. Political correctness hobbles us. We let our universities become fonts of jihad ideology. The Obama administration does many things to undermine resistance to jihad. The most blatant is to ban terms such as Islamic terrorism. Less obvious to many people is U.S. subsidy for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) jihadists and a Hizbullah ally, the Lebanese Army. The P.A. shares the subsidy with Hamas. If we don't identify the enemy, and even subsidizes the enemy, how can we fight the enemy as is not the Obama administration allied to the enemy? P.A. condemns slaughter of Israeli family Pres. Abbas, PM Fayyad, and the P.A. Minister of Foreign Affairs condemned the attack that stabbed to death five sleeping family members in Itamar, as "inexcusable." Foreign Min. Maliki said that such an attack is "unprecedented" but that the alacrity with which Israel blamed Arab terrorism impugns the accusation's reliability (IMRA, 3/12/11). The assassins missed two children asleep in a side room and a daughter not at home then. Two intruders were observed fleeing toward a nearby Arab village (NY Times, 3/13/11), a common escape route. What other explanation would the P.A. adduce? Jews in the Territories don't commit aggression and don't stab, whereas Muslims often have. In follow up news, the U.S. and the Quartet also condemned the attackers. The foreign condemnations urge the P.A. to help apprehend the perpetrators. None of the condemnations denounced the P.A. for glorifying such terrorism, as it has. None questioned what kind of a society they are donating a fortune to help prop up even as that society struggles to impose its religion brutally on others. Overnight, a group of Israeli Cabinet ministers approved the construction of hundreds of houses for Jews in Judea-Samaria. That is the Zionist answer to terrorism that Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA had urged. It affirms Jewish national claims and, if persistent, would discourage Islamist attacks. If terrorism leads to a growing Zionist response, the terrorists would not be so lauded by their fellows, as they have been until now. "Unprecedented" and "inexcusable," the P.A. now declares. Has it forgotten the many times its leaders rationalized that attacks on Israeli civilians are not terrorism but "resistance" to "occupation?" They denied that Israelis are civilians, because at some time in their lives they serve in the Army. Actually, before induction and after discharge, Israelis are not soldiers and not all serve. Abbas in particular honors fallen terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians. Among those he memorialized as a paragon was a woman who slew a few dozen helpless Israelis. One of the worst Palestinian Arab atrocities was the attack on Maalot, where the terrorists shot children in a nursery school. Another, more recent example was the terrorist shooting of students at a yeshiva. Guess he forgot all that, too. Although the official P.A. implies that children are non-combatants, P.A. terrorists have used children both as human shields outright and as runners bringing them supplies while they hide from the IDF. We have seen many pictures of young Palestinian Arab children dressed as suicide bombers. The Palestinian Arab culture imbues its society with religious hatred and violence. The West averts its eyes to this. The West European media go so far as to claim, falsely and without documentation that Israel is the society that does that does this. Such is the recrudescence of antisemitism in Europe, a Europe, incidentally, that many of my liberal friends admire. Question is, will Western journalists or others in the world remember, or just give the P.A. officials undeserved credit for moderation. Ideally, journalists would point out what I just did, the hypocrisy of the barbaric Palestinian Arab leaders and their culture. 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. |
|
IT'S TIME FOR THE JEWS TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES
Posted by Ralph Rubinek, March 12, 2011. |
|
This was written by David Horowitz and it appeared yesterday in Front
Page Magazine
|
|
I was not looking forward to my speech at Brooklyn College last night during "Israel Apartheid Week." The campus atmosphere was so hostile to Jews that no student organization was willing to host my appearance, not even the Jewish organizations — and with 3,500 Jewish students on campus, there were several. My visit was only made possible by the courage of one professor, Mitchell Langbert, who reserved a room in the school library and the bravery of one student, Yosef Sobol, a Jewish immigrant from Ukraine who organized the event. The college paper, Excelsior, is edited by a 9/11 "truther" who had declared on the Internet that a memorial should be erected to Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 terrorists and who had turned the Excelsior into an anti-Israel propaganda sheet. Despite the fact that the Jews who attend Brooklyn college are members of a minority who are the victims of eight times the number of hate crimes that are committed against Muslims — let alone Arabs — according to FBI statistics, faculty required all incoming freshman to read a single book — about discrimination against Arabs in America: "How Does It Feel To Be A Problem?" Faculty also hired an instructor who was an activist for Hamas and its terrorist state in Gaza. For two weeks prior to my arrival an adjunct professor at the college had been calling on students and political radicals to protest my appearance, while denouncing me as a "racist" and "McCarthyite." This professor is a Muslim member of the International Socialist Organization, a communist party that seeks a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in America. He urged students and outsiders to attack the event both outside the auditorium and inside it during my speech. My bodyguard — a requisite at any campus at which I speak — called campus security two days before the event and was told the policy of the university was that protesters who tried to obstruct my speech would not be removed from the room. Consequently, I was fully prepared for the fact that I might not be able to speak at all and readied myself for the battle. But then something totally unexpected happened. A trustee of the CUNY system, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, was aware of Yosef's efforts decided to intervene. He demanded that the university protect the students who had invited me and to see that their event took place. In all my years traveling to over 400 universities this had never happened before. As a result of Wiesenfeld's intervention, there were seven armed and imposing guards at the entrance to the hall. They inspected each individual, wanding them and searching their bags before they entered. The campus Chief of Public Safety was there too, along with an official from the university who warned would-be protesters that they would be removed if they obstructed my speech. And so I was able to speak for an hour in a civil atmosphere, and the students who came were able to hear what I had to say. Let me pause here to say that campus violence which comes exclusively from leftists and Muslim radicals, and the obstruction of speakers, which comes exclusively from the same source, would disappear if university administrators did their job and if university trustees met their responsibility to ensure that an appropriate atmosphere prevails on their campuses. Would that there were a hundred trustees like this one. Brooklyn College is a commuter school and it was a blustery and rainy evening, but the library auditorium was filled with over 100 people, mainly students, virtually all of them either Jewish or Palestinian, with the Jews representing about 80 percent of those present. I began by asking everyone how it felt to go through a "checkpoint" — the "injustice" of checkpoints being a focus of recent demonstrations by the newly created "Palestinian Club" whose members constituted 20 percent of the audience that night. I said, "Well, our checkpoint made me feel safe, and that is the point of checkpoints — to protect the innocent from attacks by people who want to kill them." I then addressed the atmosphere of intimidation that prevailed at Brooklyn College as a result of the attacks by the anti-Israel and pro-jihad left. The Brooklyn College administration had ignored and thereby encouraged these attacks as had university administrations across the country in the face of a nationwide campaign by leftists and Muslim activists to silence those who opposed them. I recalled how Nazis and Communists in the 1930s had conducted a joint campaign to break up the public meetings of their opponents and how that had spelled the end of democracy in Germany and the rise of the totalitarian state. I said the frontline battle in our present war with totalitarianism was the First Amendment's right to disagree. When protests were designed to shut down speakers, when speakers were defamed in advance of their appearances, one side of the argument was effectively silenced, and if that were allowed to continue we would soon lose our democracy. I said the attacks on freedom of speech had already gone so far in this country that you couldn't mention terror and Islam in the same breath without being labeled a bigot or an Islamophobe, accused of labeling all Muslims as terrorists. Even President Bush who had heroically defended us against the attacks of Islamic terrorists could not identify our enemies by name for fear of offending other terrorists and their sympathizers and allies. He could not identify them as Islamic extremists or Islamic radicals or Islamic jihadist which is what they call themselves. I happened to be speaking on the day Congressman Peter King opened his hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America and had watched the attacks on those hearings on my hotel television screen. I said we had reached a point in our country where we could not even make inquiries about the threat of domestic terrorism posed by militant Islamists who are responsible for 17,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 without being attacked as "McCarthyites" and "bigots." This is the primary political strategy of all Islamic terrorists and their enablers — to identify anyone who speaks about Islamic terrorism as someone who is attacking all Muslims as terrorists. The terrorists seek to identify themselves with Islam, to hide themselves and their sinister agendas in the Muslim community and use its numbers as a protective shield. The charge that an attack on one Muslim terrorist is an attack on all Muslims is an insult to the Muslim community and abuse of its members. All Muslims are not terrorists but there are also not enough Muslims coming forward to separate themselves and Islam from the radical jihad, or to condemn organizations like Hamas. Here I mentioned a Muslim, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who had testified that day and who said, "This is our problem, and it is our responsibility to solve it." Finally, I praised Wiesenfeld (but did not feel free at the time to divulge his name) who made the evening possible. He had struck an important blow for democracy at Brooklyn college against the jihadist assault. I then read a series of statements by Palestinian leaders and by the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood each of which promised to finish the job that Hitler started. Here are two: Mahmoud Al-Zahar, founder of Hamas said in 2007: "There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world. You are headed to annihilation." In that same year, Ahmad Bahar, Acting Chairman of Gaza Parliament said: "Be certain that America is on its way to disappear,... Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies... Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don't leave even one." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who these people are, I said. "They are Nazis, and they want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. Their goal is not peace but to push the Jews of Israel into the sea. On campuses all across America, I said, the Muslim and socialist left are chanting "From the river to the sea..." I was then interrupted by a voice from the audience who turned out to be the Muslim Marxist organizer of the protest, who completed the chant "...Palestine will be free." I pointed out that the eastern boundary of Israel is the river and the western boundary is the Mediterranean sea, and that this was just another way of saying we want to kill you Jews and destroy your state and push you into the sea. They are Nazis. I said the embargo on free speech is already so far advanced in America that we speak of a "peace process," as though there was one. There is not a single Palestinian leader willing to recognize the Jewish state. Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority want to "liberate" Palestine "from the river to the sea." How can you make peace with people who don't want you to exist? How can you negotiate a peace with Nazis who want to kill you? You can't. You have to demand that they stop being Nazis or that the people who support them elect other leaders. I said we have to stop capitulating to the censors of our language and call things by their right names. That is the only way to have clarity and to begin to be able to defend ourselves. I then asked why the left is willing to embrace Hamas Nazis who want to kill the Jews. Leftists would answer this question by claiming that Palestinians are oppressed, and that it is the Jews who are responsible for their suffering. The Jews stole their land and put them under military occupation and have since subjected them to all manner of indignities, like checkpoints. I then said, let's put off the question as to whether there is any truth in these claims, and just look at the claim that suffering explains their resort to suicide bombings and their desire to kill the Jews and push them into the sea. For thousands of years nations, ethnic groups, races and religions have suffered. They have been enslaved, they have been occupied, they have been oppressed. But never in the history of mankind until now has their been a people like the Palestinians who strap bombs on their own children and tell them to blow themselves up and kill other children, and that if they do so they will go to heaven and become saints. No other religion besides Islam makes murderers into saints. In the entire history of mankind no people has sunk to such moral depths as the Palestinians in their war against the Jews. Let's also look at the claims that Jews oppress Palestinians rather than the other way around. Let's begin with biggest lie of the entire Middle East conflict — that Israel "occupies" Arab land, let alone "Palestinian" land. To begin with, there hasn't been a political entity or state called Palestine since Roman times, when Rome affixed the name Philistina (or "Palestine) to the homeland of the Jews which is Judea and Samaria, which is today the Palestinian occupied West Bank. The Romans did this because the Philistines, who were not Arabs, were the Jews' enemies and they wanted to humiliate the people they had conquered and dispersed to the four corners of the globe. In the second place the entire region around the Jordan out of which Israel was created was not Arab and had not been for four hundred years. The Arabs' claim to Israel is about as credible as the Dutch claim to New York. For four hundred years prior to the creation of the state of Israel — not to mention Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq — the land belonged to the Turks who are neither Palestinians nor Arabs. The state of Jordan was also created out of what was called the Palestine Mandate, when it was administered by the victorious powers in World War I. The majority of Jordan's population are Arabs who today would be referred to as "Palestinians" — a "nationality" created in 1964 to combat the Jewish state. The "Palestinians" of Jordan are ruled and oppressed by a Hashemite minority. But no one is calling for their liberation. That is because the true goal of the Palestinian liberation movement is not a Palestinian state (which has been rejected by the Arabs as recently as 2000) but to push the Jews into the sea. I went on to discuss the other indefensible lies that make up the total case against Israel — for example that Jewish settlements are a problem. There are a million Muslim Arabs settled in the state of Israel, who enjoy more rights as Israeli citizens than the Muslims or Arabs in any Muslim or Arab state. If Muslim communities in Israel are not a problem, why are Jewish communities in the Arab world or on the West Bank or in Gaza? Because the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East are racists and refuse to live side by side with any non-Arab or non-Muslim people. That is the straightforward, factually accurate, but politically incorrect answer. There were two democracies in the Middle East after the Second World War: Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon was actually a Christian democracy. Democratic Lebanon has been destroyed by the Islamic jihad and the Christians of the entire Middle East are under the gun or in flight. I had encouraged the Brooklyn students to erect a "Palestinian Wall of Lies" (www.walloflies.org) that we had created to combat the malignant "Israel Apartheid Wall" that the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish left on campus was going to erect during "Israel Apartheid Week." When the Brooklyn College administration learned of these plans they banned both walls. This is what a victory looks like in collegiate America today. "Israel Apartheid Week" is a hate week against Jews, nothing more nothing less. Israel is, in fact, the only state in the Middle East that is not an apartheid state. Jews have created the only multicultural society in the Middle East, the only society that respects the rights of all ethnic and religious groups — and all genders as well. Jews have built the only society that respects women and gays. The very name "Israel Apartheid Week" is thus an obscenity whose only purpose is to demonize the Jewish state and make it vulnerable to the terrorist armies who whose rockets are poised to destroy it and whose goal is to push its Jews into the sea. If this campaign had been directed against African Americans or any other campus ethnic group — including and especially Muslims — no university community would tolerate it. But because it is directed against Jews, Israel hate week is protected and funded by student governments and protected by university administrators. Moreover, and most disturbingly, the Jewish organizations on campus have been unwilling to stand up for themselves and to claim the same rights and respect as the groups who are attacking them. The Hillel organization on the Brooklyn College campus is 1,000 Jews strong but it would not sponsor our event. The Palestinian Club is 100 Muslims strong, but they came to attack it. By now you are probably wondering about the reaction of these members of the Palestinian Club who came to protest my speech. You are wondering how they responded to the detailed arguments I made refuting their claims and self-justifications or to my statement that while Palestinians were indeed suffering, the cause of their suffering was their own leaders and the Arab states who for sixty years have rejected peace because they want to push the Jews into the sea. The answer is that they didn't. It was as though members of the Palestinian Club had not heard a word I said. I have had the same experience on a score of campuses where I have confronted audiences, which included sizeable contingents from the Muslim Students Association, a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a sister organization to Hamas, along with their leftwing enablers. The reactions at the end of my talks are always the same. The only way I can truly convey what happens is to recount a speech I arranged for the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who is under indictment for "insulting Islam" in the Netherlands. Wilders made very clear that he was not opposed to Muslims but to an intolerant and totalitarian ideology that demanded total submission to its doctrines and oppressed minorities whom it regarded as "infidels." During his speech Wilders turned to address directly the two dozen leftists and Muslims in the audience. He appealed to them saying "Look, I am doing your work. You say you are for the rights of women and gays. Under Sharia law and in many Islamic countries gays are hung from cranes and women are treated as chattel, denied education, and beaten with impunity by their husbands. I oppose the version of Islam that oppresses women and homosexuals. You need to do so as well." As soon as Wilders had finished his speech, the Muslims and leftists in the audience stood up en masse and started chanting "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Geert Wilders go away!" and marched from the room. So it was with the Muslims who came to protest my talk. When they went to the microphones to ask questions after the speech they all had one talking point and it was the strategic talking point of the jihadists: "Mr. Joe McCarthy" (this is how the leader of the protest actually addressed me, "you said that all Muslims are terrorists...." Others before him had made the identical charge bolted from the room. None had even made a pass a questioning the history I had reviewed or the facts I had presented. What struck me afterwards was this. Every Muslim in the room was a member of the Palestinian Club; most I was told afterwards were from Ramallah. But not one of them spoke as a Palestinian. I had said that Palestinians had elected two terrorist governments to rule over them, that Palestinians were willing to kill their own children in order to kill other children, that their schools taught their children to hate and kill Jews, that as a people they had sunk to the lowest moral level in history. I had said that they were indistinguishable from Nazis. And not one Palestinian in that room stood up to defend themselves as Palestinians. To a man and woman they said, "You are accusing all Muslims of being terrorists. I said to them, you are acting as foot soldiers for the terrorists — which provoked an outraged cry. I confronted the professor ringleader and said: "Will you condemn Hamas?" He hemmed and hawed and stuttered, and then began his evasion of the question, but everyone in the room who was not a member of the Palestinian Club knew they already had their answer. Yes these Muslim students from the "Palestinian Club" were all supporters of the terrorist war against the Jews. There was one questioner who actually did offer an intellectual challenge to an argument I had made, and did make an attempt to defend Palestinians as an ethnic group — as opposed to a religious sect of Islam. This person was a Jew from Hillel who suggested that Japanese kamikaze pilots were akin to suicide bombers and therefore Palestinians were not the only people in history who had sunk so low. But, of course, kamikaze pilots were soldiers not civilians, and they targeted battleships and aircraft carriers not women and children in pizza parlors. When it was over, I was glad I had come. I was proud of the small vanguard of Jewish students who had invited me and arranged my appearance, and come to my speech. I was proud of Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the Jewish trustee who had gone out of his way to protect me, and the students who came to hear me. And I was gratified that they understood my message and would take it to the rest of the Jewish community at Brooklyn College: If we are not for ourselves who will be? It is the same message I take to other campuses where my audiences are mainly non-Jewish. Israel is the canary in the mine. The chant of the Islamo-Nazis in the Middle East — shouted by millions — is, "Death to Israel! Death to America!" If we in America do not stand up for ourselves now, there will be no America tomorrow. Contact Ralph Rubinek by email at rrubinek@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: MOSTLY PAIN
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 12, 2011. |
|
Also rage and grief. This Adar posting will not begin with anything happy. It would feel almost sacrilege. On Friday night, a terrorist (or, it is suspected, several terrorists) cut an opening in the fence around the community of Itamar, in Samaria — not far from Nablus (Shechem). They entered a home and murdered a husband and wife, and three of their children, ages 11, three and one month. One month. Stabbed to death. Two other children in the family fled. No names have been released yet. ~~~~~~~~~~ The terrorist arm of Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, assumed responsibility for this atrocity. Twenty people in the Nablus region have been arrested in connection with the attack and IDF efforts will continue until the murderers are found. ~~~~~~~~~~ After an initial silence, PA president Mahmoud Abbas condemned the murders, saying that he rejects "all violence against civilians." This is worthless, my friends. Don't take it as any more than a public relations gesture. For Abbas's PA runs schools that teach young people that Allah welcomes "jihad" and that "martyrdom" is praiseworthy. What is more, Abbas does not act against the Al Aqsa Brigades. The US has spent a good deal of money (unwisely) and provided direct guidance on the ground to help the PA develop their "security forces." But those forces are much more likely to turn on Israelis than to seek out and arrest members of Al Aqsa. ~~~~~~~~~~~ And please, take a look at all of the qualifying done by PA officials: Abbas, in his statement, said, "violence produces violence and what is needed is to speed a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict." What violence produces violence? There is nothing, but nothing, even remotely that Israeli Jews have done that is "violent" in the sense that this attack is violent. So Abbas is drawing a false and obscene moral equivalency. And then this becomes a sort of justification. If only we will stop our "occupation" and give them their state, then the violence would stop. Of course, that is not so either. ~~~~~~~~~~ To further obfuscate the issue, PA foreign minister Riad al-Malki said that his ministry condemns the killing of Israelis by "people whose identity remains unknown." "The killing of an infant and the slaughtering of people in this way was never carried out by any Palestinians for national motives or revenge. This puts a question mark over the swift accusation made by the Israeli side — to the effect that Palestinians had carried out the attack." Right...it's not fair to assume it was a Palestinian Arab who did this, just because every single attack of this kind is perpetrated by a Palestinian Arab. Apparently al-Malki didn't coordinate his statement with Abbas's. He did regret the negative effect that this attack has on the Palestinian Arab image. ~~~~~~~~~~ Hamas, of course, praised the killing as a "heroic action." In Gaza there was celebrating, with candy given out on the street. ~~~~~~~~~~ The observation by Prime Minister Netanyahu was that, "A society that allows wild incitement like this, leads to the murder of children." He further demanded that the PA assist in the apprehension of the murderers. The point that they should help is, I suppose, worth making in principle, but Netanyahu certainly knows how futile any such expectation is. ~~~~~~~~~~ From the prime minister's office came a statement that said: "Netanyahu stands behind the settlers in this difficult hour...we all know, including those who came to attack us, that the future of the settlements won't be decided through terror." We can only pray that our prime minister's spine is stiffened by this. ~~~~~~~~~~ More on this and other matters will follow tomorrow... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
HOW NETANYAHU CAN OUT-MANEUVER OBAMA'S LATEST THREAT TO ISRAEL
Posted by Ted Belman, March 12, 2011. |
|
This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jewish World Review. |
|
The most effective way to defend Israel against Obama is to boldly assert, defend and implement a unilateral Israeli plan. Here it is. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is stuck between a diplomatic rock and a political hard place. And his chosen means of extricating himself from the double bind is only making things worse for him and for Israel. Diplomatically, Netanyahu is beset by the Palestinian political war to delegitimize Israel and the Obama administration's escalating hostility. That hostility was most recently expressed during President Barack Obama's meeting with American Jewish leaders on March 1. Insinuating that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace in the Middle East, Obama scolded Jewish leaders telling them to "search your souls," over Israel's seriousness about making peace. Obama's newest threat is that through the so-called Middle East Quartet, (Russia, the UN, the EU and the US), the administration will move towards supporting the Palestinian plan to declare Palestinian statehood. That state would include all of Judea and Samaria, Gaza and eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem. Since it would not be established in the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, and since its leaders reject Israel's right to exist, "Palestine" would be born in a de facto state of war with Israel. To credit this threat, Obama has empowered the Quartet to supplant the US as the mediator between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Buoyed by Obama, Quartet representatives and American and European officials have beaten a steady path to Netanyahu's door over the past several weeks. Their message is always the same: If Israel does not prove that it is serious about peace by giving massive unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians then they will abandon all remaining pretense of support for Israel and throw their lot in completely with the Palestinians. For the past year and a half Netanyahu's policy for dealing with Obama's animosity has been to try to appease him by making incremental concessions. Netanyahu's rationale for acting in this manner is twofold. First, he has tried to convince Obama that he really does want peace with the Palestinians. Second, when each of his concessions are met with further Palestinian intransigence, Netanyahu has argued that the disparity between Israeli concessions and Palestinian rejectionism and extremism demonstrates that it is Israel, not the Palestinians that should be supported by the West. To date Netanyahu's concessions have included his acceptance of Palestinian statehood and the two-state paradigm for peace; his temporary prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria; his undeclared prohibition on Jewish building in Jerusalem; his undeclared open-ended prohibition of Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem after his temporary building ban expired; his agreement to drastically curtail IDF counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria; his move to enact an undeclared abatement of law enforcement against illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem; and his decision to enable the deployment of the US-trained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu's declaration of support for Palestinian statehood required his acceptance of the Palestinian narrative. That narrative blames the absence of peace on Israel's refusal to surrender all of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Having effectively accepted the blame for the absence of peace, Netanyahu has been unable to wage a coherent political counteroffensive against the Palestinian political war. Now, in a bid to head off Obama's newest threat to use the Quartet to back the Palestinians' political war against Israel, Netanyahu is considering yet another set of unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians. For the past week and a half, Netanyahu has been considering a new "diplomatic initiative." According to media reports, he is weighing two options. First, he may end IDF counterterror operations in Palestinian cities in Judea and Samaria. Such a move would involve compromising all of the IDF's military achievements in the areas since 2002 when it first targeted the Palestinian terror factories from Hebron to Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield. The second option he is reportedly considering involves announcing his acceptance of a Palestinian state with non-final borders. Such a move would render it difficult if not practically impossible for Israel to conduct counterterror operations within those temporary borders. It would also make it all but impossible for Israel to assert its sovereign rights over the areas. Supporters of this initiative argue that not only will it stave off US pressure; it will strengthen Netanyahu's political position at home. Recent polls show that Netanyahu's approval numbers are falling while those of his two main rivals — Opposition leader Tzipi Livni and Foreign Minister and Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Liberman are rising. Netanyahu reportedly believes that by moving to the Left, he will be able to take support away from Livni and so regain his position as the most popular leader in the country. Given this assessment, Netanyahu's supporters argue that making further concessions to the Palestinians is a win-win prospect. It will strengthen Israel diplomatically and it will strengthen him politically. Sadly for both Israel and Netanyahu, this analysis is completely wrong. Since Obama came into office, he has consistently demonstrated that no Israeli concession will convince him to support Israel against the Palestinians. So too, the fact that every Israeli concession has been met by Palestinian intransigence has had no impact on either Obama or his European counterparts. Netanyahu correct claims that the Palestinians' intransigence shows they are not interested in peace is of interest to no one. And it is this lack of interest in Palestinian intransigence rather than Palestinian intransigence itself that is remarkable. What it shows is that Obama and his European counterparts don't care about achieving peace. Like the Palestinians, all they want is more Israeli concessions. Since taking office, Obama has only supported Israel against the Palestinians twice. The first time was last December. After months of deliberate ambiguity, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the administration opposes the Palestinian plan to unilaterally declare independence. Then last month the administration grudgingly vetoed the Palestinian-Lebanese draft resolution condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. In both cases, the administration's actions were not the result of Israeli appeasement, but of massive Congressional pressure. Congress issued bipartisan calls demanding that the administration torpedo both of these anti-Israel initiatives. What this shows is that Netanyahu's strategy for contending with Obama is fundamentally misconstrued and misdirected. Obama will not be moved by Israeli concessions. The only way to stop Obama from moving forward on his anti-Israel policy course is to work through Congress. And the most effective way to work through Congress is for Netanyahu to abandon his current course and tell the truth about the nature of the Palestinians, their rejection of Israel, their anti-Americanism and their support for jihadist terror. At the same time, Netanyahu must speak unambiguously about Israel's national rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, our required security borders, and about why US national security requires a strong Israel. The stronger the case Netanyahu makes for Israel, the more support Israel will receive from the Congress. And the more support Israel receives from the Congress, the more Obama will be compelled to temper his anti-Israel agenda. As for domestic politics, Netanyahu's attempt to appease Obama is a major cause of his falling approval numbers among voters. Likud voters do not expect him to outflank Livni from the Left. They voted for Likud and not Kadima because they recognized that Kadima's leftist policies are dangerous and doomed to failure. Kadima's recent increase in domestic support owes more to the breakup of the Labor Party than to Netanyahu's failure to carry out Kadima's policies of territorial surrender and diplomatic kowtowing to the UN, EU and Obama. The main beneficiary of Likud's eroding support has been Liberman. While Netanyahu has maintained his allegiance to the false, failed, unpopular-outside-of-the-media "peace with the Palestinians" paradigm in the foolish hope of winning over Obama, Liberman has seized control of the Right's political agenda. While Netanyahu accepts the legitimacy of the Palestinian leadership which rejects Israel's right to exist, Liberman presents himself as the leader of the majority of Israelis who oppose the Left's agenda of land for war. Moreover, while Netanyahu shunts aside his own party's most popular politicians like Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon in favor of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, he demoralizes his party faithful and his voters. And not only does Barak hurt Netanyahu with voters, this week he took an axe to Israel's most important diplomatic asset — Congressional support. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Barak said that Israel may ask Congress to increase US military support for Israel by $20 billion. Given the US's economic woes, and Congress's commitment to massive budget cuts, at best Barak's statement represented a complete incomprehension about the basic facts of US domestic politics. At worst, it was a supremely unfriendly act towards Israel's friends in Congress who are trying to maintain the current level of US military aid to Israel in the face of a popular push to slash the US's foreign aid budget. Beyond that, the plain fact is that Barak's statement was wrong. Israel's steady economic growth and its recently discovered natural gas fields should make it possible for Israel to decrease the military aid it receives from the US. This is true even though the revolutions in Egypt and throughout the Arab world will require Israel to massively increase its defense budget. If Netanyahu is serious about surmounting his diplomatic and political challenges, his best bet is to abandon his present course altogether. The most effective way to defend Israel against Obama is to boldly assert, defend and implement a unilateral Israeli plan. Netanyahu himself gave the broad outlines for such a plan this week when he stated that to defend itself, Israel will need to maintain perpetual control over the Jordan Valley. If Netanyahu were to announce a plan to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and the major blocs of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, he would accomplish several things at once. He would advance Israel's national interests rather than the Palestinians' interests against Israel. He would force the US and Europe to discuss issues that are grounded in strategic rationality rather than leftist-Islamist ideology. Finally, he would take back the leadership of his own political camp from Liberman and augment his political power domestically. So too, if Netanyahu fired Barak and replaced him with Ya'alon, he would energize his political supporters in a way he has failed to do since taking office. Netanyahu is reportedly considering unveiling his new diplomatic initiative in a speech before Congress in May. If he were to use that venue to unveil this plan and also announce a plan to wean Israel off of US military aid within three years, not only would he blunt Obama's power to threaten Israel. He would secure popular US support for Israel for years to come. And if he did that, he would restore the Israeli voters' support for his leadership and stabilize his government through the next elections. Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
COLIN FIRTH'S UPCOMING TRAVESTY
Posted by Barbara Taverna, March 12, 2011. |
|
This was written by Arnold Ahlert and it appeared in Front
Page Magazine
|
|
If the version of the script read by Big Hollywood columnist Joel B. Pollak is any indication, Best Actor Oscar winner Colin Firth's next movie may be one in which dramatic license gives way to historical revisionism. Firth will be playing the role of British Assistant District Commissioner Robert Chambers in The Promised Land, directed by Michael Winterbottom. The current script, a romance between Thomas Wilkin, a British police officer responsible for tracking down members of underground Zionist groups in British Mandate of Palestine, and Shoshana Borochov, daughter of Dov Ber Borochov, a left-wing Zionist, presents the story, according to Pollack, as "one in which the British favor the Jews over the Arabs, the Jews repay British kindness with cruelty, and Arab violence against civilians and support for the Third Reich are airbrushed out of the picture." Likely such revisionism is intentional. The screenplay was co-written by Winterbottom and Laurence Coriat, a woman who added her signature to a petition from "Lebanon and Israel's filmmaking community" which is itself a piece of historical revisionism. Apparently ignoring the reality that the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon began when Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel as cover for an anti-tank attack on Israeli soldiers — in which three soldiers were killed and two kidnapped — Ms. Coriat, et al, expressed "a message of camaraderie and solidarity with our Lebanese and Palestinian colleagues who are currently besieged and bombarded by our country's [Israel] army." Furthermore, Ms. Coriat and the other signers promised "to express through our films, with our raised voices, and in our personal actions our vehement opposition to the occupation, and we will continue to express our desire for freedom, justice, and equality among all the peoples of the region." In the film, officer Wilkin's principle adversary is Avraham "Yair" Stern, leader of the LECHI, or "Fighters For the Freedom of Israel," whom the British derisively referred to as Stern Gang. They were one of three underground groups opposed to British rule, but the Stern Gang carried out a violent campaign against British government officials and police. The Stern Gang was labeled a terrorist organization by the British and an outlaw organization by leaders of the other Zionist movements. Stern's primary consideration was to rid colonial Palestine of British rule because they were opposed to massive immigration of Jews who were fleeing Hitler and the Nazis. This opposition was codified in a declaration called the White Paper of 1939. The Paper restricted Jewish immigration to a total of 75,000 over a five year period between 1940 and 1944, despite the ongoing Nazi atrocities in Europe. Stern saw such limitations as a de facto death sentence for his people. The Paper, issued by the government of Neville Chamberlain, superseded the Peel Commission Report of 1937, which had recommended a partition of the Mandate. That agreement had sought to address the causes of Arab-Jewish riots which broke out in 1936 and lasted three years. Speaking on behalf of the Arabs, and demanding a complete halt to Jewish immigration, was the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. The White Paper of 1939 was apparently an effort to appease al-Husseini and his followers, despite his own role in opposing British rule and leading violent riots against Jews in the 1920s. When Pollack refers to the film as "airbrushing" the Arab-Nazi relationship, it may be because Amin al-Husseini went on to align himself with Hitler during the war, actively recruiting Muslims for Hitler's SS. He did so based on a promise that he would be installed as the leader of Palestine, after the British were defeated — and the 350,000 Jews living there were exterminated. Pollack also points out that the draft of the script he read slants the violence in the movie, with graphic depictions of violence against Arabs committed by both the British and Jewish terrorists vividly displayed, while "Jewish victims are largely off-screen, mentioned in the abstract — if at all," even as Arabs are depicted "as unique victims; they are the only concentration camp inmates portrayed in the story, for example." Some of Mr. Pollack's accusations may haven been inadvertently confirmed by two statements. One is the synopsis of the picture released by its maker, Fortissimo Films. It calls the movie "a police-thriller set in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem during the British Mandate era in Palestine. It tells the gripping true story of two British police officers...and their battle to bring to an end the campaign of bombings and assassinations by the extreme right-wing Jewish underground led by the charismatic poet, Avraham Stern." Yet a spokesman for the company, Michael Werner refers to director Michael Winterbottom as a man "who has proved time and again his skill at tackling troubling and controversial human stories." Thus, the obvious question arises: is The Promised Land a "true story," or a "controversial" one? Perhaps much of the debate centers around Winterbottom's own depiction of the story which, in an interview with ComingSoon.net he described as "British police chasing Jewish terrorist groups," or the fact that the movie isn't based on any specific historical reference, with Winterbottom admitting "we just did our own research." Pollack calls such research selective at best, claiming the screenplay is "deeply flawed' with "errors of omission as well as commission, such as the familiar (yet false) claim that Jews were a minority in Jerusalem in the early 20th century." Israeli actress Mili Avital agrees with Pollack's assessment. She had been sent a script to see if she wanted to participate in the project but rejected the offer. "It is a script that has drawn much attention, Colin Firth will play in it, but it was so anti-Zionist that I closed it after 20 pages. I read it and there were tears in my eyes. This director appreciates me a lot and I dreamed to work with him, but it pains me to read how he describes the beginning of Zionism from such an extreme point of view." Perhaps columnist Moshe Philips put it best. In a column for News Real Blog, which is a publication of the David Horowitz's Freedom Center, he likens the film to Steven Spielberg's Munich (2005), in which, once again, "Israelis will be depicted in such a way as to produce a strong sense of moral equivalence. There are no real good guys. Everyone has done wrong. All religions have their violent extremists." That viewpoint was echoed by Yisreal Medad who works at Menachem Begin Heritage Center where Winterbottom reportedly went to do some of his aforementioned research. "I had the opportunity to introduce him to the vast literature on the underground struggle against the British and the political interpretative dispute," said Medad. "I also pointed out the period's complexity but the simple stories of heroism. He seemed quite uneasy and indicated that the real period he was after was the late 1930s. That, to me, indicated an attempt to pillory the Jews as 'terrorists' no better, and probably worse, than the Arabs." Mr. Winterbottom is no stranger to moral equivalency. His film Road to Guantanamo is the story of three British Muslims who spent more than two years in that prison camp after being picked up in Afghanistan where they ostensibly went on a "side trip" from their original destination of Karachi. After being mistaken for members of the Taliban, they are rounded up, sent to an Afghan prison, and eventually end up in Guantanamo, where they are ostensibly subjected to "inhumane treatment" by American soldiers. A true story? The Wall Street Journal describes the film as a "mélange of journalism and dramatic license [which] can be enthralling and maddening at the same time, because the ring of truth, which the film has, is not the same as the truth, which remains unknown." In the same article the Journal puts its finger on a sad reality that describes, not just these two films, but far too many made in Hollywood and elsewhere: "a brilliant work of fiction that may well be taken as objective truth." No doubt people like Michael Winterbottom, as well as Oliver Stone, (JFK, Nixon) Brian De Palma (Redacted) and other "historical" film-makers prefer being thought of as engaging in dramatic license rather than historical revisionism. Yet it would be hard to believe that these men aren't pleased that their particular slant on "history" would be taken for objective truth. Perhaps there is a more accurate term to describe such men. Unabashed propagandists seems far more accurate. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
NPR AND HAMAS MERGE! COST-SAVINGS AND COMMON GOALS CITED AS REASONS
Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), March 11, 2011. |
|
This was written by Ralph Peters and it appeared in FSM
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, a former enlisted man, a journalist and a bestselling author. He has experience in seventy countries on six continents. His latest books are "The Officers' Club," a novel of the post-Vietnam military, and "Endless War: Middle-Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization." |
|
Generously granting her first on-site interview to FSM, Ms. Leer-Geist wore a tasteful chador, set off with a stunning Sweetbriar-logo headscarf (black is always correct). Her half-veil, designed by bad-boy fashionista John Galliano, completed an outfit that can only be described as a cutting-edge fashion statement that also displays cultural empathy. Picking at her chickpea salad (and careful to use only her right hand), NPR's reigning regional news-doyenne put down the script over which she'd been chuckling and opened our conversation: "Salaam aleikum," she smiled. "Ms. Leer-Geist, may we ask the subject of that script? It must be hilarious." She laughed happily and tucked a stray lock of hair back under her scarf. "Oh, it's just a submission by our new partners...an attempt to set the historical record straight. The working title is 'Israel: Worse than Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia combined?' It's going to be a great addition to our ongoing dialogue." FSM: "The title suggests a certain level of bias." Our host chuckled. "Oh, I don't see it that way at all! I mean, nobody's comparing Israel to the United States under Bush or anything like that." Obviously in the best of humor, she leaned closer and confided, "Those Hamas boys are just so playful...always making little jokes. Their first version of the script was called 'Kill All The Filthy Jews.' They're always trying to get a rise out of us." FSM: "Getting down to business, which side initiated merger talks, NPR or Hamas?" NPR: "Oh, we did!" she said promptly and proudly. "Federal funding was always a ball and chain on NPR's freedom. We just saw a partnership with Hamas as a natural fit. We're both struggling against oppressive capitalist neo-colonialist powers — Fox News and the IDF." FSM: "Aren't you concerned that Hamas may try to influence your coverage?" NPR: "Oh, we're not naïve. Of course, Hamas will try to shape our coverage. They already have. The boys down in the basement — you wouldn't believe how hard they work, and with all those dangerous chemicals! — are always trying to get us to behave with more restraint, to provide more-balanced coverage. They're big into credibility. We simply explain that balance isn't NPR's mission. Usually, they understand." FSM: "Usually?" NPR: "Well, there was the little Kalashnikov incident two nights ago. But I think they were just letting off steam. Everyone involved got free medical care — terrific Cuban surgeons. And they've promised that our missing reporter will show up any minute." FSM: "This move came suddenly, to say the least. Won't you miss Washington?" NPR: "Miss the sexual repression and the fascist state?" She gestured down the length of her chador. "Western women have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. They don't understand how liberating it is to be covered from head to toe, how it frees you from being a sexual object. I'm proud to say I went through high school, undergrad — Georgetown, of course — and my master's program at UC Santa Cruz without a single date. I never gave in to the patriarchal system." She smiled confidingly. "As for the chador, black's very slimming. In fact, we're looking into offering subscribers a chance to win burqas with our logo during our next fund-raiser." FSM: "Ms Leer-Geist, many people — even some NPR listeners — might consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Doesn't taking their money taint you?" NPR: "What a bigoted, right-wing, Tea-Party, god-and-guns piece of Zionist propaganda! First of all, it isn't Hamas money at all. Hamas is only the conduit. Every cent we're taking comes directly from Iran. By way of Syria. And Hezbollah. And Hamas. Furthermore, it's not the source of funds, but how you use the money that determines the morality of the transaction. For example, if we were to accept funds from Tehran, then — Allah forbid! — use them to support John Boehner, that would be immoral. But if we use them to re-elect Al Franken, what could be more moral than that?" FSM: "You really believe that the end justifies the means? That's why this merger occurred? You just needed the money?" NPR: "Not at all! Hamas and NPR have common interests and common goals. We're not cynical, like that Zionist provocateur James O'Keefe (he can't fool us by pretending to have an Irish name). Have you seen the fatwa on him, by the way? Well worth the price..." FSM: "But Hamas states that its primary goal is the destruction of Israel. Many NPR listeners and contributors are Jewish. Doesn't the anti-Semitic side of your new partner worry you?" NPR: "How is the destruction of Israel anti-Semitic? What a naïve question." She clapped her hands for tea. FSM: "But what about the contributions from Jewish listeners? Won't they fall?" Ms. Leer-Geist laughed gaily. "You think the Tea-Party people are stupid and gullible? Check out the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Anyway, Iran's willing to bankroll our entire operation. No more boring lunches with boring contributors who under-tip." FSM: "A recently departed NPR executive also claimed that America's newspapers are controlled by Jews. Doesn't that seem a bit paranoid to you?" NPR: "'Paranoid' describes a psychological state. Psychology and psychiatry were invented by Jews to accelerate the decadence of Western culture and oppress women. Our newspapers are evidence of that." FSM: "I can't follow your logic." Ms. Leer-Geist frowned. "You obviously don't listen to NPR." The phone rang. Drawing her head-scarf down tightly over her forehead, our host held up a finger to signal that we should wait, then picked up the receiver. "NPR-Hamas Information Operations," she said crisply. "Leer-Geist here. No. No, absolutely not. If the Israelis or the Americans do it, it's torture. If our people do it, it's an interview. Yes, that's right. Just have the sound lab edit out the screams. I want the package ready to go for 'Allah's Things Considered.' Inshallah." Hanging up, she said, "These people...sometimes there's a language barrier." With a sigh, she rose, revealing the gorgeous drape of her chador — surely, this hot style's coming to Bloomies sooner, rather than later! "Got to run," she told me. "Meeting with Chavez's money people. 'Oil's well that ends well!'" Squelching her merry laughter, she added, "You'll want to listen in to 'Weekend Rendition' on Saturday. We have a great panel on tolerance, chaired by President Ahmedinejad himself — he's a real get. We're featuring Khalid Meshal, Eric Holder and a phone-in from Anwar al Awlaqi. Surprise guest, too (hint, hint, think tall guy with a beard: Hope he doesn't 'drone' on, ha ha!)." Calming herself, Ms. Leer-Geist added, "As a matter of fact, we're in negotiations with Ahmedinejad for a regular Friday feature, "'What Would the Hidden Imam Do?'" And 'Car Talk' has got to go. We're thinking...maybe advice on how to build IEDs, that sort of thing. You know, 'Why didn't my cell phone trigger the bomb? Should I switch to Verizon?' Something the kids can enjoy, too." Just as we shut off our recorder, gunfire erupted out in the street, followed by angry shouts. Ms. Leer-Geist smiled benevolently. "Aren't these just the happiest people you've ever seen? They can't contain their exuberance." FSM: "One last question?" NPR: "Shoot." FSM: "Interesting word choice, actually. Don't all the weapons and the gunfire around here trouble you? No one led the fight for gun control more fiercely than NPR. Aren't you against widespread gun ownership?" Ms. Leer-Geist didn't bother smiling this time. "It all depends on who has the guns," she said. Ralph Peters was flown on George Soros' private jet to and from this hastily arranged "scoop" interview in the Gaza Strip. The NPR rep at the airport assured him that the gunfire from the ground was the local form of welcome. Hamas declined all requests for a follow-up interview with the terse comment, "You may not be Jewish, but you look Jewish to us."
Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org
|
|
ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK IN CALIFORNIA
Posted by Susana K-M, March 11, 2011. |
|
This comes from United West, whose mission is to defeat Shariah Islam. Description: http://img.ymlp127.net/2rhf_1000spacer3.jpg Contact them at THE UNITED WEST, 2200 4th Avenue N #3, Lake Worth FL 33461, www.TheUnitedWest.org |
|
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11 — UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES (UCLA) THURSDAY, MAY 12- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE (UCI) 
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THEATER AT RADICALIZATION HEARING
Posted by Susana K-M, March 11, 2011. |
|
This was written by Steven Emerson and was entitled, "Compelling Testimony, Political Theater at Radicalization Hearing." |
|
Ignoring and sometimes belittling testimony from relatives of young Muslims who were lured into terrorism, Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee spent most of Thursday's hearing on Muslim radicalization repeating talking points When members of Minneapolis' Somali community realized their sons had disappeared and likely gone back to Africa to join a jihadist group, mosque leaders told them to keep quiet. If you go to the FBI, you could end up in Guantanamo Bay with alleged terrorists, some were told. If authorities learn about it, mosques in America might be shut down in response. You, the worried relatives were told, will pay for that in the afterlife by being damned with "eternal fire and hell." Abdirizak Bihi's nephew was among those missing. Burhan Hassan later would be killed in Somalia after joining the al-Shabaab terrorist group. How this promising A-student grew so radical that he gave up the American dream was supposed to be the focus of a hearing Thursday before the House Homeland Security Committee. The spike in homegrown Islamist terrorism cases in recent years — driven by a targeted recruitment effort of young Muslim Americans by al-Qaida, is a concern for American law enforcement and intelligence officials. The hearing's focus solely on Islamic radicalization generated criticism in the weeks leading up to it and throughout the more-than-four-hour proceeding. Committee Democrats repeatedly devoted significant portions of their time to attacking the hearing's focus on Islamic radicalization. U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas wondered whether the hearing violated the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. California Rep. Jackie Speier denigrated the panelists' experiences, calling them anecdotes that offered little from which to learn. For all the vitriol, none of the witnesses made any sweeping generalizations about the faith of Islam or about Muslim people. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who again defended the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) despite documented ties to a Hamas-support network, still commended the hearing's topic and praised fellow panelists as "incredibly important" witnesses. Joining Bihi and Baca were Melvin Bledsoe, father of a man who claims to be an al-Qaida jihadist, and Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Bledsoe, like Bihi, described his own family tragedy. His son Carlos grew up happy and well-adjusted, until he was "manipulated and lied to" after converting to Islam by local Muslim leaders who helped him go to Yemen and study with radicals. In June 2009, Carlos Bledsoe, now called Abdulhakeem Mujahid Muhammad, opened fire at a Little Rock, Ark., Army recruiting office, killing one soldier and injuring a second. His father testified that other "hunters" for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are trying to recruit more Muslims to join their jihad. He repeatedly stressed that he has other Muslim relatives, whom he described as "modern, peaceful, law abiding people." He wondered why a conversation about radicalization among Muslims like his own son generated so much angst. "It seems to me that the American people are sitting around and doing nothing about Islamic extremism, as if Carlos's story and the other stories told at these hearings aren't true. There is a big elephant in the room, but our society continues not to see it." The nation's first Muslim-American congressman, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was the most emotional, appearing to fight back tears as he described false rumors about Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Muslim paramedic who died on 9/11. A hearing on radicalism in general would have been acceptable, Ellison said. "When you assign their violent actions to the entire community," he said, "you assign collective blame to the entire group." Other committee members were outwardly hostile to Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and to some of the witnesses. Lee of Texas said the hearing placed the Constitution "in pain" by demonizing an entire community. Oddly, she found the presence of two Muslim witnesses testifying about obstruction from organized Islamic groups — Jasser and Bihi — to be proof that Muslims indeed were cooperating with authorities. "They are here doing what this hearing suggests they do not do," she said. "I question where are the uncooperative Muslims?" Speier said she saw little value in the testimony because she did not consider witnesses like Jasser, Bihi and Bledsoe to be experts. "Do you have the expertise" to testify, she asked Jasser. "That's interesting," he replied. "The theocrats ask me that all the time." In his testimony, Jasser called for a "counter-jihad" on the Internet and in the community to stress principles of liberty against what he sees as the collectivization and victimization emphasized by Islamists. "I appreciate the anecdotes," Speier said, "but I don't think they are very enlightening." As the hearing was broadcast, Dawud Walid, head of the CAIR Michigan office, was posting comments on his Twitter feed equally dismissive of the witnesses: * "Bihi has basically a one person organization and is not seen as a leader by Somali-Americans." CAIR attracted its own attention during the testimony. King displayed a poster published on the group's San Francisco chapter website, first reported by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which urged Muslims to "Build a Wall of Resistance. Don't Talk to the FBI." While CAIR officials later removed the poster and claimed it did not reflect the organization's policies, Bihi singled out CAIR for siding with local religious leaders in discrediting the relatives of the missing Somali men, calling them liars and tools out to destroy the mosque. CAIR discouraged people from talking with the FBI, he said, calling it "a slap in the face for the Somali American Muslim mothers who were knocking on doors day and night with pictures of their missing children and asking for the community to talk to law enforcement about what they know of the missing kids." CAIR did nothing to help the families, he said. "We are isolated by Islamic organizations." In his opening statement, King called CAIR "a discredited organization that should be rejected." U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., testified about the FBI's decision to cut off access to CAIR because of its documented ties to a Hamas-support network. Despite that, the group is "routinely and mistakenly elevated in the press as voice of mainstream Muslims" enjoying access to high level government officials. Baca, who gave CAIR a full-throated and defiant endorsement during a hearing last year, seemed more subdued Thursday. He has "never had briefing from FBI what their position is," he said. His own experiences in California have been positive, but he acknowledged he could not attest to what might happen elsewhere. At times, members were able to discuss the growing volume of homegrown Islamists terrorists. U.S. Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, mentioned the repeated promotions for Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan despite displaying an obvious pattern of radicalization. It reached a crescendo in November 2009, when Hasan opened fire at a processing center at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and wounding 32 others. Hasan had been in contact with American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, considered the most influential voice in radicalizing suspects in a string of terrorist plots. "To ignore this in name of political correctness is a serious threat," McCaul said. "I am concerned there are organizations telling the community not to cooperate with the FBI." As previous hearings have shown, the sophistication of al-Qaida's appeal to American Muslims is increasing. Whether the issue is a comfortable one or not, susceptible young Muslims will continue to be targeted with messages urging them to strike out against their homeland. Bledsoe warned the committee that his son's experience should be a cautionary tale for policymakers. "One thing is for sure," he said, "it will happen again."
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com
|
|
FROM BAGHDAD TO BENGHAZI
Posted by Fred Reifenberrg, March 11, 2011. |
| Contact Charles Krauthammer by email at letters@charleskrauthammer.com This was written by Charles Krauthammer and it appeared in the Washington Post |
|
Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the United States has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism. A strange moral inversion, considering that Hussein's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's. Gaddafi is a capricious killer; Hussein was systematic. Gaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a "Republic of Fear." Moreover, that systemized brutality made Hussein immovable in a way that Gaddafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States. No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy — the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism. It began on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first Asia trip, when she publicly played down human rights concerns in China. The administration also cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt by 50 percent. And cut civil society funds — money for precisely the organizations we now need to help Egyptian democracy — by 70 percent. This new realism reached its apogee with Obama's reticence and tardiness in saying anything in support of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran. On the contrary, Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with the discredited and murderous regime (talks that a child could see would go nowhere) took precedence over the democratic revolutionaries in the street — to the point where demonstrators in Tehran chanted, "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them." Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman, however, the administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom. Iraq, of course, required a sustained U.S. military engagement to push back totalitarian forces trying to extinguish the new Iraq. But is this not what we are being asked to do with a no-fly zone over Libya? In conditions of active civil war, taking command of Libyan airspace requires a sustained military engagement. Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq's democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what's unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press. Its democracy is fragile and imperfect — last week, security forces cracked down on demonstrators demanding better services — but were Egypt to be as politically developed in, say, a year as is Iraq today, we would think it a great success. For Libyans, the effect of the Iraq war is even more concrete. However much bloodshed they face, they have been spared the threat of genocide. Gaddafi was so terrified by what we did to Saddam & Sons that he plea-bargained away his weapons of mass destruction. For a rebel in Benghazi, that is no small matter. Yet we have been told incessantly how Iraq poisoned the Arab mind against America. Really? Where is the rampant anti-Americanism in any of these revolutions? In fact, notes Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, the United States has been "conspicuously absent from the sloganeering." It's Yemen's president and the delusional Gaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave. The demonstrators in the streets of Egypt, Iran and Libya have been straining their eyes for America to help. They are not chanting the antiwar slogans - remember "No blood for oil"? — of the American left. Why would they? America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This, after Iraq's purple-fingered exercises in free elections seen on television everywhere set an example for the entire region. Facebook and Twitter have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise. Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the United States has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism. A strange moral inversion, considering that Hussein's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's. Gaddafi is a capricious killer; Hussein was systematic. Gaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a "Republic of Fear." Moreover, that systemized brutality made Hussein immovable in a way that Gaddafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States. No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy — the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism. It began on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first Asia trip, when she publicly played down human rights concerns in China. The administration also cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt by 50 percent. And cut civil society funds — money for precisely the organizations we now need to help Egyptian democracy — by 70 percent. This new realism reached its apogee with Obama's reticence and tardiness in saying anything in support of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran. On the contrary, Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with the discredited and murderous regime (talks that a child could see would go nowhere) took precedence over the democratic revolutionaries in the street — to the point where demonstrators in Tehran chanted, "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them." Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman, however, the administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom. Iraq, of course, required a sustained U.S. military engagement to push back totalitarian forces trying to extinguish the new Iraq. But is this not what we are being asked to do with a no-fly zone over Libya? In conditions of active civil war, taking command of Libyan airspace requires a sustained military engagement. Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq's democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what's unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press. Its democracy is fragile and imperfect — last week, security forces cracked down on demonstrators demanding better services — but were Egypt to be as politically developed in, say, a year as is Iraq today, we would think it a great success. For Libyans, the effect of the Iraq war is even more concrete. However much bloodshed they face, they have been spared the threat of genocide. Gaddafi was so terrified by what we did to Saddam & Sons that he plea-bargained away his weapons of mass destruction. For a rebel in Benghazi, that is no small matter. Yet we have been told incessantly how Iraq poisoned the Arab mind against America. Really? Where is the rampant anti-Americanism in any of these revolutions? In fact, notes Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, the United States has been "conspicuously absent from the sloganeering." It's Yemen's president and the delusional Gaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave. The demonstrators in the streets of Egypt, Iran and Libya have been straining their eyes for America to help. They are not chanting the antiwar slogans - remember "No blood for oil"? — of the American left. Why would they? America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This, after Iraq's purple-fingered exercises in free elections seen on television everywhere set an example for the entire region. Facebook and Twitter have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to to see more of his graphic art at
|
|
NPR EXECS DINE WITH FAKE ISLAMISTS
Posted by CAMERA, March 11, 2011. |
|
In a "sting" video made earlier this year, NPR professionals are revealed expressing views they might otherwise have concealed. Thinking they were dining with two representatives of a Muslim Brotherhood front group and potential big donors, Ronald Schiller, head of National Public Radio's nonprofit foundation, and Betsy Liley, network director of institutional giving, did their best to be agreeable. Told by imitation Islamist "Ibrahim Kasaam" (at about 7:45) that some of his friends refer to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio," Schiller and Liley laugh. Liley adds, "Oh, is that right. That's good. I like that." When "Kasaam" says to Schiller that "Jews do kind of control the media or, I mean, certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel," the NPR executive neither challenges nor refutes the insinuation, nor does he simply get up and leave. Instead, he continues eating and nods his head vaguely. "Kassam" and partner "Amir Malik" lunched with Schiller and Liley at Café' Milano in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown neighborhood. The fake Islamists were actually associates of conservative film maker James O'Keefe. O'Keefe's 2009 hidden-camera expose' of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) led to the group's loss of federal funding. It showed staffers in several ACORN offices advising women they believed to be prostitutes how to disguise their income to receive housing loans. Here is the NPR-sting video: here. and the article is here. "Kassam" tells the NPR duo that his organization, the "Muslim Education Action Center Trust" or MEAC, contributes to Muslim schools throughout the United States. He adds that "our organization was originally founded by a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, actually." The Egyptian-based Brotherhood, of course, has been the mother ship of Sunni extremism since its founding in 1928. Its offshoots include the Palestinian terrorist organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Salvation Front in Jordan and, in even more fundamentalist form, al Qaeda. A Brotherhood affiliate responsible for assassinating Syrian officials was devastated by the dictatorship of Hafez al-Assad in the early 1980s with an estimated 10,000 or more deaths. Schiller's response? "I think what we all believe is if we don't have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air, it's the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn't have female voices." The fake Islamists say they would not be "too upset about maybe a little bit less Jew influence of money into NPR." Schiller makes what he apparently considers a defense of the network. He doesn't find "Zionist or pro-Israel" ideas at NPR, "even among funders. I mean it's there in those who own newspapers, obviously, but no one owns NPR." Liley discloses that one of the network's biggest donors is the American Jewish World Service, a philanthropic relief agency. She says "they may not agree with what we put on the air but they find us important to them, and, sometimes it's not that easy to hear what we say and what our reporters say, but they still think NPR is important to support." Schiller tells the "Islamists" that "they [American Jewish World Service] are really looking for a fair point of view and many Jewish organizations are not." CAMERA has documented a decades-long pattern of anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias in much of NPR's Middle East reporting. The coverage violates the legal obligation of public broadcasters receiving federal funding to provide "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." After "Kasaam" and "Malik" press the subject, Schiller complains about American news media's coverage of last month's overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, including concern about the Muslim Brotherhood's role in the new Egypt. Never mind that the Brotherhood's "spiritual guide," Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, returned from exile to address hundreds of thousands in Cairo's Tahrir Square, or that he has called for the conversion of Europe and North America to Islam and a second Holocaust of the Jews, this time not by Germans but Muslims. Schiller says what most disappoints him about the United States "is that the educated, so-called elite in this country is too small a percentage of the population, so that you have this very large un-educated part of the population that carries these [anti-Brotherhood] ideas." Schiller also said he believed NPR could do without federal funding, though in the transition some public stations would not survive. NPR Chief Executive Officer Vivian Schiller (no relation) said the network takes very seriously the prospect of congressional defunding. A measure to eliminate funding has passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives; passage by the Senate appears doubtful. Dana Davis Rehm, NPR's senior vice president of marketing, communications and external relations, said the organization is "appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for." Rep. Doug Lambron (R-Colo.), who introduced the House measures to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in general and NPR specifically, reportedly said the Schiller-Liley video demonstrated "condescension and arrogance." The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in reporting on Israel. The website address is www.camera.org. |
|
CHASE IN SPACE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 11, 2011. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to to see more of his graphic art at
|
|
ISRAEL — A FAVORITE AMERICAN ALLY
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, March 11, 2011. |
|
At the end of 1989, Israel's top Foreign Office bureaucrats argued that Israel was, ostensibly, losing ground in the USA, due to the end of the Cold War, a supposed New World Order and Prime Minister Shamir's dismissal of "land-for-peace." Therefore, they proposed that, in order to secure relations with the US, Israel should cede land to the Palestinians. However, their assumptions were resoundingly refuted. Israel's strategic posture was upgraded as a derivative of the New World Disorder and a series of mutual threats, such as Islamic terrorism, Iran, ballistic missiles, rogue Arab regimes — exacerbated Middle East volatility, violence and uncertainty. US-Israel strategic cooperation expanded significantly, in spite of deep disagreements over the Palestinian issue and in defiance of President Bush and Secretary of State Baker. In 2011, despite the 1989 lessons and the 2011 seismic upheaval in Arab countries, Jerusalem again considers ceding land to the Palestinians, in order to sustain strategic cooperation with the USA, under the false assumptions that US-Israel relations evolve around the Palestinian issue, that Israel-in-retreat is respected by Americans, and that Israel's strategic standing in the US is undergoing erosion. Thus, Gallup's annual (February 2011) poll on American attitudes toward foreign countries highlights Israel as a favorite American ally. Israel (68%) ranks among the seven most popular countries, which include Canada, Britain, Germany, Japan, India and France, ahead of South Korea and dramatically ahead of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt (37%, 50% and 40% respectively). The Palestinian Authority (19%) is at the bottom of the list, along with Iran and North Korea. Currently, Israel benefits from a public opinion tailwind, merely one percent behind its 1991 all time record popularity. Israel's image as a credible, reliable, capable, stable, democratic, non-conditional ally of the USA is bolstered against the backdrop of the current turmoil in Arab lands, which clarify that the Palestinian issue is not the core cause of the Middle East turbulence, is not the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and is not favored by the American People and Congress. Anyone claiming that Israel is losing ground in the USA, and that in order to rebound Israel must introduce more concessions to the Arabs, is either dramatically mistaken, outrageously misleading or seeking an alibi for vacillation in face of pressure by a relatively-weak American president. A positive image of the Jewish State, and a negative image of Arab countries, has dominated the state of mind of the American constituency, which is the key axis of the US political system, holding an effective stick over the head of American legislators and presidents. According to the February 25, 2011 Rasmussen Report, one of the top three US pollsters, most constituents would stop foreign aid to Arab countries, but support foreign aid to the Jewish State. 61% do not expect the current Middle East upheaval to advance democracy or peace in Arab countries. The most realistic expression of Israel's robust standing in the US is reflected by the most authentic representatives of the American People: the Legislature. Congress is equal in power to the Executive, representing the attitudes of the American constituent on domestic, external and national security issues. Hence, 75% of the 435 House Representatives and 80% of the 100 Senators — Republicans and Democrats alike — tend to support the Jewish State through legislation and resolutions, sometimes in defiance of the White House. The gap between the world view of President Obama and most constituents was exposed in November 2010, when Democrats suffered — due to Obama's plummeting popularity — the most devastating political defeat since World War 2. That gap also reflects the attitude toward Israel, which constitutes a rare bi-partisan common denominator, earning a higher level of support (68%) than Obama (47%). The American constituent does not consider the Jewish State a conventional foreign policy issue, but also a domestic issue, closely identified with the moral Judeo-Christian foundations of the USA. Moreover, unlike Obama, most constituents regard President Reagan as a role model of values and view the Jewish State as the "Ronald Reagan of the Middle East," representing their basic values: respect toward religion and tradition, patriotism, security-oriented, anti-UN, anti-terrorism and suspicion toward Arab and Muslim regimes. The solid foundation of shared US-Israel values, the recent volcanic eruptions in the Middle East and Israel's strategic capabilities and reliability, have transformed the US into a sustained bastion of support of the Jewish State, notwithstanding problematic attitudes by some presidents, criticism by the "elite" media and hostility toward Israel on some US campuses. This is not the time for vacillation and painful concessions; this is the time to enhance US-Israel strategic relations and demonstrate pain-killing steadfastness. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il This appeared today in YNET
|
|
JIHAD IS GROWING
Posted by YogiRUS, March 10, 2011. |
|
Warning From Holland. This Will Give You Cold Chills! It was written by Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: 'Who lost Europe ?' Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem. |
|
Dear friends, Thank you very much for inviting me. I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.. The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. >> And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. >> It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. >> Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. >> With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city. There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule. Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization. A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe .. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century. Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect.. We have Muslim official state holidays. The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey. Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers. Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored. The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, polygmist, and had several marriages — at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person.. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War. The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming. Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America — as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem .... Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know. Please take the time to read and understand what is written here,
Please send it to every free person that you know, it
is so very important.
Contact YogiRUs by email @yogirus@aol.com
|
|
WINNING COUNTERINSURGENCY WAR: THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE
Posted by Avodah, March 10, 2011. |
|
This was written by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror and the full article is available from the Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs JCPA) |
|
Conventional armies can indeed defeat terrorist insurgencies. This study details the six basic conditions which, if met, enable an army to fight and win the war against terrorism, among which are control of the ground where the insurgency is being waged, acquiring relevant intelligence for operations against the terrorists themselves, and isolating the insurgency from cross-border reinforcement with manpower or material. If the U.S., Israel, or their Western allies incorrectly conclude that they have no real military option against terrorist insurgencies, then the war on terrorism will be lost even before it is fully waged.
|
|
EVACUATING A WEST BANK OUTPOST IS UNDEMOCRATIC
Posted by Women in Green (WIG), March 10, 2011. |
| This was written by Karni Elded and it appeared March 6, 2011 in Haaretz |
|
At age 15, they expelled Elisaf Orbach from his home in Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. He was paid a small amount of compensation and went to Samaria, to build a small, 90-square meter house to meet his needs until he gets married and has children. For the time being, until he finishes building the house, he was living in the adjacent "singles' tent." The police arrived at four in the morning last Monday. According to the settlers, they arrested everybody sleeping at the time in the tent, accusing them of interference with a police officer, conspiracy to commit a crime and possession of a knife. (The settlers say it was a regular knife of the kind found in any household.) How someone sleeping can interfere with a policeman and how he can conspire to commit a crime in his dreams is still not clear to me. The fact is, however, that anyone the police suspected of possibly standing in their way was arrested without any reasonable pretext. They were simply thrown into the paddy wagon. With his hands bound, on the way to the police van, Orbach heard a tractor destroying his house, five years after his house in the Gaza Strip had been leveled. The five detainees arrested by the police were taken to Ariel, where at 11 A.M. they were released. No police file was opened against them. Apparently the conspiracy in which they were involved was not strong enough, or their only crime was dreaming about building the land. The tent in which they slept was erected by Shimon Weissman, a conscript serving in the Kfir Brigade. That night he was staying with his parents, to make sure he got back to his army post on time. When he heard about the destruction, he went to Gilad Farm and informed the army that it was difficult for him to serve those who destroyed his home and that he would return to active service as soon as he finished reconstructing the ruins. The army went wild that day. According to eyewitness testimony, about 300 masked special forces policemen used plastic bullets to fire at people from short range. A Golani Brigade soldier, Elisaf Guri, was one of those hit. He is in hospital and angry, saying his unit has never been allowed to use such weaponry to disperse demonstrations. I have no doubt that the wild conduct of the police was not spontaneous. It was directed from higher up. Our defense minister, Ehud Barak, knew that Gilad Farm, like Yitzhar, was a hard-core outpost and that destroying structures there would inflame matters. I don't belief he would have simply taken action on his own. He got backing from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu knows that the American veto at the United Nations on settlement construction came at a price, that the monster must be fed. In the rite of spring this time, the homes of the man expelled from Gush Katif and the soldier were sacrificed. Will this satisfy the hunger? The whole world is talking about democracy. We, too, want democracy. Fair, genuine democracy that keeps its promises. Netanyahu was elected by a majority of votes, because at that certain point in time at which the last election was held, the public was more right-wing than anything else. The public voted against destruction of the homes of Jews. That's democracy. Netanyahu took his power and then broke with the authority he was given. That is not what he was elected for. The United States needs to understand that more than any other country. But Netanyahu doesn't really care either about democracy or justice. It is only to us innocent citizens that such notions are still important. The prime minister prefers to be remembered as a politician who managed to navigate between the raindrops than someone who stood for his beliefs. But that is not what he was elected for. The only victim he is allowed to sacrifice is himself, his job, and not the homes of his citizens. They have already finished rebuilding the tent that was destroyed at Gilad Farm.
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
|
|
THE MOTHER OF ALL ANXIETIES; BOOK REVIEW: MUSLIM ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE JEWS
Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), March 10, 2011. | |
|
This review was written by Nancy Kobrin, Ph.D. and it appeared in today's FSM and is archived at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.8939/pub_detail.asp. Dr. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin, a psychoanalyst with a Ph.D. in romance and semitic languages, specializes in Aljamía and Old Spanish in Arabic script. She is an expert on the Minnesota Somali diaspora and a graduate of the Human Terrain System program at Leavenworth Kansas. Her new book is "The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing." | |
|
Ma'oz has done an outstanding job giving us a timely compilation of essays. Considering the current uprising across the Arab Muslim world and its open expression of rage against its own dictators as well as with Israel and the Jews, his book is at the forefront and must be read with great urgency. Indeed the attitudes of a people will determine the outcome of any conflict. The word "attitude" is defined by Webster as: "a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior." In ballet the term calls to mind a particular ballet position "attitude." Think of the arabesque, which means "in the Arabic style." There are more than one positions for it and it is not a far cry from what Ma'oz attempts to do, that is map out the contours of such positions by Arabs and Muslims towards Jews and Israel. Last August 2010 The Economist published two book reviews concerning Muslim attitudes toward Jews entitled "The Touchy Subject of Muslim attitudes to the Jews". One was about the history of Jews in Arab lands by Martin Gilbert and the other about the Holocaust by Gilbert Achcar. Unfortunately for reasons unknown to this reviewer The Economist may not have had Muslim Attitudes of Jews and Israel: The Ambivalences of Rejection, Antagonism, Tolerance and Cooperation to include and this is a shame because this text will become a classic. The Oxford trained scholar, Moshe Ma'oz, is Professor Emeritus of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has brought together a fine series of scholarly voices from across the spectrum of countries, disciplines and political affiliations to research the current status of Muslim attitudes. The book offers tidbits of primary source research as well as innovative insights to the intractable conflict. At the core is the hatred of the Jew. It is a complex problem since one also has to factor in the relationship of the three revelations — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Since Islam is the last of the revelations yet considers itself the first, that makes Islam, ironically dependent upon Judaism for a significant part of its religious identity because of the co-optation of the giving of the Law at Sinai which makes divine will manifest in human discourse. Islam must negotiate the triadic aspect of the Ibrahimic relationship as well as a dyadic one. Triads are tricky because they involve more people. Interestingly enough two essays unwittingly touch on the issue of triads: Amikam Nachmani's "The 'Triangle': Europeans, Muslims, Jews" and P. R. Kumaraswamy's "Indian Muslims and the Three Js: Jews, Jerusalem and the Jewish state" thereby acknowledging the fact that triads are constantly being juggled. However, the principle dyad addressed herein is between Muslims and Jews. This is complicated in a different way because dyads tend toward splitting into "either/or" relationships, that is — love/hate relationships, which are all too often devoid of balance or middle ground due to anxiety. Muslim Attitudes attempts to give depth and breathe to the parameters of such schizoid stereotyping. The book opens a segue to steps that need to be taken to reduce anti-Semitism, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist stereotyping. Obviously education is key and also the role of the media. At a deeper level these essays shed further light on the unspoken covert facets of such anxieties operative within the conflict. For this reason alone Ma'oz's Muslim Attitudes to Jews and Israel is unique and quite different from the two books reviewed by The Economist. Ma'oz creates space for voices that may be less known to the English reader, such as Wasfi Kailani on Jordan, Ofra Bengio on Iraq, Saziya Burcu Giray on Turkey or Ibnu Burdah on Indonesia. I once asked an Israeli authority (who will remain anonymous) who was their leading scholar on East Africa since I have a particular interest in Somalia. This person replied that Israel has no leading scholar concerning East Africa. Fortunately I discovered that Aryeh Oded carries the day. As a psychoanalyst reading this book I was impressed by the subtitle, which focuses on the crucial concepts of ambivalence, rejection, antagonism, tolerance and cooperation. Freud drew attention to the seriousness of ambivalence in psychology as a root cause contributing to aggression, rage and paranoia. All human beings are innately conflicted holding polar feelings of love and hate in check most of the time, save when there is an outbreak of violence. The balance is a delicate one to be sure and the ability to hone back unconscious hatred found in stereotyping is a tall order but education is the key starting in early childhood. Halim Barakat, the Egyptian scholar, has argued that the Arab Muslim family is the microcosm for society at large. Behaviors are learned in the home. Perhaps the most psychologically oriented essay is that of Ofra Bengio concerning Iraqi perceptions of Israel. Her eloquently penned essay aptly notes that Jews/Israelis/Israel/Zionism is not just the "other" but the negative other. The essays are organized and expand to further themes starting with Anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim World: Myth and Reality moving to Ambivalent Attitudes in Muslim-Arab Countries and from there to Non-Arab Muslim countries and communities in Asia and ending with Muslim communities in Africa, Europe and the USA. I found Wasfi Kailani's "The breakdown of Arab-Israeli Peace: Research from remote, reciprocal stereotypes and Anti-normalization — the case of Jordan" particularly helpful. Take the simple concept of Jews being perceived as "children of Abraham" or cousins, Kailani correctly labels these phrases as "symbolic political slogans or more likely as interfaith discourse." Elsewhere I have written that we need to get over this fantasy as it puts too "good" a spin on a complicated problem and in this case it very well may have contributed to how the honeymoon ran amuck between Jordan and Israel because the relationship was over-idealized from the get go. As an aside, his essay called to mind Queen Rania of Jordan's recently published children's book, The Sandwich Swap (2010). I received a book poster of it while attending the Book Expo of America in May 2010. The poster's image speaks more than a thousand words by depicting children of various nationalities gathered for lunch at a long picnic table exchanging sandwiches. Many different flags grace the table save that of its neighbor with whom it has a peace treaty — Israel. What exactly was her royal highness of Jordan who is of Palestinian descent thinking? It would behoove Queen Rania to read Kailani's essay. In passing he mentions the important role of the prison for cultural inculcation where many Arabs have learned Hebrew as well as many Israeli security officers reciprocally have learned about Arab culture. This interaction could be noteworthy for those in Europe, America and other countries who are now dealing with recruitment to extremism in jail. Esther Webman's "The Image of the Jew/Zionist/Israeli in the Arab world", is an exceedingly important contribution because she underscores violence and conflict as a nonverbal communication constituted to a large degree through image. Imagery in the political sense is similar to a patient's covert body language that tells how they actually feel about themselves. Rage can be thought of as a shield to protect a self, even a group self, that feels threatened and under attack. The behavior is nearly autonomic. Rage is inextricably linked to paranoia. Rage masks terrors not fear. Terrors are nonverbal before a child has the capacity to articulate what they are feeling and experiencing. Such terrors have to do with unmet dependency needs regrettably intertwined with shame and humiliation. Paranoia is essentially about the relationship of the mother to the baby even though later on it takes on the garb of conspiracy thinking occurring in shame honor cultures. Webman is able to pull this off especially well in her section on "A complex personality swinging between arrogance and interiority feelings." I found Joseph Kostiner and Michael Kahanov's on Saudi Arabia and Israel informative concerning behind the scenes politics — beginning with a brief history of the role Saudi Arabia has played in the Arab-Israeli conflict, how differently they have dealt with the matter than the Egyptians and their Peace Initiative of 2002 while coping with Iranian ascendancy — revealing their own high anxieties about another "negative" other. Samir Ben-Layish and Bruce Maddy-Weitzman bring a rich expose to the multi-faceted relationship of Morocco and its Jewish community. They are correct to stress the unusual mix of historical experience relating to both the megorashim (i.e. those Jews expelled from Spain) and the moriscos (i.e. the forced converts from Islam to Catholicism) and then flight to North Africa. All this history further complicates contemporary relationships and attitudes towards Jews with regard to a communal history of trauma. Yitzhak Reiter's contribution focuses on Islam and the Question of Peace with Israel: "Jad al-Haqq's Fatwa permitting Egypt's 1979 Peace Treaty with Israel." This kind of originality in thinking opens the door to unexplored possibilities and establishes ground to build on for future negotiations. Tural Ahmadov writes about Azerbaijanians' diversity in attitudes concerning Israel and Jews by offering up primary source material derived from interviews. The results caution us from assuming that there is just a wholesale Palestinization of hatred against Israel and Jews. Again the issue is one of education. Ahmadov claims that "Overall, it is readily visible that public support is in favor of the Palestinians, but not always against Israel." It is regrettable that there was not a scholarly essay concerning Afghanistan though fortunately Paul Rockower and Aneeq Cheema's "Dancing in the Dark: Pulling the Veil off Israeli-Pakistan Relations" is an engaging essay concerning its next-door neighbor. I particularly found the section on "Breaking Bread in New York" concerning President Musharraf's address to the American Jewish Congress in 2005 interesting in that it once again pointed to the commonalities of the monotheistic faiths but also Musharraf's ability to acknowledge the Holocaust. There is also much to be gleaned from the mutuality of early statehood for both Israel and Pakistan and the partition of India. I cannot possibly do justice to the essay here. Similarly Paul Scham did an admirable job raising many significant issues concerning America's Muslims attitudes towards Jews, Israel and Jerusalem. He notes that we are only in the beginning phase of being able to comprehend the diversity of such attitudes and suggests that more empirical research needs to be undertaken. I do not wholly agree with the idea that empirical research will help us understand attitudes in a profound way because we only encounter the tip of the iceberg of ambivalence and hatred. However, having said that, it is an important start. I am not so sure though that the American Muslim community "appears to be more comfortably integrated than any other Muslim community in a westerner country." My work concerning the Somali diaspora in the United States and especially Minnesota which has the largest diaspora outside of Mogadishu has lead me to understand how humbling it is to be a Muslim immigrant. Many, not all, acclimate readily to life in America. I would have liked to have seen more in this collection underscoring anxieties of attitudes arising from the low status of the female in Arab societies, Muslim countries and in the Muslim diaspora. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a tour de force concerning the subjugation of women in Islam and non-believers. I do, however, have one major quibble and that is with Mark Cohen's "Modern Myths of Muslim Anti-Semitism." Even though he holds a distinguished chair in Islamic studies at Princeton, I feel that the essay is regrettably not balanced and uncritical especially with regard to both Andy Bostom and Bat Ye'or's work. They are fine scholars in their own right though politically they are not located in the same place on the spectrum as Cohen. Moreover Cohen seems to underestimate the psychological significance of the category of dhimmi for Christians and Jews. It is a projection of inferiority and humiliation inflicted upon the negative other under the seemingly benign gesture of "protected" category. It is a hard concept to expunge from the theology as well as from the history and even current events, most especially when the ecumenical discussion clings to false concepts like "cousins" and "children of Abraham." This category patronizes the people of the book — Christians and Jews signifies and signifies that the playing field has never been "level". Furthermore it provides the mechanism to facilitate blaming the negative other. Overall, Ma'oz has laid the groundwork for continued and inspirational work in this area of attitudes. He is to be congratulated on bringing together such a superb thought provoking collection of essays. Editors do not have an easy job compiling all the various "attitudes" and weaving them together into a coherent text, nevertheless Ma'oz has done a stellar job.
Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org
|
|
ISRAEL'S MUSIC WARS
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 10, 2011. |
|
Well, no one ever denied Israel was a strange place, and it is particularly strange this week, as music is suddenly the country's lead political controversy. Let me explain. Occasionally I spout off about Israeli music. In my humble opinion, music is the cultural area in which Israeli artistic achievement is the most remarkable. Israeli theater is poor and Israeli cinema is little more than a human rights abuse of viewers. Israeli TV productions are even worse, mostly idiotic soap operas and "reality" shows. Israel has some dance troupes that are not bad. It has a thriving literature in Hebrew, except it is hard to separate it from the moonbat leftist politics of most Israeli writers. It has some interesting painters and sculptors. But Israeli music is a cultural gold field! It is almost as if the only area in which Israelis allow themselves a display of actual emotion is in music. And Israeli music is a cornucopia of many different brilliant styles. Israeli music ranges from the "camel music" or desert songs of the 1950s, to the Russian genre that was strong from the 1930s on, to Brazilian and French and Italian styles transformed into Hebrew music, to religious themes in many different religious styles of music. Israel produces world-class classical music, or rather it performs it (not composing much of it). But without a doubt, or at least without any doubt from me, the two most important and most impressive original musical styles in Israel are Eretz Yisrael Yafa ("beautiful land of Israel" songs) and "Oriental" or Mizrachi music. The first of the two is simply indescribably beautiful, both musically and in terms of the lyrics. The latter is a lively mix of musical themes that are partly inspired by Greek, Turkish, Spanish, and Arabic music. Many of its best writers and performers are Yemenite. Avi Medina, perhaps the best writer of all, is an indescribable artistic icon. In many countries musical styles have high (but not perfect) correlations with socioeconomic, educational, and even political identity. For example, Country-Western music in the US is largely associated with rednecks, working-class people. Few college professors (besides me) listen to it. Ditto for bluegrass, although it has its urban and campus followers. Motown, soul, rap, hiphop are largely but not exclusively embraced by blacks. American Folk is for leftist yuppies and vegetarians. Salsa has broken out of the barrio and is now embraced in a broad "multicultural way." Jazz seems to cut across class and race and income. Loud "pop" rock and roll is universal, at least for people below the age of 30. Broadway show music is supposedly the passion of homosexuals, or so the stereotype asserts. And so on. Conservative Fox News plays country music, while leftist CNN does not. Oriental music has long been controversial in Israel. The snooty leftist Ashkenazi elite has always hated it. For decades it was banned from radio stations, back in the days when all radio stations were state run (most still are). It was largely "underground" music, sold in cassettes and disks at the old Tel Aviv Central Bus station and in other back alleys. But it conquered large segments of the population, so much so that by the 1980s no self-respecting Sephardic wedding could be conducted without lots of it. Slowly, reluctantly, it made its way into the establishment radio stations and television. Oriental music resembles country-western in the US, not in any musical sense but rather in its class associations. It is beloved by the Israeli version of rednecks, the blue collar and the working class. Most Oriental singers and performers are Sephardic Jews. Some are Ashkenazi and a few are Arabs. I have even heard a few Yiddish songs sung to Oriental accompaniment. Not all Sephardic performers do Oriental music. Some of the most famous — Shoshana Damari for example — would never have been caught dead singing anything like it. Arik Einstein, Israel's leading Ashkenazi bohemian singer, does the occasional Oriental song. And Oriental music is still hated by "educated" Ashkenazi yuppie elitists, and especially leftists. But the class and ethnic associations with musical styles in Israel are complicated, partly because Jewish ethnicity itself is complicated. This week, all of Israel is buzzing over comments by singer Yehoram Gaon denouncing Oriental music in a student newspaper put out at Ariel college. Gaon denounced all Oriental music as "garbage that even Satan could not invent." What made his comments even more newsworthy is that Gaon is himself Sephardic, and so it seemed a bit like Jeff Foxworthy denouncing country music. But Gaon is not a Mizrachi version of Sephardic. He is a Samekh-Tet or Sephardi Tahor or "Pure Sephardic," which in modern Hebrew refers to people from old-time Sephardic families that moved to Jerusalem, in some cases right after the 1492 expulsion of Jews from Spain. Parts of my wife's family are Samekh-Tet. For my own part, I am mongrel Ashkenazi, and I adore Oriental music! (Of course, I also like country and bluegrass, Jewish redneck that I am, so do not place too much store in MY tastes!) The media are all speculating about what drove Gaon to denounce Oriental music, some suggesting he simply voiced his own frustration as a non-Mizrachi Sephardic Jew being too often lumped together with the "Oriental" singers. Gaon's singing is more Israeli folk, and he has produced and sung a lot of Ladino music. Ironically, he may best be known for his role in an Israeli musical film in which he plays "Casablan," a greasy tough from Morocco living in an Israeli slum. As Mizrachi as they come! Hours after the story of his outburst broke, numerous talking heads in the local media were either denouncing Gaon or endorsing his opinions. Perhaps the loudest endorsement of them was from Israeli poet Haim Hefer (who is Ashkenazi). Every TV show, radio show, and newspaper has been obsessed with the "debate" for the past two days. Ironically, in the middle of all this, the country had a live demonstration of the very WORST kind of music produced in Israel. Most Americans have never heard of the Eurovision Contest, a song contest for mainly EU countries. It once made ABBA famous (no, not Abba Eban). Every year the world's worst pop music is produced and performed for the contest. Israel always sends "representatives," and in the prelims before the Euro contest Israel has its own horrid local competition and face-off to see who will go. If I were a bit better organized, I would just take a vacation outside of Israel during Eurovision season. During the weeks of Eurovision hype, one should never turn on any pop Israeli radio show or take any bus in which the driver has the radio turned on. This year, the "winner" that will go to Europe as Israel's rep is the "transgendered" thing "Dana International," who already was sent to an earlier Eurovision contest. The song that "Dana" sings is so awful that I finally found something that makes me cringe even more than watching Ellen DeGeneres try to dance at the opening of HER show. The great irony of course is that "Dana" is the darling of the politically correct Ashkenazi yuppie elite, the very same people jihading musically this week against Oriental music. This is not to say that there is no bad Oriental music. There is some. There is also some bad classical music. But there is no good Eurovision music. 2. Just a fast thought. You know how lefties always like to claim that what they seek is socialism that will provide "cradle-to-grave" social services? Well, it occurs to me that socialism has generally been much more successful at producing graves than cradles.... 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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK?; INVESTIGATING ISLAMIC TERRORISM; GERMANY RE-TURNS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 10, 2011. |
|
Israel Apartheid Week? A movement by jihadists, leftist allies, and European-financed NGOs seeks to destroy the Jewish state. Their method is to boycott, divest from, and impose sanctions on Israel. In order to get people to do so, they defame Israel, in the name of the very civil liberties that the jihadists repress and the leftists seek to repress. One of their defamatory accusations against Israel is that it practices apartheid. To that end, they hold an annual Israel Apartheid Week in Western countries. European governments, the Ford Foundation, and the New Israel Fund claimed that they did not know that their unsupervised donations to the NGOs violate grant and NGO guidelines, and are libelous (www.ngo-monitor.org from IMRA, 3/8/11). They keep subsidizing such jihad and then keep claiming innocence about it. NGO Monitor explains that since Israel does not share the practices of the old, racist South Africa, Israel is not an apartheid state. The NGOs falsely depict the Arab-Israel conflict as based on Jewish racial hatred of Arabs. Israel does not hate Arabs [but Arab hatred of Jews is preached from mosques every Friday]. The conflict is national and territorial. [No, the conflict is indeed religious, the aggressor religion being Islam, which is carrying out similar jihad in many countries.] Sometimes Israel does restrict Arabs, but to provide security against Arab terrorism. Such measures, including checkpoints, are legitimate. When terrorists repeatedly attack traffic on certain roads, the government may restrict Arab traffic on those roads for a period. That is not segregation, but a defense against an Arab attempt at murder [and at segregating Jews]. Same goes for restricting enemy nationals, who often sought entry to Israel in order to commit terrorism. Israel has a right to protect itself; those foreign nationals do not have a right to enter to murder Jews. The U.S. restricts certain nationalities, too. The U.S. is not called discriminatory for it. The NGOs mention the restrictions without mentioning the terrorism. [Is that honest?] Some of the Arab activists in Israel who claim to be repressed exploit the open character of Israeli society, such as Knesset appearances, court appeals, and university facilities to campaign against Israeli society and the right of Jewish sovereignty. Being an Arab student at an Israeli university undermines one of those claimants' accusations of apartheid. "NGOs routinely ignore practices in the Arab and Muslim world that more closely resemble the practices of apartheid South Africa, such as legally mandated gender and religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia." What was apartheid? The white minority of S. Africa declared itself superior and kept the black majority away from the whites' schools and public facilities, rescinded their citizenship, and deported many of them. By contrast, Israel declared its Arabs equal, citizens, and entitled to use all public facilities, including becoming judges and legislators. Arabs in the Territories, which are not part of the State of Israel, belong to the Palestinian Authority autonomy. Arabs declare Islam and Muslims superior. Some Arab countries practice gender and religious segregation or discrimination. [Arab states had expelled most of their Jews.] Arab NGOs subsidized by European countries wrongly call Israel's security fence against terrorism an "apartheid wall." But the barrier separates Israeli citizens from non-citizens from whose ranks terrorists come. It does not separate by religion. More than a million Arabs live on the Israeli side of the barrier. These objections to Israel are not only false but hypocritical. Their purpose is propaganda, without justification. "Apartheid" is just another unjust epithet to throw at Israel, along with "genocide," "war crimes," and "ethnic cleansing" [also practiced by some Arab states, including Sudan and Saddam's Iraq]. The anti-Zionist NGOs accuse Israel of racism for having a law of return. But many countries have a similar law for their nationalities, without being called racist. If all those other countries practice the same national preference, and are not called racist, then the accusation against Israel is dishonest. Israel grants fast-track citizenship to Jews because Israel was set up as a necessary haven from persecution. The NGOs also accuse Israel of Judaizing its capital, Jerusalem. They imply that Israel represses Arab culture. Israel does not. [The Islamic Waqf, however, illegally destroys ancient Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount, and then, as like the P.A., denies the ancient Jewish connection to the Temple, city, and country.] Jews and Arabs move to the Territories, but the anti-Zionists claim that Israel allows only Jews to. [The claim ignores the fact that the P.A. bars Jews.] Any Israeli opposition to terrorists and their organizations, the NGOs claim violates Arab rights. But Arabs do not have a right to murder. Accusations against Israel sometimes cite treaties devised by the Soviets or that otherwise do not apply to Israel. Israel's critics misrepresent international law [as in calling the Territories "occupied."] (From NGO monitor website, which cites organizations, cases, and laws.) Rep. Peter King to investigate Islamic terrorism in U.S. When Rep. Peter King proposed to investigate Islamic terrorism in the U.S., he was criticized for it. The reasons given for the criticism either were specious or insincere. Radical Islamists criticized his proposal because it would expose their menace to national security. Many people criticized it because they mistakenly imagine that he would investigate and plan to repress not just Islamic terrorism but Islam in general. Some contend that the problem is not great enough yet, but the number of attacks and plots is growing, along with the radicalization of Muslims. Lives are at stake. The sooner we act, the more lives we save. Under attack by Radical Islam, the U.S. needs to defend itself here as well as abroad, and ideologically as well as militarily. Let the findings identify the problem and how to combat it! Let us debate the proposed solutions, not the proposed investigation before it can reveal the extent of the problem! Another criticism is that Rep. King once condoned IRA terrorism. That is unfortunate, but, then, so did a number of Irish-American politicians. They did not realize what they were doing, a couple of decades ago. I think that King has gotten past that era. Rep. King since then has done yeoman service against terrorism. Perhaps the major contribution of the proposed investigation would be to determine, once and for all, the relationship between normative Islam and Radical Islam. Either normative Islam can be worked with to combat Radical Islam, or it refuses to and serves as a fertile recruiting ground for Radicals. If we can gain Muslim help against the Radicals, we benefit. If we can avoid needlessly antagonizing normative Muslims, while combating Radical Islam, we benefit. If the study helps alert more Americans to the existence of the problem, we benefit. What the study ascertains would be invaluable for U.S. policy. Further discussion on this below, by DavidJ. Rusin.
by David J. Rusin, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:04 pm
"Islamophobia!" "McCarthyism!" "Bigotry!" Islamists and those who apologize for them have been running their fog machines at full blast in preparation for Congressman Peter King's March 10 hearing on Muslim radicalization in America and what the Islamic community is doing to combat it. However, arguments that the inquiry is based on false premises cannot stand up to the data. Islamist Watch offers brief rebuttals to three important and well-worn obfuscations:
Some foes of jihad have taken pessimistic views of King's approach, but his hearing already has borne fruit. Massive resistance to probing Muslim extremism has exposed Islamist organizations' true mindset and "pathetic record on combating Islamic radicalism." As reformist Muslim Asra Nomani notes, "Our worst enemies in America ... are Muslim interest groups and leaders, who do more to deny the problem than defeat it." Peter King (contact: Pete.King@mail.house.gov or 202-225-7896 Germany's "reason" for turning against Israel Germany's Chancellor Merkel has been known as pro-Israel for some time. She just changed. Germany voted for the recent UN Resolution that the U.S. vetoed, declaring Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria illegal. Asked why, she explained that Germany is losing patience with Israel for not making peace with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) (Arutz-7, 3/8/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/). How does not coming to a peace agreement related to whether Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria are legal? Help me see the logical connection! What strange logic, to falsely declare those communities illegal, in order to punish someone for something else. In other news, Germany reportedly is training P.A. police against narcotics trafficking. Now, it takes two sides to make peace. Why does Germany not lose patience with the P.A. for not making peace with Israel? Does the Chancellor know which side started the war? Does she realize which side considers religious conquest its duty? Does she know which side breaks its existing peace agreements? Is she aware which side refuses to negotiate? In case she doesn't know, please tell her it is the Arab side. She has a strange ethic, one that places guilt on the innocent side and sides with the guilty party, the party of terrorism and deceit. Would it be too much for her to realize that Israelis have a right to build in Judea-Samaria, that the P.A./PLO signed an agreement recognizing that right, that P.A. Arabs often build illegally, and that the Jewish people have the better claim to the Territories? Perhaps the Chancellor distorts international law in order to curry favor with the Arabs. That strategy won't work. Jihadists cannot be appeased. They single-mindedly seek to conquer non-believers, including those in Europe. Making concessions to them does not and cannot win their friendship, but such postures encourage them to think they can get away with more. In their eyes, Germany loses respect. 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. |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: DRIFTS OF FALLEN BLOSSOMS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 10, 2011. |
|
"Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift."
HOW I GOT THE SHOT: The power of suggestion runs deep. With our local weatherman predicting a real winter storm this week, I had visions of white fields and ice-encrusted spring blooms. So as I hiked into an almond grove in the Ela Valley late one afternoon, my mind turned from the gloriously flowering branches to drifts of fallen blossoms that had accumulated on the ground in soft, pink and snow-white piles. My students will confirm that I drum into their heads the idea of photographic opportunity, of picking up your camera and shooting when the best moments present themselves. Often, you may have another plan in mind, but the key is to remain open to something new which may unexpectedly reveal itself. This week's image is a case in point. I had no idea what lay in waiting as I approached the grove. As the sunlight slowly slipped away, I lay down on the ground and snapped a few quick shots of blossoms blown against pruned branches and gathered amid clumps of grass. Unlike fall foliage, which decays on the tree before dropping, these blossoms fell to the ground while still in peak form. I used a close up lens (macro) to capture the color variations and textural detail in the petals. To paraphrase the saying, if you don't like the weather, go out and make some of your own. Technical Data: Nikon D700, 28-105mm macro lens at 80mm, f8@ 1/60th sec., ISO 800.
>Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
KOSMINSKY: "FEARED, LOATHED, AND ISOLATED."
Posted by Susana K-M, March 9, 2011. |
|
This is an open letter to Peter Kosminsky written by Adam Levick and published February 2, 2011. |
|
My initial skepticism over the objectivity of your multi-part drama to be aired on British TV which, as you say, strives to "come to an understanding of the most dangerous and intractable war of our age...the conflict between Arab and Jew in the Middle East", called The Promise, seems warranted now that I've read your introduction to the film printed in the Guardian on January 28th. You claim that, among the lessons you've learned from researching modern Israel, is that 60 years after the Holocaust: "Israel is isolated, loathed and feared in equal measure by its neighbours, finding little sympathy outside America for its uncompromising view of how to defend its borders and secure its future." You then ask: "How did Israel squander the compassion [derived from the horrors of the Holocaust] of the world within a lifetime?" To this question, I'll briefly ask an admittedly rhetorical one: How dare you. "Isolated", you say? Actually far from being isolated, my country is actually more economically entwined with Europe than we've ever been — the story of a tiny nation with little in the way of natural resources outperforming not only its neighbors, but some larger European nations as well. That Arab countries on our borders don't wish to share in our relative prosperity, that 62 years after our birth those same Arab states continue in their self-defeating (either de facto or de jure) economic boycott of our country is not a reflection of our values, but rather of theirs. In nearly every measurable social, educational, and economic category, my country often wildly exceeds the performance of our oil rich neighbors. That my Israeli passport makes me persona non-grata in most of the Arab world is an indictment of their intolerance, their intransigence, their bigotry, not mine. "Loathed", you say? If by "loathed", perhaps you're referring to the fact that 90% of the Arab world have an unfavorable opinion toward Jews? That is, empirical evidence demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Arabs are openly not just anti-Israel, but wildly anti-Semitic — polling data which is thoroughly consistent with the evidence of state sanctioned Jew-hatred documented continually, yet frequently ignored by those who see such facts as inconsistent with their predetermined conclusions. While the overlap between anti-Israel sentiment and outright anti-Semitism in the rest of the world is a bit more complicated, in our region the data proves that the two are quite simply one and the same. That copies of the Elders of the Protocols of Zion sell briskly on the Arab street, that conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for 9/11 are popular, and that state-owned newspapers in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia continue to publish cartoons portraying Jews as hideous, treacherous, bloodthirsty villains is not a reflection on me. It is an indictment against them, their culture, and their values. "Feared", you say? The notion that my democratic Jewish state is feared would almost be comical if it wasn't so dangerous. Tell me, Mr. Kosminsky, were we feared when six Arab armies sought our destruction on the day of our birth in 1948? Were we feared in the weeks prior to June 1967 when Arab leaders were telling roaring crowds in Cairo, Damascus, and Tripoli that the the annihilation of the Jewish state was near, or when those same leaders conspired with the Soviet Union to launch a surprise attack on us six years later on the holiest day of the year? Have all the civilian casualties and human carnage we've suffered as the result of suicide bombings and rocket fire in the years since those full-scale attacks indicated to you that we are feared? What you characterize as fear may simply be something more akin to a grudging acceptance by our enemies regarding our resolve, our steadfastness, and our will to survive despite their enmity — not a commentary on our villainy. That Jews — who have but one state to call their own, and who represent 2/10 of 1% of the world's population — inspire fear in others is again not proof of our sins, our phobias, our behavior — but is a window into the soul of those who allow themselves to believe the most ludicrous, and historically lethal, Judeophobic calumnies. As a citizen of the country which you now claim expertise, I can assure you that I don't seek the compassion you audaciously claim we squandered. I have no need for your sympathy, and I don't require your affirmation. Our national right to exist, my rights as a citizen in the national homeland of the Jewish people, is not suspended in mid-air awaiting your approval. I refuse to give you that power. To the degree to which my stubborn refusal to allow you, and others, the right to pass judgment on my merit may inspire fear, loathing, and isolation, I'm okay with that. I'd rather be alive and hated than posthumously loved. Sincerely,
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
LIBYA: MANY COLLABORATORS, LITTLE ROMANCE
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, March 9, 2011. |
|
The long-running attachment West had to Gaddafi puts in perspective the subsequent lack of interest in rebels now fighting his tyranny. Can someone tell me why the world's press rushed to Tahrir Square in Cairo and cooed about how wonderful that uprising was, yet cares little for Libya? By all standards, the Libyan situation seems more heroic. Photos show jury-rigged pickups with anti-aircraft guns mounted atop them to shield the protesters fromMuammar Gaddafi's Russian-made aircraft. They show old men waving antique rifles and swords while fighting marauding gangs of mercenaries who shoot into crowds. Isn't all that more courageous than the protesters at Tahrir who, for the most part, were not harmed on such a large scale? But there are few op-eds waxing poetic about Libyan freedom fighters. Nicholas Kristof, the inveterate New York Times columnist, is a good example. He wrote four laudatory columns between February 1 and 6 about Egypt. They included "Exhilarated by hope in Cairo" and "We are all Egyptians." But on Libya he was bored, noting on February 24 that "it's time to nudge Col. Muammar Gaddafi from power." Nudge? And on March 2 he really got down to business with, "Let's ratchet up the pressure toward a peaceful outcome." Such strong language! Kristof is typical of a malaise about Libya. Is it really just because the press got used to rebellion in the Middle East? It seems that the big yawn is more about the fact that Libya doesn't fit the right model. Gaddafi is an anti- Western socialist in the mold of Fidel Castro, an exotic part-time crazy person. He banged his fists at the UN; he carted around a big Beduin tent that he forced countries to allow him to pitch where he pleased. He postured and posed in robes that seemed like they came from the set of a movie about 1970s pimps. He wasn't a fat, US-funded dictator and friend of Israel. Because, for all the talk about how the Egyptian revolution wasn't about Israel, there sure were a lot of headlines in the Economist, BBC and New York Times about how Israelis were sourpusses for not celebrating the downfall of Mubarak. Had Gaddafi been the best friend of the Jewish state, would we not be hearing more about the inspiration of the Arabs throwing off the dictator? Or had he been some Western- supported regime, like Mubarak, with US airplanes bombing the protesters, wouldn't there be some huge outcry about the "propped-up dictator" murdering Arabs in the street?
WE WILL never know why Libya didn't inspire. We won't ever know why Palestinians with slingshots and checkered keffiyehs make people weak in the knees, while the same people 1,000 miles away are boring. But the lack of romance hides a more intriguing question: Why, for decades, did so many people and countries collaborate with the barbaric regime in Tripoli? I'm not speaking only of business interests like British Petroleum, but politicians, prominent leftist activists, academics, human rights programs and universities. The latest scandal involves the London School of Economics, which accepted $488,000 from Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam. Saif also received a doctorate from LSE, which is now being probed for plagiarism and was invited to give a speech at the university in 2010. Reports noted that he declared democracy to be the best system of government for his country. But the ties between the LSE and Gaddafi are only the tip of a giant iceberg. The West was wooed by Gaddafi after 9/11, when the regime attempted to portray itself as fighting Islamic terrorism. After the 2003 Iraq War, Gaddafi ostentatiously abandoned a nuclear weapons program. In murky dealings that are still not clear, the Scottish government released the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Mughrabi, in 2009 because he was supposedly dying of cancer. Mughrabi was given a hero's welcome in Libya, and is still alive. Now it appears the UK government had some underhanded role in that release. But releasing terrorists and giving the crooked sons of a dictator PhDs isn't enough. The UN time and again gave Gaddafi a stamp of approval, first in 2003 when Libya was elected leader of the UN Commission on Human Rights. In 2010, 155 countries voted to put Libya on the Human Rights Council. Just prior to that event Ali Treki — a Libyan diplomat — was elected president of the UN General Assembly. This, despite the fact that he said in a 1983 speech: "Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them? If we succeed in eliminating that entity, we shall by the same token save the American and European peoples." But why would a raving anti-Semite not head part of the UN, and a brutal dictatorship not be in charge of human rights? Leading celebrities time and again patronized the Gaddafi family. Usher, Nelly Furtado, Beyonce and Mariah Carey all performed at lavish parties for them. When Gaddafi was in Italy in June of 2009, he asked to meet 1,000 prominent Italian women. And, no surprise, they came in droves to sit and listen to the dictator, much like Columbia University lapped up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech in 2007. According to one report, "there were leading figures from politics, culture and industry; ministers posed for cameras, lawyers talked earnestly... in their seats and reality TV personalities blew kisses across the aisles." Human Rights Watch has been accused of "marketing Gaddafi" by praising his son Saif for creating "an expanded space for discussion and debate." Groups of activists, including Israeli- Arab MK Haneen Zoabi, have made pilgrimages to Tripoli. The long-running attachment the West had to Gaddafi puts in perspective the subsequent lack of interest in the rebels now fighting his tyranny. Gaddafi and his henchmen should never have been given a pulpit at the UN, in Italy, at the LSE, or anywhere else, and hopefully sooner rather than later the rebels will remove them from power. Seth Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post, (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=211331). |
|
WHO OR WHAT IS CODE PINK?
Posted by Simone Bercu, March 9, 2011. |
|
This was written by A. Corcoran and appeared today on WordPress.com. |
|
That's a question I've heard a lot lately (gee, I wonder why!). I first saw the Code Pinkers up close in 2007 when I joined thousands of patriotic Americans (and an extremely large number of Vietnam vets) in supporting our troops against the anti-war gang (International ANSWER)* at Washington protests and counter-protests. Code Pink is a staple at anti-war demonstrations. If you have ever been to one, you know the demonstrations are a joint effort between international socialists and communists and Muslim Brotherhood spin-off groups in the US. Code Pink puts on a colorful and provocative show for the media at such protests. Code Pink is a group of mostly women — socialist and communist supposed "peace" advocates. You can read all about their "social justice" mission here. Problem is, they aren't peaceful at all. Most recently they were in Tahrir Square helping bring on the Egyptian Revolution (right along side their soul mates in the Muslim Brotherhood). Gee, I wonder what they thought of the rape of Lara Logan? After leaving Egypt in chaos and controlled by the military, they hopped on over to Madison, Wisconsin to help their fellow socialist union bosses create chaos there. Oh, and lest I forget, they also had their pink ***** in the Gaza Flotilla which ultimately created more violence (people died) between Palestinians and Israel. From World Net Daily: The group behind the Gaza flotilla that engaged in deadly clashes with Israeli commandos today counts among its top supporters the friends and associates of President Barack Obama, namely the founders of the Weather Underground terrorist organization, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink. And, I am sure you all remember this 2007 'peaceful' episode where a Code Pinker put bloody hands in Condoleeza Rice's face in a Senate hearing room. But, they were told to go fly a kite in Afghanistan when they were informed by Afghan women that they needed more western troops, not less, to protect women against the Taliban and Islamic oppression. They are more than an anti-war group Code Pink is a socialist/communist group working to destabilize the United States by creating chaos. Here they are at a Democratic Socialists of America event. There is lots more of this out there, if you want to spend more time searching, I don't. This is a commenter, taxmancommeth, responding to an opinion piece
at Philly.com about the revolutions in Egypt and Wisconsin. He
explains it better than I can
As has been recently reported, these 'well timed' actions and uprisings are under all types of outside influence, starting with Google and Facebook, right on down to the global Communist Party, SEIU, Code Pink, Richard Trumpka of the AFL-CIO, and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are anything but 'organic', unless you consider protesters holding similar signs in Wisconsin that they are holding in Egypt and Libya to be 'organic' and 'grassroots'. Conservatives must understand that the other side hates America — the America created by our Founding Fathers and our Judeo-Christian heritage — and they are all working together to create a socialist/communist one-world (borderless!) government by destroying capitalism and the family. In order to do that they work on all fronts —THEY DO NOT COMPARTMENTALIZE the issues as many on our side do. Please, please don't be confused. Code Pink is not just an anti-war group anymore than SEIU or Trumpka are all about the "workers." * I'm digressing, but to further make my point that the Hard Left is all connected and does not separate fiscal and social issues as some silly Republicans do, note this from Discover the Networks about International ANSWER: ANSWER supports an immigration policy that calls for open borders as well as amnesty and full civil rights for illegal aliens residing in the United States. Contact Simone Bercu at simonebercu@verizon.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: LEST THERE BE DOUBT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 9, 2011. |
|
My subject line is with regard to recognizing our enemies, without qualification. But, as I promised for the month of Adar, whenever possible, we'll do the good stuff first. Today is a very wintry day, with rain and hail. We've had heavy rain in the north, and snow on Mt. Hermon, which is all to the good. But the past week, we've had spring, and a glorious profusion of wildflowers. Let there be no doubt about this: The hills around Jerusalem are magnificent. Below are three of the flowers commonly seen in this area, this gift that is G-d's country. 
~~~~~~~~~~ Now as to our enemies. of PA intentions. Please understand carefully. Hamas has promised no changes in its terrorist policy (see below), nor has the PA promised to work to convince Hamas to genuinely moderate. Hardly. This is all about a paper change that, it is hoped, would enhance international acceptance of a unity government. According to Sha'ath, writes Khaled Abu Toameh, "a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation would embolden [the]Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation." This statement is ominous, as it indicates a tilt by the PA towards Hamas, as would be expected. But I have no doubt that PA leaders also believe that a unified front that includes all Palestinian Arab areas (i.e., Judea and Samaria and Gaza) would stand a better chance of being recognized internationally as a state. ~~~~~~~~~~ This quote by Sha'ath might be considered really funny, if not for its very unfunny implications: "My fear is that Hamas's calculations about the Arab revolts are different than ours. We see that these revolutions' main demand is unity and support for Palestinian rights." Sure...the crowds have been/still are in the streets in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. because Arabs all over are worried about Palestinian rights. But a comment like this feeds those who have been making just such ludicrous claims. Or, perhaps more accurately, Sha'ath's statement plays to these people. ~~~~~~~~~~ Might the US and the EU cooperate? I see this as a bit of a stretch because of recent statements by Hamas. According to AFP and the Jordan Times, a speech was delivered in Khartoum, Sudan, on Sunday, by Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal, in which he called for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah based on "jihad" against Israel: "The first step [to liberating Jerusalem] is refusal to negotiate with Israel...and to establish a new, reconciled Palestinian position based on jihad." ~~~~~~~~~~ But in the end it would depend on how much the US and the EU were willing to sacrifice what semblance of principles they still have in order to promote the illusion of that "peace process." Getting rid of a Hamas that is labeled as "terrorist" (and thus not to be dealt with) would solve a lot of pesky problems. We've had hints in the past of how this might play out: "Well, Hamas is supposed to recognize Israel's right to exist, and while it doesn't exactly do that, it does admit, de facto, that Israel exists, and that's almost the same thing. If we include them in the peace process we'll see a moderation over time." And so on... Not saying this will happen, but I am far too cynical to think it's not possible. The Obama administration seems to be maintaining a strong position in favor of a negotiated settlement. However, pushing negotiations rather than sanctioning unilateral action does not preclude support for a unity government. Quite the contrary. ~~~~~~~~~~ And then there's the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In response to all those who might still think that the Brotherhood has moderated, or might moderate, or whatever, I share this: Kamal El Helbawy is an Islamic scholar and Brotherhood representative situated in London: he is widely referred to as the Brotherhood's face in the West. He has certainly seemed moderate, on the surface. Not long ago, for example, he told a BBC interviewer that he supports giving women in Egypt the vote and would think it marvelous if someone like Margaret Thatcher would lead Egypt. ~~~~~~~~~~ But now the NY Post reports that he has visited Iran, and told his hosts that he hopes to see Egypt become a "true Islamic state" like Iran. A "true Islamic state" does not allow women to vote. During the Egyptian street protests, he told Iranian TV that, "The only foreign intervention in this revolution is that of Israel. They destroyed the gas pipeline, so that the revolutionaries would be accused of using explosives." Now in Iran he is reported to have said, "Every night when I go to bed, I pray to wake up the next day to see Israel wiped off the map." A signal lesson here. Do not be taken in. ~~~~~~~~~~ We're still largely in the dark with regard to what Netanyahu's alleged new initiative will look like. What we do know is that Barak is urging him not to wait until May, although key sources are saying that the new proposal is still a work in progress and not ready to be unveiled yet. What Barak has alluded to in a radio interview (which may be his version of what should be and not necessarily what Netanyahu will say) is not pleasing, in any event. He's talking about: [] "Ironclad security arrangements." Give us a break! This would be only a chimera if there is pullback in Judea and Samaria. "Ironclad," yet. And if we were to allow — Heaven forbid! — an Arab presence in any part of Jerusalem, does Barak imagine the Jewish part of Jerusalem, immediately adjacent, would be safe from rockets, small weapon attacks and terrorist infiltration? [] Preserving a good relationship with the US. This is where I leave my computer to bang my head against the wall. Typical suicidal left-wing thinking. We must not make decisions that affect our national future based on the opportunity to make Obama happy. [] Making "painful decisions" in order to achieve "separation" from the Palestinian Arabs. Uh oh. How I hate that phrase, "painful decisions." What he's talking about is retaining the major settlement blocs, with a border drawn according to "demographic considerations" and bringing home residents of those in communities over the border in an "orderly" fashion over the course of years. The best to be said for this unacceptable proposal is that this is not "doing a Sharon." ~~~~~~~~~~ And Netanyahu himself? He has just told his Likud faction, in a closed door session, that they shouldn't take seriously what they see in the press. "I am sometimes just as surprised as you are by what the press reports." He says that he is still "evaluating the impact of the changes in the region." Seems to me that the changes, which have greatly increased instability, make it not the time for concessions at all. ~~~~~~~~~~ The prime minister let it be known in this meeting that he would seek"guarantees of security and land." The mention of land here is exceedingly important and something I'd like to elaborate upon. Yes, we need land for security. Yes, moving back to the '67 armistice line would give us an "Auschwitz border" as Abba Eban called it. We require the Samarian high land and strategic depth for security. But our right to retain land should not be only on the basis of security. There is another issue that is too often obscured: Even in instances in which we don't require land for security, we have a claim to the land on the basis of our ancient heritage and legal rights. Take, for example, Hevron. It would be an incredible sin, to relinquish Jewish control within the city — the second holiest to us, where the Machpelah, the Cave of the Patriarchs is situated — should it turn out we don't need it from a security perspective. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, in a statement on the scene in the Jordan Valley, Netanyahu made the declaration that: "Our security border is here, on the Jordan River, and our line of defense is here. If this line were to be broken, this would mean that it would be possible to bring in terrorists, missiles and rockets, and infiltrate them into Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Be'er Sheva and throughout the country. Our line of defense starts here and it has no alternative..Therefore, in any future...arrangement...the IDF must stay here...The IDF must remain along the Jordan River." Good, but not good enough. Because there is no talk about the Jordan Valley remaining as part of Israel. The implication here is simply an arrangement that allows our troops to deploy there for security reasons — which arrangement PA Prime Minister Fayyad has already rejected. Netanyahu has addressed — or presumed to address — the issue of security, but not that of "land." Aaron Lerner's on-the-mark comment: "history teaches us that the IDF ultimately only remains where there are Israeli civilians."
~~~~~~~~~~ I began with something good, and I will similarly close with news that I consider good: Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided to appoint Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror as National Security Council Chairman, replacing a retiring Uzi Arad.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
FEARS THAT NETANYAHU IS PLANNING TO SURRENDER JUDEA-SAMARIA
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 8, 2011. |
|
If indeed Netanyahu, in collaboration with Ehud Barak and President Barack Hussein Obama is planning to swindle the Jewish people out of Judea and Samaria, he should be accommodated — as was Mubarak, possibly Gadhafi, if they can catch him — and always Saddam for his collection of victims. We already know that Obama and the State Department want Israel to go back to an infertile desert. We also know that Netanyahu is a weak leader and ready to give up any part of Israel to advance his career IF the people do not eject him first. Perhaps Bibi has already forgotten the retribution that Arik Sharon has had to suffer for giving up Gaza. I am sure that Arik has room in his bed for two more. This below is by Ryan Jones and it appeared March 7, 2011 in Israel Today Magazine |
|
Fears that Netanyahu is planning to surrender Judea-Samaria The Israeli media has been abuzz about a secret initiative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly planning to unveil in May should the Palestinians continue to refuse to negotiate a bilateral peace. Israelis have heard this sort of thing before, and are justifiably concerned. Netanyahu himself has not spoken directly about a new diplomatic plan, but has indicated that if the Palestinians continue to make excuses to not negotiate, Israel must be ready to initiate a unilateral plan of its own, in order to avoid an internationally-imposed resolution to the conflict. While such an Israeli initiative would likely fall well short of what the Palestinians are demanding, it could also lay the groundwork for increased international pressure and hostility on Israel, even as Israelis are promised that their "sacrifices" will give the Jewish state the upper hand. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came to a similar decision, and made similar promises to Israeli before unilaterally surrendering the Gaza Strip and uprooting every Jew living there. But far from convincing the world that Israel is the party truly interested in peace, leaving Gaza has made the territory more of a thorn in Israel's side than ever it was. Members of Netanyahu's Likud Party are hoping he is not foolish enough to try the same thing in Judea and Samaria, and that Gaza has proven to him that merely "disengaging" from the Palestinians will not satisfy the Arabs or the international community. Pressure is mounting on Netanyahu from within the Likud to be more transparent about what he is planning, but the prime minister has been conspicuously quiet of late. He cancelled a meeting with Likud ministers on Sunday, and has not convened his inner cabinet in several weeks. The only person Netanyahu is apparently working with is Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Monday told Israel Radio that he is urging the prime minister to come forward with and implement his plan much sooner than May. "This is the time to take risks in order to prevent international isolation," said Barak. "This is the time for leadership. We have no choice, we need to separate from the Palestinians for our own interests." 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 |
|
TIME TO RETHINK ARAB ARMS SALES
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 8, 2011. |
|
This was written by Cal Thomas and it
appeared in Jewish World Review and is archived at
|
|
For many years American policy has been to sell modern weaponry to Arab states. The reasons given are to maintain the "balance of power" in the region, but the unstated and most likely reason is to keep the oil flowing. The Obama administration has approved billions in arms sales and transfers to Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But public attitudes about arms sales to Arab countries appear to be changing, especially in light of the current upheaval in the region with some dictators using "Made in USA" weapons against their own people. According to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal entitled "U.S. Reviews Arms Sales Amid Turmoil," even the government now, "has launched a review of military assistance and prospective weapons sales to countries caught up in a wave of popular revolts, underlining growing uncertainty about how the turmoil sweeping the Middle East will alter fundamentals of U.S. policy in the region." And the review is long in coming given that Bloomberg reported way back in September 2010 that the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that "the U.S. authorized as much as $37 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations over five years without always documenting the potential effect on foreign policy and national security." A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that "only 20 percent of American adults think the United States should continue providing foreign aid to Arab countries in the Middle East." Along party lines, the survey also showed that 76 percent of Republicans, 48 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of adults "not affiliated with either major party" think this way. On the question of continued aid to Israel, the poll found 61 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of unaffiliateds in favor. The idea of maintaining a balance of power in the region might make more sense if the Arab states had any real enemies. But their only declared enemy is Israel, which isn't a threat, as long as it is not attacked again, as it has been many times by Arab states since 1948. There also have been, and continue to be, numerous attacks by non-states, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, all with the intention of destroying the Jewish state and eradicating the region of Jews. A "balance of power" policy against such aggression is not in the interest of our strongest Middle East ally, nor is it in America's interest, as long as we still stand for freedom. Two other arguments one hears most for maintaining the arms sales to Arab states are: (1) If we don't sell them arms, other countries will; and (2) Such sales bring money back into this country. A nation that prides itself on doing the right thing should abide by a higher standard than that of other arms providers. For the high ideals we profess, but don't always attain, consider the lyrics from "America the Beautiful," which includes, "Till all success be nobleness and every gain divine!" Foreign aid that produces results in America's interest is a good thing. Helping to fight AIDS in Africa, for example, meets both American humanitarian and policy goals. Sending aid to Arab nations that teach in their schools, broadcast in their media and preach from their minbars that America and Israel are evil and must be destroyed serves neither of these objectives. At the very least, U.S. aid to Arab states should be tied to a change in ideological and theological behavior in those countries. Lack of aid isn't the problem. The oil resources of many Arab states give them more than enough to care for their own people. Lack of modernity is the problem. So long as many Arab states continue in their feudalistic mentality and suppression of half their population (women), prosperity and the "blessings of liberty" will not wish to pay them a visit. No matter how these numerous uprisings turn out — and some could turn out very badly for the people of those nations and for U.S. policy — America's policy of arms sales to Arab states definitely needs to change. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
WOMEN'S SURPRISING DEFENDERS
Posted by Laura, March 8, 2011. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the
Jerusalem Post
|
|
Whereas many feminists obscure the plight of women and girls in the Islamic world, a haredi group is rescuing Jewish women and children. ... It is not feminism that motivates its members to save these women. It is Jewish law. Every few months, we are presented with media reports about Jewish women rescued from their Muslim husbands in the Palestinian Authority or within Israel. The stories are always similar. The women were tortured by their husbands, often locked in their homes or under constant guard by members of their husbands' families. Either with or without the help of their Jewish families, they reached out to Yad L'Achim which rescues Jewish women and their children from Muslim husbands. Yad L'Achim volunteers plan and carry out often dangerous rescue operations and bring these women and their children to safety. In January, Channel 10 presented live footage of one such rescue. Viewers saw relatives of a mother of four named Dana waiting anxiously at the Erez checkpoint as she and her children fled her husband and his family in Gaza and took their first steps of freedom. During their courtship, Dana's husband showed her every courtesy. After their marriage, he began regularly beating her and kept her under around the clock surveillance. A visit to Yad L'Achim's website makes clear that her story is anything but unique. Yad L'Achim's work in saving Jewish women from violent Muslim husbands is especially notable given the nature of the organization. It is an anti-missionary haredi [black hat Orthodox — df] organization led by Rabbi Dov Lipshitz. It is not feminism that motivates its members to save these women. It is Jewish law. And specifically, the halachic command of the ransoming of Jewish hostages. According to the organization, it carries out scores of rescue missions like the one that rescued Dana every year. The question naturally arises, why do haredim dominate what by rights ought to be a field occupied by secular feminists? Why aren't Israeli and American Jewish feminists at the forefront of efforts to save these women from their violent husbands? Where, for instance, is the New Israel Fund? Its website brags, "The New Israel Fund founded or funded most of Israel's women's rights organizations and networks." Obviously Yad L'Achim, which defends these women's right to live without fear is a women's rights group. So why doesn't NIF fund it? Yad L'Achim and other religious groups have been pilloried with allegations of racism in recent months for their public calls for Jewish girls and women not to date Arabs. In principle, these attacks seem fair. Blanket denunciations of Jewish- Muslim dating and intermarriage are problematic, even if they are justified from a religious perspective. But whether one agrees or disagrees with the religious precepts that guide Yad L'Achim's actions, the fact is they are not saving a principle. They are saving women and children. Shouldn't that be enough to earn them the respect of the Left that is supposed to be motivated by concern for the weak and downtrodden? IN HER interview with Channel 10, Dana said that in Gaza, "what they do is curse the Jews 24 hours a day." The fact is that both misogyny and Jew-hatred are facts of life throughout the Muslim world. This state of affairs renders marriage to Muslim men a particularly dangerous prospect for Jewish women. But the feminists throughout the Jewish world are silent on this issue. And this isn't surprising. The egregious mistreatment of Jewish women by their Arab husbands involves two issues that the Left — which encompasses most feminist groups — is intent on ignoring: Islamic misogyny and Islamic Jew hatred. Just as the Left ignores, underplays, trivializes or justifies the fact that hatred of Jews is the most universal sentiment in the Muslim world today, so it systematically ignores, underplays or trivializes the endemic brutalization of women and girls throughout the Islamic world. Take a purportedly feminist discussion of the impact of the Arab revolt on the position of women in the Arab world from ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour on Sunday. In a segment that lasted roughly 15 minutes, Amanpour said essentially nothing about the appalling lives of women and girls under Islamic law. When Newsweek editor Tina Brown mentioned "the barbaric custom of child brides," in Yemen, Amanpour didn't ask her to elaborate. In accordance with that Yemeni custom, little girls are routinely married off to grown men. When Iraqi women's rights activist Zainab Salbi noted that the key issue for women in the Muslim world is changing the family law that governs their societies, Amanpour didn't ask her what she meant. What she meant was that under Islamic family law, women and girls are considered the property of their male relatives. And their "owners" can legally beat them and rape them and genitally mutilate them and force them into marriages they object to. If the women and girls are "disobedient," their male relatives can expect little or no punishment for murdering them. Rather than discuss the real, truly life-threatening dangers faced by women and girls throughout the Islamic world, Amanpour presented her viewers with a superficial and false depiction of recent events in which a few well-dressed, perfectly coiffed, pretty young women in Egypt and two Western dressed women in Libya are supposedly transforming the position of women in their societies one tweet at a time. It was a complete lie. But it wasn't shocking. It would have been shocking if Amanpour had provided her viewers with any relevant facts about the subject she was purportedly discussing. The contrast between Yad L'Achim and traditional feminist groups and icons worldwide is statement on the state of the free world today. Whereas the feminists obscure the plight of women living in the Muslim world, a haredi group is saving women living in the Muslim world. For years the New Israel Fund and countless other Jewish and non-Jewish leftist organizations have waged a culture war against the haredim for what they allege is their mistreatment of women. Many women — both Orthodox and non-Orthodox — disagree with the position of women in the haredi world. But it cannot be denied that today haredim are the only ones rescuing battered Jewish women from their abusive Muslim husbands. Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK, AND EFFORTS TO COMBAT IT, BEGIN
Posted by Daily Alert, March 8, 2011. |
|
This was written by Jordana Horn and appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
NEW YORK — Israeli Apartheid Week, an effort by groups and activists supporting boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel to discredit it and label it an "apartheid state," kicked off Monday in many cities and college campuses worldwide. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, the group NGO Monitor has announced its efforts to combat Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) with the "BDS Sewer System" which provides detailed information, in graphic form, on the sources of delegitimization campaigns against Israel. The "Sewer System" responds to the needs of Israel advocates, especially on college campuses, representatives from NGO Monitor said. "Students and faculty need accurate and relevant information to combat Israeli Apartheid Week and other delegitimization campaigns they face on campus," says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, a research institution that tracks nongovernmental organizations. "IAW essentially is a series of 'mini-Durban' events — based on the strategy adopted at the 2001 Durban Conference that exploits human rights language to isolate and demonize Israel," he said. "This 'Sewer System' map details and explains the complex network of non-governmental organizations and their funders that lead this campaign. Most importantly, it is a tool for students to demonstrate the illiberal and 'anti-human rights' nature of the movements they face on campus." Israeli Apartheid Week — actually running two weeks, from March 7-20 — will involve speakers from various NGOs at campuses throughout the US, Canada and Europe, many representing organizations that NGO Monitor characterizes as being actively anti-Israel. The Sewer System analysis presents a visual, connecting network of pipes between funders, NGOs, and tactics that sustain the BDS movement, NGO Monitor explained. Explanations are provided for each aspect of the movement, including the Durban Strategy, the history of BDS, and how this information can effectively be used. The graphic of the Sewer System depicts the European Union, various governments, foundations and religious charities as providing the incentives and funds for NGOs, who then spread their ideas through mainstream, fringe, unionized and church group outlets. "In some instances, the funders share the anti-Israel political agendas of their grantees," the literature reads. "In others, the governmental and private sources assign funds ostensibly to promote human rights, humanitarian aid, democracy and civil society. However, NGOs divert this support to bolster BDS activity and pursue their own political agendas. Due to an absence of strict guidelines, oversight, accountability and evaluations of decision making, the funding continues year after year." When asked to elaborate by the Post, representatives of NGO Monitor gave examples. The Dutch government, Jason Edelstein of NGO Monitor said, channeled funding to the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO), which claims to be an "aid organization." But then ICCO funded Electronic Intifada, one of the leading groups promoting BDS. "The Dutch government didn't know this until we showed it to them, via The Jerusalem Post," Edelstein said. "So ICCO of course knew how the money was being used, but the Dutch government did not." Edelstein cited The New Israel Fund and the Ford Foundation as examples of organizations that "have not been fully aware that some funding goes to NGOs that promote BDS and are involved in other aspects of the delegitimization campaign." NGO Monitor's literature also explains the history of BDS and the Durban strategy. Copies of the Sewer System have been sent to students at Columbia, the University of Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA, University of California at Berkley, UC Santa Cruz, UC Irvine, and the University of Washington, as well as to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, the Israel on Campus Coalition, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and others to distribute to their campus representatives. "At UCLA, we are passing out the Sewer System to show students that Israel Apartheid Week is part of a larger campaign to delegitimize Israel," Jonathan Gilbert of Bruins for Israel told NGO Monitor and is quoted in one of its press releases. "Most students are unaware of the extreme agendas and hate-filled language associated with the groups behind IAW. The Sewer System helps demonstrate this fact to them." "We now have hundreds of copies of the Sewer System in our offices, and we can distribute them as needed to SPME representatives on 4,000 campuses throughout the world," says Prof. Sam Edelman, executive director of SPME. "This is a useful resource that clearly shows students they are not alone in dealing with these incidents — they are confronting a coordinated, vitriolic campaign to demonize Israel." Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email
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
|
|
CREATED EQUAL: HOW THE BIBLE BROKE WITH ANCIENT POLITICAL THOUGHT
Posted by Sanford Aranoff, March 7, 2011. |
|
Please read this important review on amazon.com. This review is from: Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought. This is the review: |
|
We need to read this important book to see how the ancient Israelites dealt with their social and economic problems using ideas that we Americans today can greatly benefit by studying and thinking about. Here are some quotes. "Western tradition's first prescription for an economic order that seeks to minimize extreme advantage and the distinctions of class based on wealth." The Israelites were able to create a dynamic free society, upon which the American Revolution based itself, without the dangers of extreme socialism that is characteristic of Democrats. "Unafraid of educating the masses." Today's society focuses national education on justifying current politics, instead of focusing on understanding the principles and empirical justification of the principles. This is discussed in Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living. "The relationship between God and man in the [Hebrew] Bible is founded on gratitude not on His power." This means that the Jew lives in happiness not fear. Religions based upon fear are quick to engage in military conflicts. I give it 5 stars because we Americans need to understand our humanistic roots, and be aware of the dangers from lack of understandings that can lead to extreme socialistic experiments that endanger our society. Contact Dr. Aranoff by email at aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com |
|
EUROPEAN GROUP-THINK
Posted by Stephen Kramer, March 7, 2011. |
|
Herb Keinon, a veteran Jerusalem Post reporter, had a fascinating article in the paper's March 1 issue. He interviewed Jean Asselborn, the highly critical Foreign Minister of Luxembourg. While Luxembourg is a pissant country of a half million citizens, it is a co-founder of the European Union and a prime example of European group-think. What's that? It's the enduring European mantra of linkage: the creation of a Palestinian state is the catalyst to solve all the problems of the Middle East. With the situation in a number of Middle East countries boiling over, Europeans steadfastly stick to their mantra and devote an extraordinary amount of their time to pressuring Israel to give the Palestinians what they profess (publicly): a country with borders based on the 1949 armistice lines; Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine; and entree to Israel of a multitude of Palestinian "refugees". The Europeans, and others in the "peace (at any price) camp," don't want to be distracted by the facts. Below are quotes from Mr. Asselborn, on various points that concern negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. On restarting negotiations, following Israel's 10-month building moratorium: "The only wish — as I understand — from the Palestinians is to stop settlements, and then they will immediately start negotiations." On Iran and peace negotiations: "Concerning Iran, nobody can find a solution at the moment. That is not possible. What is possible is to place pressure on Iran. That is what we are trying to do in the EU. The Arab League and a lot of states are in favor of a peace agreement and that was never the case before. And you have people like [Prime Minister Salam] Fayyad and Abu Mazen [President Mahmoud Abbas] in the PA, who are not aggressive people, who are moderate people and who want peace. They told me this morning — both of them — that they want to have peace with Israel, without any other tricky thing in mind. But, if you say that Iran will never allow peace negotiations, you put all the destiny of your country and that of the Palestinians in the hands of Iran. I don't think Iran should be considered such a strong element in this region." On Jerusalem as the world's only dual capital: "Let me also address the issue of Jerusalem. You don't have to cut Jerusalem in two parts. Jerusalem could be the capital of both states. That's possible, perfectly possible." On Israel as a Jewish state: "I just give you my feeling. If you speak about a Jewish state, then the impression is that all the Arabs in your country will be pushed into a minority, that they do not belong to this Jewish state and that they will be barely tolerated here." On Gaza: "As long as Gaza remains under its current form, Israel will never be secure. It is clear for me. If Gaza is opened, as it was in the '80s and '90s, people from Gaza could work in Israel, and people from Israel could work in Gaza. This would lower the tension significantly." On Hamas rule over Gaza: "I really think that if the plan of Fayyad [for a political reconciliation with Hamas] could come to a positive result, if there could really be a newly elected government, we will have to accept it. If we want democracy — if this is a request — then we also have to accept the results." On terror attacks, such as busses being blown up: "Yes, but that's finished." On the recent Grad missile attack on Beersheba: "In London you have [terrorism] also, and in Paris." My retorts concerning Minister Asselborn's comments: The Palestinians refused to negotiate until only one month remained of the 10-month settlement freeze. Their minimal demands are not met even by Israel's most generous offers. Palestinian leaders are afraid even to admit that compromise is necessary. Rather than negotiating, they want the United Nations to dictate terms to Israel in Palestine's favor. Iran is the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East and is a potent threat to the Western world. The European fixation on Israel distracts Europe from the necessity to derail Iran, leading inevitably to a policy of containing Iran — after it has achieved nuclear weapons and enlarged its sphere of influence beyond Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza. There is no precedent of a capital city being shared by two countries. Jerusalem was the Jewish capital during both periods of Jewish monarchy, dating back to 1,000 BCE. Jerusalem is the focal point for Jewish prayer and that has always been the case. Since the mid-19th century, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the obvious capital of Israel. On the other hand, Jerusalem has never been a Muslim capital, nor even a significant Muslim city. There has never been a Palestinian state, hence there has never been a Palestinian capital. The largest Palestinian cities are Gaza City and Hebron, not Jerusalem. The wish to make Jerusalem the Palestinian capital is merely a ploy to undermine the Jewish state. Israel was declared the Jewish state in May, 1948 and accepted as a member by the United Nations a year later. Approximately 20% of Israel's citizens are Muslims, mostly Arabs. They are guaranteed the same rights as all other citizens, including the right to vote; there are Arab members of Israel's Knesset. While many Arab citizens of Israel are in favor of a Palestinian state, they hold their Israeli citizenship dearly and refuse even to consider becoming citizens of the proposed Palestinian state. Regarding Gazans working in Israel, this was commonplace before Hamas was voted into power by Gaza's citizens. Since then, no attempt has been made to have peaceful relations with Israel — rather the opposite. The idea of Israelis working in Gaza is far-fetched. The ascension to power of Hamas illustrates the problem with democratic elections in regions that are not sufficiently educated in democratic principles. Democracies should know better than to accept non-democratic leaders who are elected in prematurely-held elections. Tension with Israel will dissipate only when terror attacks no longer emanate from Gaza and relations can be established. Security for Israel cannot be relegated to a minor issue in negotiating with the Palestinians. Even if Europeans and others are "dying" for there to be a Palestinian state, it's the Israelis who will do the dying if terror-perpetrating factions are not eliminated, which is far from the case today. As Prime Minister Netanyahu often proclaims, Iran is the region's biggest problem and a solution to Middle Eastern instability will come only after Iran is dealt with. Consequently, the fixation on a Palestinian state is a troublesome distraction. Please share this "amazing" youtube video made by my son Shaool (skizman3000):
Stephen Kramer is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture" (See www.encounteringisrael.com). |
|
WHY JEWS ARE LOSING THE BATTLE FOR THE CAMPUS
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 7, 2011. |
|
This was written by Charles Jacobs and it appeared March 2, 2011. |
|
The warnings have been there. In 2006, the US Commission on Civil Rights found that "many college campuses thought the US continue to experience incidents of anti-Semitism." Gary Tobin in his 2005 book "Uncivil University: Politics and Propaganda in American Education," concluded that "anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are systemic in higher education and can be found on campuses all over the United States." Across the country too many Jewish and pro-Israel students are patronized, mocked, intimidated and sometimes physically attacked, while anti-Israel professors poison the minds of America's future leaders. Yet Jewish leaders have by and large not responded effectively. How did the Jewish community, known for its rhetorical genius, lose a critically important political battle on American campuses? Here is a thumbnail sketch: In 1990, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, explained on Jordanian TV how the Arab Lobby can and will match Jewish political and organizational success in America. Zogby and his allies recognized that the campus and the media, unlike Capitol Hill, are two battle grounds that Arabists could win by allying themselves with the American left. In both venues they already had beachheads and feet on the ground. The campus was in transition politically, influenced by '60s tenured radicals who had adopted the dogma of post-colonialism, and its Palestinian version, Professor Edward Said's "Orientalism." Moreover, America was experiencing a significant increase in foreign born Muslim students as well as increased Muslim immigration (many from countries with a culture of vicious anti-Semitism). Zogby focused on forming alliances with Marxist professors, die-hard socialist activists, African- American student groups, gay-lesbian groups and, most importantly, Jewish progressives. He also realized that an emerging anti-Israel Left/Muslim axis on campus could be better organized and benefit from an inflow of Arab petro dollars into prestigious American universities. All this was happening while many Jewish leaders, intoxicated by the Oslo agreement, were abandoning Israel programming. Today, we can see the brilliance of Zogby's strategy: Anti-Israel sentiment suffuses the campus atmosphere. In the classroom, radical professors express the the dominant narrative that the Palestinians are right and the Israelis are in the wrong. In its mild form, the Palestinians suffer needlessly at the hands of Israeli occupiers; in its more vicious version, Israel is a racist, genocidal apartheid nation. Outside the classroom, anti-Israel groups hold conferences, screen films and conduct theatrical demonstrations that portray Israel in the harshest of terms. Israel's advocates are rudely interrupted, prevented from speaking; pro-Israel events are disrupted; Jewish students are intimidated verbally or even physically, and are excluded from pro-Palestinian events. Pathetic attempts by Jewish groups to initiate dialogue with Palestinian students are rejected. Any acknowledgement of Israelis' humanity is seen as a validation of Palestinian oppression. Our epoch's secular religion — political correctness and multiculturalism — judges people by who they are, not what they do. Israelis are by definition always guilty, while darker skinned, impoverished, indigenous Palestinians are eternally innocent. Far more than their parents and their community suspect, Jewish students find it challenging and often unpleasant, if not actually frightening, to support Israel on many campuses today. Through research and interviews with campus activists and students from around the country, we are developing a compilation of anti-Israel incidents and descriptions of hostile atmospheres on campuses. Here are just four recently reported incidents: Hampshire College, Amherst. Last semester a pro-Israel student was repeatedly verbally harassed by individuals covering their faces. The student was called "baby killer," "genocide lover," "apartheid supporter" and "racist." After receiving an email that read "Make the world a better place and die slow," she moved off the campus. She has now returned but is still afraid to disclose her identity. Rutgers University. Last month, a group of pro-Israel students and Holocaust survivors were made to pay an entrance fee to an event that likened Palestinians to Holocaust victims. The event had been advertised as free and open to the public; Palestinian supporters were let in without charge. Indiana University. Last November, five incidents of anti-Jewish vandalism were reported in one week, including rocks thrown at Chabad and Hillel; sacred Jewish texts placed in various bathrooms and urinated upon; and an information board about Jewish studies programs smashed with a stone. Carlton University, Ottawa. Last April, a non-Jewish supporter of Israel and his Israeli roommate were attacked by an Arab-speaking mob who screamed anti-Semitic epithets. Nick Bergamini was punched in the head and chased by a man who swung a machete at his head, missing by inches. Now ask yourself: What would have happened on campus, in the media or in the community if these incidents had been directed at African American, Hispanic or Muslim students? We have the answer: In October 2009, a noose was found at the University of California-San Diego library. Students occupied the chancellor's office. The governor, the chancellor and student leaders condemned the incident. The school established a task force on minority faculty recruitment and a commission to address declining African-American enrollment, and vowed to find space for an African- American resource center. All this — only to discover a few weeks later that the noose was planted by a minority student. Jewish students and Jewish buildings attacked and intimidated are not a hoax, yet Jewish leaders sit on their hands. No one calls for sensitivity training for Muslim and leftist students about the use of blood libels and anti-Semitism. No one demands students be taught about proper behavior in a civil society or about principles of free speech and academic inquiry. More and more, the ugly aspects of the "Arab street" are coming to campus. With the commendable exception of the Zionist Organization of America — which won civil rights protection for California students under Title 6 — Jewish leaders have remained mostly silent. Without their protest, why should university administrations care?
Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com
|
|
THE FEMALE OSKAR SCHINDLER
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 7, 2011. |
|
This was written by Tom Barrett and appeared in ConservativeTruth.org. |
|
Unlike Oskar Schindler, whose story was the subject of Schindler's List (a movie which won the Academy Award), Irena Senderlowa was relatively unknown until 1999. That was when four Kansas high school students researched her life and wrote and performed a play, "Life in a Jar" about how the young Irena risked her life to save thousands of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. We should be thankful to those four teenagers (Megan Stewart, Sabrina Coons, Elizabeth Cambers, and Jessica Shelton), because Irena's story is an inspiration to all who hear it. Irena, commonly known as Irena Sendler, passed away in her Warsaw home on May 12, 2008. She left not only her family, but almost 3,000 Jews who owe their lives to her. Irena was not Jewish. Like most Christians, she was horrified at the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis. But unlike many she risked her life to do something about it. In 1942 when rumors started to circulate about the plans of the Germans to exterminate the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, she started making plans to save as many Jews as possible. She began her rescue operation before she joined the organized Polish resistance. During this time she helped about 500 adults escape, including the man she later married. Later, with the help of 10 close friends (a group that eventually grew to 25) she saved the lives of 2,500 infants and children. This is her story. Irena started small by making false documents for Jewish friends when the war started in 1939. She was an administrator at the Warsaw Social Work Department during the war, which gave her access to government records. Her serious rescue work began in the summer of 1942 when it became apparent that the Jews of Warsaw would not simply be persecuted, but murdered. The underground group Zegota was founded in the fall of that year. Irena became the head of the children's division, and with her helpers she not only rescued thousands of infants and children, but placed them with Christian families who lied to the authorities by claiming them as their own children. The Kansas teenagers named their play "Life in a Jar" because Irena buried the names of the rescued children on thin slips of paper in jars in a neighbor's back yard. Her dream was to reunite the children with their parents. Unfortunately, when she retrieved the names following the war, Irena found that almost all the parents had been murdered in Hitler's concentration camps. As it became more and more dangerous to sneak people out of the ghetto, the decision was made to concentrate on the children. It was heart-wrenching for their parents to give them to strangers, even though they knew that it was probably the only way they would survive. Irena insisted that the teens doing the play about her work "always end your performance by saying the real heroes of the story were the Jewish parents and grandparents." At various times Irena posed as a nurse in order to bring medicine into the ghetto. She also pretended to a sewer inspector. She would drive a truck into the ghetto, returning with children hidden in it and babies in her toolbox. She would give the babies sleeping medicine to keep them quiet, and she carried a dog in the back who was trained to bark when she went through the checkpoint. The Germans didn't want to deal with the dog, and never inspected her truck closely. Irena and her friends also hid children underneath the stretchers while transporting sick people out of the ghetto, and hid them in trunks, sacks and suitcases when moving goods. They also used sewers and other secret passages, and removed many children through an old, unused courthouse at the edge of the ghetto. She also sometimes borrowed the credentials of a friend who worked in the contagious disease department, figuring correctly that no one would want to have anything to do with someone who might be carrying a contagious infection. She was finally caught and put in Pawiak prison. She was tortured for days and had many of her bones broken during beatings, but she refused to give the names of any of her fellow rescuers. Finally she was sentenced to be executed. The night before she was to die, the underground bribed a guard to release her. She had to remain in hiding for the rest of the war. The irony of this story is that this hero of a woman was nominated in 2007 for the Nobel Peace Prize. She was turned down by the Committee. Instead, Al Gore won the prize for a slide show on global warming. When the Nobel Committee honors someone like Al Gore, and gives the Prize to Obama at the beginning of his presidency for something they HOPED he would do, it is clear that the Nobel has become worthless to people of honor. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) expressed its disappointment that Irena Sendler had not yet been honored with a Nobel Prize: "IFSW sends congratulations to Al Gore on winning the Nobel Peace Prize 2007...However IFSW is deeply saddened that the life work of Nobel nominee Irena Sendler, social worker, did not receive formal recognition', said David N. Jones, IFSW President. 'Irena Sendler and her helpers took personal risks day after day to prevent the destruction of individual lives — the lives of the children of the Warsaw ghetto. This work was done very quietly, without many words and at the risk of their lives. This is so typical of social work, an activity which changes and saves lives but is done out of the glare of publicity and often at personal risk. So it falls to those of us who understand and value true achievement to honor Irena Sendler by teaching our children and grandchildren to follow in her footsteps, and by instilling in them Biblical virtues and values by which to live their lives. After all, the Bible says that if you train up your child in the right way, when they grow old they will not depart from it. I'm certain Irena's parents claimed that verse as their own as they raised their only child. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BETWEEN TWO POLES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 7, 2011. |
|
The good and the bad. And today I begin with the good, for it is Rosh Chodesh Adar — the beginning of the month of Adar (the second Adar, actually, as it is a leap year with two Adars). We are taught, in the Talmud, "Mishenichnas Adar marbim b'simchah" — when Adar comes in, joy increases. Adar brings us the tumultuously happy holiday of Purim, but so great is our joy that it cannot be contained in one day. All of Adar is to be joyous. Remembering this keeps us sane and provides perspective. For Purim celebrates our victory over an enemy who would have destroyed us. And it teaches us, further, that even when G-d's face is hidden, he is there, but we are bidden to also act on our own behalf. So let us sing:
~~~~~~~~~~ And the bad? The evil. Ironically, today is also the first day of the 7th Israel Apartheid Week, in which defamation and delegitimization of Israel is pushed on college campuses. Please see my piece about this, on American Thinker, here:
~~~~~~~~~~ There are rumors flying, and questions being addressed to me, regarding plans that Netanyahu has for his new "initiative." As it's all rumor, and there is nothing definitive, there is little to say. I've learned from long experience to be wary of panicked rumors. But this is not to deny the anxiety. What I have learned is that our prime minister did not meet with his Inner Cabinet, the Septet, as he was scheduled to do last week. Not a good sign, for, as Minister Ya'alon indicated in his recent interview, the Septet was negative on the possibility of an agreement with the Palestinian Arabs. And, which is most disconcerting, it is said he is working closely with Barak. ~~~~~~~~~~ The other one to watch here is Minister of Intelligence Dan Merridor, who is definitely to the left within Likud. In an Army Radio interview yesterday, he said that a Palestinian state within 1967 lines is "unacceptable" and that "the world has already recognized that the main settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria would stay in Israeli hands." Nonetheless, "it is an Israeli interest of the highest degree" to transfer more Judea and Samaria to Palestinian control: "Without an initiative, the whole world will recognize a Palestinian state with 1967 borders." Wait! Why would he say this when he just said the world recognizes the settlement blocs as Israeli? He went on to suggest that uninhabited parts of area C, under Israeli control, be transferred to Palestinian Authority control as part of area A. In response to this, MK Tzipi Hotovely said that these ideas are not accepted by most of Likud. ~~~~~~~~~~ But, in spite of all the rumors and all the talk, Netanyahu has not himself alluded to a new initiative and certainly has provided no hints as to what it might include. The good news, such as it may be, is that his own Likud party members, as Hotovely suggested, are determined to keep him from moving in the wrong direction. Said MK Danny Danon, "We won't let Netanyahu get away with a leftist diplomatic plan." Additionally, there is action from the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (the Yesha Council). "We feel Netanyahu shouldn't be left alone to fight this battle internationally," said Council director-general Naftali Bennett. "President Obama has proven that he lives in lalaland with his whole approach to the Middle East. He paved the way for engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood (more on this below) in Egypt. This is the guy we should trust to secure Israel? Netanyahu should remember that Israelis voted for him because they thought he could say no to Obama. They don't want him caving to a president who clearly knows nothing about the Middle East." ~~~~~~~~~~ There are people who are declaring with alarm that Netanyahu is about to pull a "Sharon," by which is meant that he is about to surrender Judea and Samaria. I don't see this, for a variety of reasons. The electorate is much more wary today, precisely because of all that has transpired since Sharon pulled out of Gaza, and his party is prepared to buck him in a way that did not happen with Sharon. What is more, pulling everyone out of Judea and Samaria (Heaven forbid!) would be a gargantuan task relative to the expulsion of 8,000 from Gush Katif (who to this day have not received their due) — and would meet with violence, I have no doubt. This does not mean that lesser concessions are OK. ~~~~~~~~~~ Barry Rubin has been doing a good deal of excellent writing with regard to Obama and his take on the turmoiled Middle East. I was going to cite a recent article in which he described Obama's foolishness in saying that the new Egyptian government "should" have a good relationship with Israel, and that things are positive. Oi vey. But today's piece by Rubin, "Beyond Appeasement," is even stronger: "In a moment, I'll present what might be the most frightening paragraph in the modern history of US foreign policy. But first, here's one that's among the most deplorable. It's from a Washington Post article: 'The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.' This policy approach is also terrifying. I can only pray that the majority of Americans will open their eyes and see it. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
COURT JEWS, 2011
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, March 7, 2011. |
|
In centuries past, there were individual Jews of influence — especially in banking and business —who were granted privileges and a certain amount of prestige because of favors they did for the nobility. Often, they were more concerned with their own personal status than the bigotry and misery that most other Jews faced in their societies. On March 1, 2011 the new select group of Court Jews — some fifty members of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations — were summoned to the White House where they were lectured by President Obama about the need to speak to other members of the Tribe, both in Israel and abroad, about the need "to search your souls" about the seriousness of making peace. Despite the positive spin some folks have given to the meeting,
there is no doubt that there's trouble ahead. A careful reading of the
report in Haaretz.com spells it out nicely
The Obama White House is not the first to engage in such insulting, condescending behavior towards Jewish leaders, but it has indulged in this practice perhaps more the any other of recent memory. With all due respect to his office notwithstanding, the President needed to be politely — but firmly — answered. And there is little doubt that the assembled Court Jews did no such thing. Why...well...after all, they might not get invited to the next pow wow, ya know. Knowing this President's history when dealing with Jewish leaders who differ with his own vision — like abruptly leaving the Prime Minister of Israel to cringe for hours while having dinner with his family so Netanyahu could reevaluate his position on the need for a territorial compromise over disputed territories (aka, the building freeze) — should impart some wisdom in those on the invitation list. I doubt that it did. And, even worse, is that the Prime Minister of Israel — the one elected at virtually the same time Senator Obama became President because most Israelis believed he would stand up for a bit more justice for their tiny, beleagured nation — now appears to increasingly be caving in to the Obama White House as well...in deed, if not precisely in word. Truth be told, how dare anyone — including an American leader — insinuate that it's the Jews who have not taken peace seriously. What the Obama Administration really demands is not that Israel soul search about peace, but that Israel renounce any claims that it has of its own — like the promises inherent in the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242, the main instrument for peacemaking since 1967 — to a meaningful compromise over the concrete issues — especially territory. What Obama and the State Department want is for Israel to cave in to all that Arabs demand on all the main outstanding issues — like reducing itself to its '49 zipper-like 9-15 mile wide armistice line (not border) existence...for starters. What soul searching does Mr. Obama demand of the Arabs? His best buddy, Mahmoud Abbas, swears he will never recognize Israel as a state of the Jews yet demands a 22nd state be recognized for Arabs...and then pledges that he will never give up demanding that Israel allow itself, after becoming a sub-rump state again, to be swamped by millions of real and alleged Arab refugees. Recall that as many or more Jews fled "Arab"/Muslim lands in a war Arabs started than vice-versa — and left far more wealth and property behind. Who's kidding whom here? Too much has already been written about Israel's right to legitimate compromise on these issues to repeat yet again. The best thing Jewish leaders can do — given this hostile approach — is to simply stay away from such invitations to badgering by the current American Administration. I know, it sounds gutsy...But what is the alternative? To cave in to all that an obviously hostile current President (half way through his term in office) and a frequentlty hostile State Department now demand? How many more humiliations does it take before the lesson is learned? Like most all other nations whose demands for security and such far surpass Israel's (now, what was Great Britain's fight with Argentina over the Falkland Islands all about...and why was Panama's Noriega really toppled...and tell me, again, why Russia is in Chechnya, etc.?), the latter must also have lines in the sand beyond which it will not retreat. The imposed '49 armistice lines were never meant to be Israel's final borders and only constantly invited Arabs to attack and destroy it. All the architects of the final draft of 242, after the Arabs' renewed threat on Israel's life in 1967, understood this and thus called for a change in this state of affairs. Those needing to search their souls are not Jews but those demanding that Israel bare, even further (in addition to major concessions it has already made), the necks of its children for the sake of those who, by their own words, repeatedly state that any such dealings with Jews are only a Trojan Horse — bringing their openly admitted destruction-in-stages plans for the Jewish State that much closer with each new turn of the American vise's screw... http://q4j-middle-east.com Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php |
|
NO, NOT TERRORISM, BUT A 'TRAGIC EVENT'
Posted by Mark Steyn, March 7, 2011. |
|
According to Bismarck's best known maxim on Europe's most troublesome region, the Balkans are not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Americans could be forgiven for harboring similar sentiments after the murder of two U.S. airmen in Germany by a Kosovar Muslim. Remember Kosovo? Me neither. But it was big at the time, launched by Bill Clinton in the wake of his Monica difficulties: Make war, not love, as the boomers advise. So Clinton did — and without any pesky UN resolutions, or even the pretense of seeking them. Instead, he and Tony Blair and even Jacques Chirac just cried "Bombs away!" and got on with it. And the Left didn't mind at all — because, for a modern Western nation, war is only legitimate if you have no conceivable national interest in whatever war you're waging. Unlike Iraq and all its supposed "blood for oil," in Kosovo no one remembers why we went in, what the hell the point of it was, or which side were the good guys. (Answer: Neither.) The principal rationale advanced by Clinton and Blair was that there was no rationale. This was what they called "liberal interventionism," which boils down to: The fact that we have no reason to get into it justifies our getting into it. A decade on, Kosovo is a sorta sovereign state, and in Frankfurt a young airport employee is so grateful for what America did for his people that he guns down U.S. servicemen while yelling "Allahu akbar!" The strange shrunken spectator who serves as president of the United States, offering what he called "a few words about the tragic event that took place," announced that he was "saddened," and expressed his "gratitude for the service of those who were lost" and would "spare no effort" to "work with the German authorities" but it was a "stark reminder" of the "extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making ..." The passivity of these remarks is very telling. Men and women "in uniform" (which it's not clear these airmen were even wearing) understand they may be called upon to make "extraordinary sacrifices" in battle. They do not expect to be "lost" on the shuttle bus at the hands of a civilian employee at a passenger air terminal in an allied nation. But then I don't suppose their comrades expected to be "lost" at the hands of an army major at Fort Hood, to cite the last "tragic event" that "took place" — which seems to be the president's preferred euphemism for a guy opening fire while screaming "Allahu akbar!" But relax, this fellow in Frankfurt was most likely a "lone wolf" (as Senator Chuck Schumer described the Times Square Bomber) or an "isolated extremist" (as the president described the Christmas Day Pantybomber). There are so many of these "lone wolves" and "isolated extremists" you may occasionally wonder whether they've all gotten together and joined Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists, but don't worry about it: As any Homeland Security official can tell you, "Allahu akbar" is Arabic for "Nothing to see here." Bismarck's second best-known maxim on the region is that the Balkans start in the slums of Vienna. The Habsburg imperial capital was a protean "multicultural society" wherein festered the ancient grievances of many diverse peoples. Today, the Muslim world starts in the suburbs of Frankfurt. Those U.S. airmen were killed by Arid Uka, whose Muslim Albanian parents emigrated from Kosovo decades ago. Young Arid was born and bred in Germany. He is a German citizen who holds a German passport. He is, according to multicultural theory, as German as Fritz and Helmut and Hans. Except he's not. Not when it counts. Why isn't he a fully functioning citizen of the nation he's spent his entire life in? Well, that's a tricky one. OK, why is a Muslim who wants to kill Americans holding down a job at a European airport? That's slightly easier to answer. Almost every problem facing the Western world, from self-detonating jihadists to America's own suicide bomb — the multi-trillion dollar debt — has at its root a remorseless demographic arithmetic. In the U.S., the baby boomers did not have enough children to maintain their mid-20th century social programs. I see that recent polls supposedly show that huge majorities of Americans don't want any modifications to Medicare or Social Security. So what? It doesn't matter what you "want." The country's broke, and you can vote yourself unsustainable quantities of government lollipops all you like, but all you're doing is ensuring that when, eventually, you're obliged to reacquaint yourself with reality, the shock will be far more devastating and convulsive. But even with looming bankruptcy America still looks pretty sweet if you're south of the border. Last week, the former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Steve Murdock, told The Houston Chronicle that in Texas "it's basically over for Anglos." He pointed out that two out of every three children are already "non-Anglo," and that this gap will widen even further in the years ahead. Remember the Alamo? Why bother? America won the war, but Mexico won the peace. In the Lone Star State, Murdock envisions a future in which millions of people with minimal skills will be competing for ever fewer jobs paying less in actual dollars and cents than they would have earned in the year 2000. That doesn't sound like a recipe for social tranquility. What's south of Europe's border? Why, it's even livelier. In Libya, there are presently one million refugees from sub-Saharan Africa whose ambition is to get in a boat to Italy. There isn't a lot to stop them. Between now and mid-century, Islam and sub-Saharan Africa will be responsible for almost all the world's population growth — and yet, aside from a few thousand layabout Saudi princes whoring in Mayfair, they will enjoy almost none of the world's wealth. Niger had 10 million people in 2000, and half-a-million of them were starving children. By 2010, they had 15 million, and more children were starving. By 2100, they're predicted to hit 100 million. But they won't — because it would be unreasonable to expect an extra 90 million people to stay in a country that can't feed a population a tenth that size. So they will look elsewhere — to countries with great infrastructure, generous welfare, and among the aging natives a kind of civilizational wasting disease so advanced that, as a point of moral virtue, they are incapable of enforcing their borders. The nations that built the modern world decided to outsource their future. In simple economic terms, the arithmetic is stark: In America, the boomers have condemned their shrunken progeny to the certainty of poorer, meaner lives. In sociocultural terms, the transformation will be even greater. Bismarck, so shrewd and cynical about the backward Balkans, was also the father of the modern welfare state: When he introduced the old age pension, you had to be 65 to collect and Prussian life expectancy was 45. Now life expectancy has near doubled, you get your pension a decade earlier, and, in a vain attempt to make that deformed math add up, Bismarck's successors moved the old East/West fault line from the Balkans to the main street of every German city. Americans sometimes wonder why, two decades after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the U.S. Army still lives in Germany. The day is approaching when they will move out — if only to avoid any more "tragic events" "taking place."
|
|
FROM LIBYA WITH LOVE
Posted by Daily Alert, March 7, 2011. |
|
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. Get David Corn's RSS feed. Siddhartha Mahanta is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones. Got story ideas? Email him at smahanta (at) motherjones (dot) com. For more of his stories, click here. Get Siddhartha Mahanta's RSS feed. |
|
In February 2007 Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who developed the concept of "soft power," visited Libya and sipped tea for three hours with Muammar Qaddafi. Months later, he penned an elegant description of the chat for The New Republic, reporting that Qaddafi had been interested in discussing "direct democracy." Nye noted that "there is no doubt that" the Libyan autocrat "acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas — including soft power — with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy." The article struck a hopeful tone: that there was a new Qaddafi. It also noted that Nye had gone to Libya "at the invitation of the Monitor Group, a consulting company that is helping Libya open itself to the global economy." Nye did not disclose all. He had actually traveled to Tripoli as a paid consultant of the Monitor Group (a relationship he disclosed in an email to Mother Jones), and the firm was working under a $3 million-per-year contract with Libya. Monitor, a Boston-based consulting firm with ties to the Harvard Business School, had been retained, according to internal documents obtained by a Libyan dissident group, not to promote economic development, but "to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi." So The New Republic published an article sympathetic to Qaddafi that had been written by a prominent American intellectual paid by a firm that was being compensated by Libya to burnish the dictator's image. Presumably, Nye was sharing his independently derived view of Qaddafi. Yet a source familiar with the Harvard professor's original submission to the magazine notes, "It took considerable prodding from editors to get him to reluctantly acknowledge the regime's very well-known dark side." And Franklin Foer, then the editor of the magazine, says, "If we had known that he was consulting for a firm paid by the government, we wouldn't have run the piece." (After an inquiry by Mother Jones, The New Republic added a disclaimer to the Nye story acknowledging the details of Nye's relationship with Monitor.)[*] "Did I realize that I was working within an autocratic regime and the odds of making change were low? Yes." The Nye article was but one PR coup the Monitor Group delivered for Qaddafi. But the firm also succeeded on other fronts. The two chief goals of the project, according to an internal document describing Monitor's Libya operations, were to produce a makeover for Libya and to introduce Qaddafi "as a thinker and intellectual, independent of his more widely-known and very public persona as the Leader of the Revolution in Libya." In a July 3, 2006, letter to its contact in the Libyan government, Mark Fuller, the CEO of Monitor, and Rajeev Singh-Molares, a director of the firm, wrote, Libya has suffered from a deficit of positive public relations and adequate contact with a wide range of opnion-leaders and contemporary thinkers. This program aims to redress the balance in Libya's favor. The key strategy for achieving these aims, the operation summary said, "involves introducing to Libya important international figures that will influence other nations' policies towards the country." Also on the table, according to a Monitor document, was a book that Monitor would produce on "Qadhafi, the Man and His Ideas," based in part on interviews between the Libyan dictator and these visiting international influentials. The book supposedly would "enable the international intellectual and policy-making elite to understand Qadhafi as an individual thinker rather than leader of a state." (Monitor's fee for this particular task: $1.65 million.) This volume never materialized. But one primary outcome of Monitor's pro-Qaddafi endeavors, the operation summary said, was an increase in media coverage "broadly positive and increasingly sensitive to the Libyan point of view." It worked: Several thought-leaders were brought to Libya by Monitor to chat with the Leader — including neoconservative Richard Perle (who then briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on his visits), political economist Francis Fukuyama, and conservative scholar Bernard Lewis (who briefed the US embassy in Israel on his trip) — and a few of the "visitors," as Monitor referred to them, did write mostly positive articles, without revealing they had been part of the Monitor Group's endeavor to clean up Qaddafi. Some might not have even known they had been recruited for an image rehabilitation reffort. In 2006 and 2007, Benjamin Barber, an author specializing in democracy studies and a senior fellow at Demos, a pro-democracy think tank, took three trips to Libya as a paid consultant to Monitor. On these visits, Barber met with Libyan lawyers, officials, and activists interested in democratic reform — and Qaddafi, too. "We went," he says, "in the hope we might be able to reinforce elements inside Libya interested in change, looking to engage civil society and create a foundation for a movement." Barber served on the international advisory board of Qaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, which was overseen by Saif Qaddafi, the second-eldest son of the Libyan dictator, who supported the foundation's work on human rights and democracy-promotion projects and who seemed a reformist himself (until last month, when he sided with his father in declaring war on the protesters). "Did I realize that I was working within an autocratic regime and the odds of making change were low?" Barber remarks. "Yes."
The project was more about selling Qaddafi overseas than selling reform to Qaddafi. Barber says he believed that the main aim of the Monitor Group's Libya project was to stir reform there — trying to "turn Libya from a rogue state into a better state." He was encouraged by small steps he saw in the country. And in August 2007, Barber wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post, noting that Libya had finally released five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who each had been condemned to death for allegedly infecting children in a Libyan hospital with HIV. In the article — headlined "Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America?" — Barber wrote that his one-on-one conversations with Qaddafi had convinced him that the Libyan leader had arranged for their release to show his desire for "a genuine rapprochement with the United States." "Libya," Barber noted, "under Gaddafi has embarked on a journey that could make it the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government." He reported that Qaddafi, whom the United States and other governments had identified as a possible ally in the war against Al Qaeda, had been "holding open conversations" with Western intellectuals. But Barber did not mention in the Post piece that he himself had been a paid consultant for the Monitor Group. Was this an oversight? "I don't think so," Barber says, adding that he assumed he was on the payroll to help Monitor promote reform in Libya, not sell Qaddafi in the United States. (According to a blog post he wrote for the Huffington Post on February 22, Barber and all the members of the international advisory board of the Qaddafi Foundation resigned in response to the Qaddafi's regime's violent reaction to the uprising in Libya.) Other intellectuals squired to Libya by Monitor also chronicled their experiences in articles that bolstered the notion — for which there was a true basis at the time — that Qaddafi was heading in a positive direction. After being escorted to Libya by Monitor in 2007, Princeton University professor Andrew Moravcsik (who did not meet with the Libyan leader) contributed a long article to Newsweek International — "A Rogue Reforms" — that concluded, "Kaddafi may have no desire to surrender power himself — but he has come to see that embracing modernization and globalization is the best way to assure his survival. Thus the historical irony: after three decades of isolation, Libya may be emerging as the West's best hope in the turbulent Middle East." Asked about his trip to Libya and his relationship with Monitor — and whether he should have disclosed any connection in the Newsweek article — Moravcsik initially refused to comment; a spokeswoman for him said, "He is not available to discuss this issue." But this spokeswoman subsequently said that Moravcsik was not paid by the Monitor Group. Anthony Giddens, a leading British intellectual, made two Monitor-guided trips to Libya in 2007. According to Monitor documents, he published two articles about Libya after each trip. In one of those pieces — "My chat with the colonel," posted by The Guardian — Giddens noted, "As one-party states go, Libya is not especially repressive. Gadafy seems genuinely popular." He observed, "Will real progress be possible only when Gadafy leaves the scene? I tend to think the opposite. If he is sincere in wanting change, as I think he is, he could play a role in muting conflict that might otherwise arise as modernisation takes hold." The article did not mention the Monitor Group. (A Monitor document notes, "Giddens regularly plays tennis with George Soros, and they are known to have discussed Libya a number of times.") Giddens did not respond to an email request for comment. Harvard professor Robert Putnam also traveled to Libya in 2007 under the auspices of the Monitor Group and spent several hours with Qaddafi in his tent in the desert. He, too, wrote about this experience — but not until last week, after the Libyan uprising had begun. In an article for The Wall Street Journal — "With Libya's Megalomaniac 'Philosopher King'" — Putnam disclosed that "an international consulting firm that was advising the Libyan government on economic and political reform" had asked whether he would go to Libya and discuss his research on civil society and democracy with Qaddafi. He noted that "my hosts were willing to pay my standard consulting fee." In Libya, Putnam recounted, he spent two hours talking political philosophy with Qaddafi, who dismissed Putnam's celebration of civic groups and freedom of association, noting that adopting any of this in Libya could cause profound disunity. Putnam wrote, Was this a serious conversation or an elaborate farce? Naturally, I came away thinking — hoping — that I had managed to sway Col. Gadhafi in some small way, but my wife was skeptical. Two months later I was invited back to a public roundtable in Libya, but by then I had concluded that the whole exercise was a public-relations stunt, and I declined. In a statement, Monitor contends that its Libya project, which ended in 2008, "focused on helping the Libyan people work towards an improved economy and more open governmental institutions" and "was undertaken during a period that was widely perceived as holding meaningful potential for reform within, and new opportunity for, Libya." Indeed, at that point, a measure of reform in Libya appeared possible. But, according to Monitor's agreement with Libya, its project was more about peddling Qaddafi overseas than pitching reform to Qaddafi. Were Monitor officials slyly using the opportunity to enhance Qaddafi's image as a chance to promote change within his autocratic regime? (Or is that too charitable?) Monitor did not reply to questions from Mother Jones about its intentions in Libya, about its payments to consultants, or about the various articles that were written by the academics it brought to Tripoli. "We do not discuss specifics of our work with any client," the Monitor statement says. "That said, we are deeply distressed and saddened to witness the current tragic events in Libya." The group did not say whether it regretted mounting, on behalf a brutal dictator who proved to be no reformer, a behind-the-scenes PR campaign that snared prominent intellectuals hoping for the best in Libya. * After this piece was posted, Nye complained to Foer about Foer's characterization of Nye's disclosure. Following that, Foer submitted this statement to Mother Jones: Joseph Nye has just found the draft of the piece he submitted to The New Republic. In that draft he wrote, "I was in Libya at the invitation of a former Harvard colleague who works for the Monitor Group, a consulting company which has undertaken to help Libya open itself to the global economy. Part of that process is meeting with a variety of Western experts whom Monitor hires as consultants." Based on that information, TNR should have prodded him to include a more explicit disclosure in the final version of his piece. Re-reading that draft, it's clear that my quote to you was far too categorical. In an email to Mother Jones, Nye wrote, I answered your questions honestly about whether I had been paid by Monitor, but you then wrote something different that was not true. You...accepted one source about whether I told TNR that I had been paid by Monitor without checking back with me. I attach the July [2007] draft of the article that I submitted to TNR. You will see that on line 9 I said that the consultants had been "hired" by Monitor. Hired means paid. Nye did include a reference to paid consultants in his original draft, but this was not a clear statement that he had been paid directly by Monitor — and it certainly wasn't a disclosure that he had been paid as part of a Monitor project designed to clean up Qaddafi's image. Moreover, according to TNR editors, Nye didn't object to the final version of The New Republic piece, which, after extensive editing, no longer included a mention of Monitor paying outside consultants to engage in "meetings" in Libya. Asked whether he had objected to the final version, Nye told Mother Jones, "All I know is that I alerted them that I was paid."
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
|
|
JEAN-JACQUES JIHAD. WHY LEFTISTS AND ISLAMISTS COLLABORATE
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 7, 2011. |
|
Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. This article was written by Andrew C. McCarthy and it
appeared in National Review
|
|
The one thing that absolutely could not be tolerated was true freedom, the liberty of the individual. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the "social compact" would otherwise be "an empty formula." The irreducible core of the utopia he envisioned, the "undertaking which alone can give force to the rest," was quite simply this: "Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body." Ah, yes, the "general will." For this, every modern totalitarian movement is indebted to the 18th-century Genevan philosopher who claimed, in The Social Contract, that a man's compulsory servitude to the state — the embodiment of this general will — "means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free." Rousseau was what we today call "Orwellian" long before there was an Orwell. "Freedom" was nothing more than submission. That is why Rousseau so admired Islam. The history of Islam and the modern Left is one of cooperation when there is some obstacle to their divergent concepts of "social justice" and the perfect society. These are always marriages of convenience, enduring no longer than the enemy that drives them into each other's arms. But, reliably, it is they — the Islamists and the leftists — who come together when there is a third party in the mix. Rarely will one collude with a common enemy against the other. Today, the common enemy of Islamists and leftists is individual liberty, especially the social, economic, and political freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution, as conceived by the Framers. Conceived, that is, by men who saw government as a necessary evil to be rigorously limited lest it devour true freedom — not as an essential good to be empowered for the very purpose of enforcing servitude. Collaborations between Islamists and leftists — past examples and those happening right before our eyes — are numerous, so much so that I admit to being dumbfounded by the frequency of the question of whether they really happen. That there is collusion is undeniable. That collusion is a major theme of my book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America — "grand jihad" and "sabotage" being the Islamists' own terms for what they describe as their plan to "destroy Western civilization." By the time the book was published last spring, the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New Left flagship created by radical lawyer William Kunstler in the 1960s, had spent nearly a decade spearheading the representation of jihadists captured making war against the United States. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) — whose founders were ardent admirers of Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, and whose current executive director said, right after the 9/11 attacks, that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list" — was at the forefront of Islamist organizations then campaigning for the enactment of Obamacare, when MPAC wasn't otherwise occupied by the numerous executive-branch agencies that regularly seek its input on any number of issues. This should have been no surprise, for history is littered with Islamist/leftist confederations — e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood's support of the military coup led by Soviet puppet Gamal Abdel Nasser to overthrow the British-backed Egyptian monarchy; the avowed "Islamic socialism" of the Pakistan People's Party; the blend of Islamists and leftists that has always composed the Palestine Liberation Organization. Let's say that this hadn't been the case, though. Let's pretend that the last 30 years hadn't seen everything from Iranian Communists rallying to support Khomeini's revolution to last summer's "peace flotilla," a joint effort by Islamist operatives and avowed Communists such as Bill Ayers to break Israel's blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. The everyday cooperation between Islamists and leftists right under our noses would still be manifest. The interesting question is not whether it occurs, but why. To anyone who studies the matter, as the liberty-loving Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser has, the Islamist enthusiasm for statist schemes like Obamacare is easy to decode. Islamist organizations are collectivist groups, Dr. Jasser explains. They fall squarely in line with the socialist platform of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is, as Dr. Jasser puts it, to "increase the power of government through entitlement programs, increased taxation, and restricting free markets whenever and wherever possible." That platform is the legacy of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and of Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood's most formidable theoretician. Decades after their deaths, both these men remain required reading for budding Islamist activists in Brotherhood-inspired redoubts like the Muslim Student Association, the Islamic Society of North America, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. An animating goal of these organizations is to have Islamic principles recognized by government and enforced through the state's coercive power. These principles needn't be known as "Islamic" any more than leftist pieties are advertised as "leftist." They need only reflect what Islamists, like leftists, call "social justice." This is perhaps most clearly illustrated in Qutb's tract, Social Justice in Islam. The book teaches that Islam is about the collective, and that those who resist the Muslim ummah must, as Rousseau would have said, be "forced to be free." According to Qutb, "integrating" humanity in "an essential unity" under sharia is "a prerequisite for true and complete human life, even justifying the use of force against those who deviate from it, so that those who wander from the true path may be brought back to it." The overarching principle is the "interdependence and solidarity of mankind," with the individual's well-being achieved by his submission to the Islamic state. And "whoever has lost sight of this principle must be brought back to it by any means." Thus, Qutb elaborates, sharia makes "unbelief" a "crime" that is "reckoned as equal in punishment" to the "crime of murder." Forms of treason such as apostasy and fomenting discord in the ummah are capital offenses. As in all totalitarian systems, freedom is an illusion: security through enslavement. Thus is Islam virulently opposed to capitalism, true freedom's economic form. Qutb expounds on Islamic economic tenets: Human life is demeaned by great agglomerations of personal wealth and by the enrichment financiers attain by collecting interest on loans (which sharia forbids). These arrangements are said to enslave debtors and the working classes, making men the gods of other men. To be sure, Islam endorses private property — nominally — and it is less indifferent than the Left about incentivizing human achievement. But this is only because individual achievement is ultimately a corporate asset, increasing the dominance of the ummah. The property "owner" is merely a custodian; his wealth belongs to Allah. It is subject to confiscation by Allah's agent on earth, the Islamic state, for what is deemed to be the collective good of the Muslim Nation. This is Islam's version of the general will: sharia's enforcement of the central conceit that there is no God but Allah. Freedom, for Qutb, was a release from the servitude of men to men. Not, however, a release from all servitude. Freedom was "submission" to Allah — and not just spiritual submission, but total submission. Authority in Islam is unitary and indivisible. It recognizes no distinctions between the sacred and the secular. Sharia is not simply a set of spiritual principles. Islam is a comprehensive political, economic, social, and military program with its own legal code, governing every aspect of life. There can be no compartmentalizing or narrowing. To narrow the breadth of sharia — as Qutb put it, "to confine Islam to the emotions and ritual cycles, and to bar it from participating in the activity of life, and to check its complete dominance over every human secular activity" — would reduce it to something other than the divine law. It would no longer be Islam. Therefore, mankind is not at liberty to constrict Allah's law, much less to enact provisions that contradict it. Legislatures in the Islamic state are not democratic in the Western sense, even if they have been elected by the community. In a sharia state, as Brotherhood guide Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi has observed, legislators don't really legislate; they are merely vessels of the divine law, which has substantially been set in stone for more than a millennium. In Islam, it is Allah's sharia that fills the role of Rousseau's general will. Thus did Qutb observe of Rousseau's great upheaval, the French Revolution, that what it "theoretically established by human laws . . . was established as a matter of practice by Islam in a profound and elevated form more than fourteen centuries earlier." Such symmetry had not been lost on Rousseau, for whom statism would be the "religion of the citizen." Above all, it would merge the sacred and the secular under a single authority. As in the pagan states of antiquity, Rousseau's vision of the ideal regime included its gods, its own tutelary patrons; it has its dogmas, its rites, and its external cult prescribed by law; outside the single nation that follows it, all the world is in its sight infidel, foreign and barbarous; the duties and rights of man extend for it only as far as its own altars. The similarity to Qutb's Islam is striking. For the Islamist, all the world is divided into irreconcilable spheres: the perfect social justice of Dar al-Islam, the realm of the Muslims, and the unenlightened darkness so tellingly called Dar al-Harb, "the realm of war" — infidel, foreign, and barbarous. Small wonder, then, that Rousseau lavished praise on Islam. But not just any Islam; his accolades were reserved for the early Muslims, Islam's first generations. "Mahomet held very sane views," Rousseau opined in The Social Contract. The prophet "linked his political system well together," the civil and the spiritual as one. "As long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good." It was only when "the Arabs" departed from this model — when, "having grown prosperous, lettered, civilised, slack and cowardly," they were "conquered by barbarians" — that Islam fell victim to what Rousseau (and Qutb) saw as the Christian dystopia: "the division between the two powers" of religion and the state. The Muslim Brotherhood, it bears remembering, preaches a Salafist ideology: a retrenchment to the principles of the salafia, the "rightly guided caliphs" who were Mohammed's immediate successors. The reform of Islam urged by Banna and Qutb was a purge of the same barbaric influences — particularly Western, Judeo-Christian influences — that Rousseau had seen as so corrupting. Islamists and leftists have several significant differences. Qutb saw communism as far preferable to capitalism but too obsessed with an economic determinism that discounted the spiritual. The two camps part company on the equality of women and of non-Muslims, on matters of sexual liberty, and on abortion. If the world were populated only by Islamists and leftists, they could not coexist. Their marriages of convenience can have savagely unhappy endings once the common enemy that has drawn them together has been overcome. In Egypt, the Islamists were brutally persecuted by Nasser; in Iran, the secular leftists were routed by Khomeini. Nevertheless, for all their differences, what unites Islamists and leftists is stronger than what presently divides them. They both support totalitarian systems. They would both attempt to recreate mankind, intending to perfect us by indenturing us to their utopian schemes. Their general will cannot abide free will. They both abhor individual liberty, unfettered reason, freedom of conscience, equality of opportunity rather than result, and bourgeois values that inculcate a devotion to bedrock Western principles and traditions. That is why Islamists and leftists work together. It is why they will continue working together as long as there is resistance. 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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: BASED ON RIGHTS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 6, 2011. |
|
I begin here where I left off yesterday: My post focused on the need for Netanyahu, should he address Congress with a new "initiative," to begin by stating Israel's rights and correcting historical misrepresentations that have prevailed. But even as I wrote, I realized that — while it was deeply important for him to do this — more was needed. For it falls to each and every one of us, if we care about Israel, to also state Israel's case. ~~~~~~~~~~ A dear friend of mine in the States, who understands the issues well, alluded to "the '67 border," in phone conversation with me recently. Wait, I told her, it's not a border. "I know," she replied, "but it's written that way in the news so frequently that I just tend to think that way." I understood then precisely what we're up against: The lies have been so thoroughly and successfully promoted that they've been internalized. Reversing this will not be easy, but it must be done. And we all have our part to play in making this happen. Please, carefully read and then internalize the information that I provide below. Save it for future reference. And use it — in discussions with others, in writing letters to the editor, in call-in radio shows, wherever you find the opportunity to confront Arab distortions that diminish or deny basic Israeli rights. As well, share this as widely as you can, so that others can do the same. ~~~~~~~~~~ After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, and the dispersion of much of the Jewish population, the Romans re-named ancient Judea "Palestine." In all the years between this destruction and the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948, "Palestine" was only an appendage to one empire or another — Roman, Byzantine, Mamaluk, Ottoman, etc. etc. — and was never an independent entity. There has never been an independent "Palestinian" state. ~~~~~~~~~~ In April 1920, at the end of WWI, the allies met in San Remo, Italy, to determine the future of territories — including Palestine — formerly controlled by the defeated Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. It was decided that a Mandate was to be established in Palestine and given to Great Britain. This Mandate acknowledged the Jewish people's historical connection to the land: It spoke about the Jews reconstituting a homeland in Palestine. And it gave the Jewish people the right to settle everywhere in Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, immigration by Jews was to be facilitated and "close settlement" encouraged. On July 14, 1922, the entire 51-nation membership of the League of Nations unanimously approved the Mandate for Palestine, thus establishing the Jewish right to Palestine in international law. It has never been superseded. (The UN assumed all obligations of the League.) ~~~~~~~~~~ In 1947, when the British decided to withdraw from their responsibility under the Mandate, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into a state for Jews and a state for Arabs. Because the resolution was passed in the General Assembly, it had no status in international law. Resolutions of the General Assembly are only recommendations, and this in no way legally superseded the Mandate. Ultimately, the Arabs rejected it, in any event. The Jews, however, who had accepted the plan, adhered to it when they declared the independent sovereign state of Israel on April 14, 1948. The remainder of "Palestine" was unclaimed Mandate territory. ~~~~~~~~~~ Within a day, the Arab League declared war on the nascent Jewish state, with the intention of destroying her. In the course of that war, Jordan seized Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. That seizure was illegal, because it occurred during an offensive war. In April 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement that established an armistice line — called the Green Line — that determined respective areas of control. This line was based on the ceasefire line. It was not intended to be permanent. The armistice agreement specifically stated that the armistice line would not prejudice future negotiations on a permanent border. ~~~~~~~~~~ This, my friends, is at the heart of the issue. All that I wrote before sets it into historical context so that it can be understood. But the bottom line: The Green Line was not a border, it a was a temporary armistice line. Yet Abbas insists that everything to the east of that line (Judea and Samara, and eastern Jerusalem) belongs to the Palestinian Arabs. And, Heaven help us, he's got a good part of the world believing it. ~~~~~~~~~~ Let us keep in mind, as well, that it was not the Palestinian Authority on the other side of the Green Line. There was no Palestinian Authority then and the Palestinian Arabs were not players in a political sense. In fact, back in 1948-49, the Arabs who did live in Palestine considered themselves simply to be part of the Arab nation, or Greater Syria. That this area has come to be considered "Palestinian" — and that the world can go on about "Palestinian rights" — is something quite incredible. ~~~~~~~~~~ In June 1967, Israel fought a defensive war, the Six Day War, in the course of which eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were liberated. (I'm leaving Gaza out of this discussion, although it was very much included.) In no sense, however, can it be said that Israel became an "occupier" of that area. "Occupation" occurs when forces are moved into the territory of another sovereign nation. But Judea and Samaria were not part of any sovereign nation. Jordan's presence was illegal. The territory remained unclaimed Mandate land. And no one has greater claim to it than Israel. What is more, Israel secured this area in the course of a defensive war. This is not the same as Jordan's acquisition of the region in an offensive war (a war of aggression). It is not uncommon for states that acquire land in the course of defending themselves to retain at least part of that land, for defensive purposes. This was recognized by Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War. Israel was not expected to return to the Green Line. ~~~~~~~~~~ What Resolution 242 did say was that final determination of a border would be via negotiations. But let me be very clear about this: The expectation was that Israel and Jordan would negotiate. Security Council Resolution 242 mentions neither a Palestinian people nor a Palestinian state. "Palestinians" were not part of the political/diplomatic picture then, either. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, known as "settlements," they are not illegal. This is obvious on the face of it, as the prevailing international law is the Mandate, which grants Jews the right to settlement between the river and the sea. But let me add here that the Oslo Accords in no way rendered the "settlements" illegal or illegitimate. In fact, the Oslo Accords didn't speak specifically of a Palestinian state at all, but suggested something more along the lines of an autonomy. And there was certainly no indication that everything beyond the Green Line would some day belong to the Palestinian Arabs. ~~~~~~~~~~ The more the history and the legalities are understood, the clearer it becomes how the situation has "morphed," with Palestinian Arabs and their supporters distorting and inflating the reality, bit by bit. For a background on the above information that provides additional legal citations, see this piece by Eli Hertz of Myths and Fact, "World Leaders Ignore International Law":
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
AN EASY WAY TO HELP ISRAEL
Posted by Lou L, March 6, 2011. |
|
Please send this to your US Senators and your congressman, email addresses are at the bottom of this page |
|
Since US policies have been inadequate and not supportive enough of Israel or of human rights in the Middle East, I agree with CIPAC in urging the Congress to develop new policies, oversee Administration actions and change foreign aid funding criteria, to address the new Middle East unfolding before our eyes in the media so as to: * Uphold Israel's right to secure borders surrounding all of historic Israel, including Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan. * Promote the acceptance of Israel's right to sit on the United Nations Security Council and other international governing bodies, like other nations, by such means as withholding US appropriations for the United Nations until Israel has full voting rights in that body, and work to see that UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are rescinded in support of Israel's right to the Land. * Stop funding UNWRA, the United Nations Works and Relief Agency, which runs camps throughout Israel, and the Middle East that are hotbeds of terrorism run by Hamas and other terrorist groups. * Act to end U. S. — sponsored Middle East "peace talks" that advocate forming a Palestinian Arab state in the midst of historic Israel. The Two-State Solution does not address the main cause of peace and stability, since the Palestinian Arabs do not recognize the democratic rights of the Jewish people to exist in their historic homeland; nor does the Palestinian Constitution (nor does the Moslem Brotherhood, a major player in Egypt's uprising now poised to be a political force, for that matter) recognize the right of the Jewish people to exist in their historic homeland. * Recognize that a new Palestinian state will not further peace in the Middle East but help swing the balance of power against Israel, our only democratic ally, and therefore is at odds with U. S. democratic interests in that region and thus oppose any such new state in the heart of historic Israel, while the Palestinian Authority maneuvers for UN recognition of statehood with South American help, not ours. * Guard against the wasteful spending of hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars that relocating the 600,000 Jews evicted from their homes and their replacement with Palestinian and Syrian Arabs under the Arab Peace Initiative would entail, based on the precedent of many billions given Egypt since it received the Sinai in the peace accords with Israel. More ominously, Americans, as NATO troops, would be required to police areas where Israelis are replaced by Palestinian and Syrian Arabs, thus potentially putting our forces in conflict with Israeli and Arab forces. * Stop funding the training and equipping of a Palestinian Arab army, which has its only reason the furtherance of an anti-Israel Palestinian state, since by allowing rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas show they are not real peace partners. As Palestinian municipalities are calling for a boycott of U. S. goods and the Palestinian Authority says it does not want U. S. funds, let's accommodate them and cut out all such funding. * Amend the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 to remove the president's authority to take further six-month extensions instead of moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital. * Support Israel's right to self-defense against Iran's leaders' genocidal threats coupled with development of nuclear weapons to carry out such threats. * Impose the toughest possible economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran's leaders, and demand as tough measures by the UN against them as have been imposed on Gadhafi, for their nuclear weapons program, genocidal threats against Israel, sponsorship of terrorism through Hezbollah (now also on our border in Mexico, not just the Middle East) and Hamas, and exports of arms killing US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas. * Deny military aid to governments that do not share our democratic values, because such arms most likely will be used against Israel and America. * Publicly disclose all US agreements with the regimes now collapsing throughout the Arab world, including 1979 Camp David Accords with Egypt, and other and with other nations that may go the same way. *Reexamine and reconsider US agreements with every country that will not accept Israel's legitimate right to exist. * Deny economic assistance to foreign entities that boycott business dealings with Israel or will not recognize Israel. * See that the United States is in the forefront of those establishing a foundation of new ground rules for civilized nations based upon mutual respect and proper respect for freedom and human rights. * Reexamine and change US energy policies to ensure that we receive most of the energy we use from domestic production and from such safe sources as Canada and other friendly, democratic, stable nations. We will look forward to your response as to how you will be implementing such policies and actions. Signature_____________________________________________ Print Name____________________________________________ Email_________________________________________________ Address with Zip________________________________________ ________________________________________ http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm ; <---contact your congressman & senator Contact LouL by email at cosmicsight@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SLOGGING THROUGH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 5, 2011. |
|
The going is tough because we're in such tremendous flux: Blink your eyes and the situation — which lacked clarity in any event — has shifted once again. Perhaps toughest of all is the fact that rational thinking has been abandoned in many quarters. Our by-word might be "They can't really mean that, can they?" And so, we slog through... ~~~~~~~~~~ Last week I wrote that Netanyahu was meeting with the Inner Cabinet — the Septet — to decide whether to send a representative of the government — chief negotiator Yitzhak Molcho, to be precise — to Brussels to meet with members of the Quartet; they were seeking clarification of the positions of Israel and the PA with regard to "peace negotiations." The fear was that the Quartet, after having heard both sides, would end up making a statement regarding a Palestinian state with the '67 armistice line as border. ~~~~~~~~~~ Well, we didn't send anyone to Brussels, but Quartet representatives are coming here this week — oh joy! — and we can hardly refuse to talk to them. The members of that Quartet — the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia — definitely qualify for a "They can't really mean that, can they?" question. The unhappy fact, however, is that they DO mean it. Whatever their obviously ulterior motives, how they imagine we can negotiate "peace" when: * The PA is courting Hamas is one of the great unknowns of the moment. Especially while so much is on fire here, and there is a great deal else to attend to. ~~~~~~~~~~ The big question, then, is how we, here, will handle ourselves. Minister of Strategic Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon recently gave an interview to Besheva magazine. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142671 In that interview, he said, in part: "No minister among the seven [the Inner Cabinet] believes that an agreement with the PA can be reached in the foreseeable future. We have seen it in their refusal to accept our three conditions — a willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, a willingness to recognize the arrangement reached as the end of the conflict, and a willingness to accept our security needs... These requirements have been met with absolute refusal. ~~~~~~~~~~ Fervently do I wish Ya'alon spoke for all of the government. But if Defense Minister Ehud Barak were giving the interview, it would sound quite different. And, whatever the official policy, there is no question that construction has been slowed. It's not all as clear and as positive as it would seem here. And yet..and yet.. This interview is encouraging, especially when Ya'alon says that no one in the Septet believes an agreement with the PA can be reached in the foreseeable future. "No one" includes the prime minister. But does Netanyahu convey steadfastness and strengthening? I would be hard put to find anyone who thinks so. ~~~~~~~~~~ The simple truth is that Prime Minister Netanyahu's way of handling matters is of singular and primary importance. The word has gone out that he is "seriously considering" a new proposal. He will be going to the States for the AIPAC convention in late May, and is said to be looking for an opportunity to address Congress with regard to this proposal. Since Netanyahu is well known for what we might call creeping concessions, rather than steadfastness, there is vast unease about the prospect of another proposal from him. It's been said that he will suggest something interim, because a full agreement is simply not possible now. And from some quarters I've picked up hints that he will propose something in the nature of an autonomy, along the lines of what Ya'alon was describing. But until we hear the proposal, we don't know. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yet, I do not think it necessarily the case that making a proposal is a bad move. ~~~~~~~~~~ I have a confession to make here: I am startled by the persistence and the apparent strength of Abbas, in terms of how he is handling himself. He is coming out on the offensive, after it had been predicted in several quarters, including right here, that he was finished. With everything else he has contended with, including severe unrest inside of Fatah, it was the Al-Jazeera leaks, which made the PA leaders look more conciliatory in negotiations than they were commonly thought to be, that was said to have finished him. He was accused of betraying his cause. What he's doing now is showing how tough he is, to counter that damage. And, he gets away with it because the Quartet lets him — even with regard to courting Hamas. The other day, Caroline Glick made the point, which I cited, that Abbas knows that the US and EU need him because of internal politics. This gives him courage to act as he wishes without fearing repercussions. Abbas had already let it be known that he won't accept any "interim" plan. And just today he made a demand that the Quartet "force Israel to end occupation of our lands...Our people deserve freedom and independence so that they could live in their homeland like the rest of the people in the world." By September, he says, he wants a Palestinian state to be a full member of the UN. (This issue I will table for another day.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu hopes to be able to say to the international community, and most specifically the US, that while Israel cannot agree to what Abbas demands, we are not a stumbling block, but, rather, have our own proposal intended to move matters forward. He certainly wants to shift the onus to the PA. Plus, I would imagine, he wants to give the Quartet something to hold on to, so that they can tout "progress." De-fang them a bit, if you will. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am quite familiar with the line of thought that suggests we simply stand tough and tell the world "no." But there is a problem with this — a problem that is at least in part of our own making. The war against the Arabs is being fought on the PR level as well as on a terrorist battlefield. Since, damn it, we have not advanced our own narrative with strength these past several years, the world believes what the PA says. The world, not having been provided with solid and consistent information, for example, showing that the '67 line — the Green Line — was only a temporary armistice, actually believes that it was a border and that everything to the east of the Green Line "belongs" to the Palestinian Arabs. Because the world believes that we are "occupiers" (we're not), and because the PA has accused us of apartheid (I'll come back to this, as well), the world, or certain portions of it, talks about treating us the way the apartheid government of South Africa was treated — with the hope that we can be brought down via boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. It is the delegitimizing of Israel that must be fought. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, on the face of it, addressing the Congress is not a bad idea — depending, of course, on what is said. If the position presented by Netanyahu is simply one of further concessions, then he will be making the Arabs' case for them. And that is what he must not do. Whatever interim proposal he may advance, I believe he should begin with a solid statement about our rights and the historical misrepresentations that have prevailed. ~~~~~~~~~~ In the coming days, I hope to return to this theme. It is THE theme that matters for us. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
MOSQUES FLOURISH IN AMERICA; CHURCHES PERISH IN MUSLIM WORLD
Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, March 5, 2011. |
|
As Muslims prepare to erect a mega-mosque near the site of the 9/11 atrocities, it is well to reflect that the sort of tolerance, or indifference, that allows them to do so, is far from reciprocated to churches in the Muslim world. I speak not of Islamist attacks against churches — such as the New Year attack in Egypt that killed 21 Christians; or when jihadists stormed a church in Iraq, butchering over 50 Christians; or Christmas Eve attacks on churches in Nigeria and the Philippines. Nor am I referring to state-sanctioned hostility by avowedly Islamist regimes, such as Iran's recent "round up" of Christians. Rather, I refer to anti-church policy by Middle East governments deemed "moderate." Consider: Kuwait just denied, without explanation, a request to build a church; so did Indonesia, forcing Christians to celebrate Christmas in a parking lot — even as a mob of 1,000 Muslims burned down two other churches. If this is the fate of churches in "moderate" Indonesia and Kuwait — the latter's sovereignty due entirely to U.S. sacrifices in the First Gulf War — what can be expected of the rest of the Islamic world? The best example of anti-church policy is Egypt, where the Middle East's largest Christian minority, the Copts, lives. During Mubarak's tenure alone "more than 1500 assaults on Copts have occurred, without any appropriate punishment given to criminals or compensation to the victims," says Coptic Solidarity. For starters, Egypt's state security has a curious habit of disappearing right before Coptic churches are attacked — such as in the aforementioned New Year attack. They also tend to arrive rather late after churches are attacked: it took security "hours" to appear when six Copts were murdered while exiting their church last year. Considering that weeks ago an Egyptian policeman identified and opened fire on Christians, killing a 71-year-old — while yelling Islam's medieval war-cry, "Allah Akbar!" — none of this should be surprising. Since the 7th century, when Islam invaded and subjugated formerly Christian Egypt, the plight of churches has been tenuous. The very first condition listed for Christians to obey in order not to be molested in the notorious Pact of Omar — which informs sharia law, "the principal source of legislation" in Egypt — says it all: "We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims." Accordingly, in the words of reporter Mary Abdelmassih: [U]nlike Muslim citizens, who only need a municipal license to build mosques, the Copts require presidential approval for a church ... [and] the approval of the neighboring Muslim community. Even after obtaining licenses for a church, Muslims still attack Christians and demolish or burn their churches. A rumor that Christians are meeting to pray is enough reason for Muslim neighbors to carry out acts of violence against them. On various occasions, it only takes Muslims to protest against the building of a church for State Security to stop the works, under the pretext that it is causing "sectarian strife." In fact, citing minor building violations, Egypt's state security recently stormed a partially constructed church in the Talbiya region where over one million Christians live without a single church. In the process, state security fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters, claiming the lives of four Copts, including an infant (79 were severely injured, 22 blinded or semi-blinded, and 179 detained, including woman and children). One human-rights activist complained that the wounded Copts "were shackled to their hospital beds and then sent to detention camps." All this is exacerbated by well-connected Egyptian Muslims who issue fatwas comparing the building of a church to the building of "a nightclub, a gambling casino, or building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs"; or who appear on Al Jazeera ludicrously accusing Copts of stockpiling weapons in their churches and torturing Muslim women in their monasteries. Incidentally, all this was under the "secularist" Mubarak. As for Egypt's current power-holders, the military, armed forces just stormed a 5th century monastery, opening fire on monks to chants of "Allah Akbar!" (see video here). Consider the fate of Copts should the Muslim Brotherhood assume power. Such, then, is the plight of Christians and their churches in the Muslim world — and such is the irony: while mosques, some of which breed radicalization and serve as terrorist bases, start dotting America's landscape, churches are on their way to becoming extinct in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. More pointedly, as America allows Muslims to build a mega-mosque near Ground Zero — which was annihilated by Islamists partially radicalized in mosques — America's "moderate friends" in the Muslim world blatantly persecute Christians and their churches. Such flagrant double standards are — or should be — unconscionable. Yet here we are. Is it any wonder, then, that the Western mindset has a long way to go before it understands how to deal with the scourge that is "radical Islam"? This appeared March 3, 2011 in Pajamas Media
|
|
DEMOCRACY AND MORAL EQUIVALENCE
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, March 4, 2011. |
|
One adult/one vote is of course a democratic principle. Shocking as it may seem, this principle implies that contradictory opinions are politically equal — in principle! The consequences are enormous. Because democracy is very much based on the rule of quantified opinion, it is not necessary to examine an opinion's validity but only the number of those who express that opinion. Nor is it necessary to examine whether an individual's opinion is the result of reflection or of impulse, an abiding conviction or a passing fancy. Thus, wherever the quantification of opinions rules, people are less apt to take opinions seriously. Which means they will be less likely to develop the habit of critical thinking or of making logical and moral distinctions. Feelings or the emotions will thus tend to supplant logic. People will then become more susceptible to emotionally appealing and simplistic solutions to complex problems on the one hand, and to moral equivalence on the other. For example, the Arab-Israel conflict is commonly portrayed as a political-territorial one, when in fact the conflict — certainly as perceived by Arabs — is nothing less than a clash of civilizations. Yet the political formula " territory for peace" is bandied about as the key to solving this dilemma. Not only are the parties to the conflict deemed morally equal, but to compound this obscurantism, a psychical and variable reality, "peace," is made equivalent to a physical and invariable reality, "territory." Moreover, those infected by moral equivalence (lacking conviction in the justice of their cause) tend to believe that right cannot remain right when invested with force, that the use of force on behalf of justice makes one morally suspect. (This partly explains Israel's self-restraint vis-a-vis Arab terrorism.) People of this soft-headed persuasion usually identify justice with benevolence. Democracies, they believe, should display good will to all nations regardless of their political or ideological character. This attitude requires democratic countries like the U.S. and Israel — ostensibly good — to hobnob with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Egypt — ostensibly bad. Here moral equivalence is cause and consequence. The soft-headed tendency of democracy is more prevalent among its educated than its less educated citizens. The ordinry man does not usually identify justice with benevolence. Nor does he deplore the application of might in defense of right. He has no use for dictatorships, and lacking the sophistication of a university education, he disdains "looking at things from the other fellow's point of view." He is far less susceptible to moral equivalence than the more educated, as I will now show. Let us go back to the Cold War era and consider the findings of professor Samuel Huntington: The more educated people are, the less likely they are to think that Communism is the worst form of government ... In line with this belief, the more educated are less likely than the less educated to believe that the United States should be stronger than the Soviets: in a 1979 poll, for example, 35% of those with a college education thought that it was necessary for the United States to be stronger than the Soviet Union, as compared with 47% and 59% of those with high-school and eighth-grade educations. Consequently, those with more education are much more favorably disposed to cutting the defense budget than those with less education: in 1974, for instance, 60% of those with post-graduate educations and 28% of high-school graduates supported a defense-spending cut. These results may be attributed, in part, to the doctrine of moral relativism that has long dominated higher education in the democratic world. Relativism is virtually indistinguishable from moral equivalence, since it denies that one way of life is intrinsically superior to another. Left-wing intellectuals deem relativism a mark of cosmopolitan sophistication. These left-wing democrats are psychologically inclined to pursue a foreign policy based on the egalitarian idea of of "reciprocity," the mantra of Binyamin Netanyahu, who is not considered "left-wing. This political tendency is well illustrated by George Orwell's insights into the attitude of England's left-wing intelligentsia. Writing during the Battle of Britain, Orwell saw that these intellectuals tended to be " pacifists" and "defeatists" in "marked contrast to the common people, who either had not woken up to the fact that England was in danger, or were determined to resist to the last ditch." England's leftwing intellectuals, writes Orwell, "take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality." This perfectly describes Israel's leftwing intellectuals who wish to abrogate the Law of Return because it smacks of "national chauvinism"! Returning to Orwell, the author of '1984' saw in England's intelligentsia palpable evidence of moral relativism: "When I first read D. H. Lawrence' s novels, at the age of about twenty, I was puzzled by the fact that there did not seem to be any classification of the characters into 'good' and ' bad.' Lawrence seemed to sympathize with all of them equally, and this was so unusual as to give me the feeling of having lost my bearings. Today no one would think of looking for heroes and villains in a serious novel, but in lowbrow fiction one still expects to find a sharp distinction between right and wrong ... The common people, on the whole, are still living in the world of absolute good and evil from which intellectuals have long since escaped." Such intellectuals have dominated Israel's foreign policy. I have especially in mind three leftwing Ph.D.s. Was it not Yossi Beilin, who, in 1992, sent Ron Pundak and Yair Hirschfeld to hold talks with the nefarious PLO — talks that led to the Oslo agreement to which these intellectuals still genuflecft despite its toll of more than 1000 Jewish lives? Is not the Israel-PLO agreement a consequence of the moral equivalence typical of democracy? What is even more disturbing, the fact that the Beilins of Israel, despite all the suffering they have caused, remain in public life and vie for the highest offices of the land — does this not signify democracy gone mad? Does it not mean that the Oslovian opinion of the Beilins, notwithstanding its bloody consequences, remains as politically valid as its contrary — signifying the utter irrationality of democracy in Israel? Ah, but in what fundamenmtal way does Binyamin Netanyahi differ from Yossi Beilin? Has he not endorsed a the "two-state sloution" to the Israel-PLO conflict, thus displaying his having been tainted by moral equivalence? 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 |
|
YA'ALON: LEAVE THE SITUATION IN THE PA AS IS
Posted by Arutz-7, March 4, 2011. |
|
This was written by Elad Benari, a writer for Arutz-Sheva (www.israelnationalnews.com). |
|
The Besheva magazine published on Thursday an interview with Deputy Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon. In the interview Ya'alon addressed a number of issues currently on the Israeli agenda, including the report on the targeted killing of terrorist Salah Shehadeh [in which civilians were killed as well, ed.], morality and war, the continuing freeze in Judea and Samaria, and the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Strasberg-Cohen committee report on the legality of the killing of Salah Shehadeh was published this week. You were Chief of Staff during that time. Although the report stated that no criminal act was committed, it also says that the event was disproportionate and that there were intelligence failures. This means that there is a moral statement being made here, that had you known about the presence of innocent civilians in the area you should not have carried out the operation. Do you accept this statement? "This is a complex question. Before the operation we set rules, according to which if he would be with his wife we would perform the mission. A Hamas terrorist was with him at the time, so as far as we were concerned it was definitely legitimate. We did not intend to hurt those 13 children next door. According to the intelligence we had, the home was to be empty that night. There is a moral question here which is legitimate and needs to be open for public discussion. The question is sharpened during a situation where the enemy hides among civilians but has no qualms about hurting our citizens." When the enemy reads the report's conclusions, should he reach the conclusion that a terrorist with a baby on his shoulder will be protected? "No. In the Second Lebanon War, for example, we attacked rocket launchers that were in homes with families, and the launchers were taken out of action in a successful operation which lasted about forty minutes. This operation gave a clear message that anyone who sleeps peacefully at night with Hizbullah rockets must realize that he will wake up in the morning with our rockets." How should we understand the words of the report which say that 'the operation was disproportionate, but lessons have been learned'? What have we changed in our behavior following the incident? What lesson has been learned? "We did not change anything. We're not talking about a moral lesson which means changing values, but rather about an intelligence lesson. We admitted that we did not intend to cause the surrounding damage that was caused. Lessons were learned and we now collect more intelligence. If we can make a strike tomorrow with fewer casualties we would prefer that." Another issue is the communities in Judea and Samaria. Does it seem reasonable to you that the authority to approve new construction is in the hands of the Minister of Defense? After all, it is often a political person, like Barak, whose political interest is to prevent construction. Is there no conflict of interest? "It's no secret that I am not satisfied with the enforcement policy in Judea and Samaria. As a law-abiding citizen I think we need to enforce the law against illegal construction, be it Jewish or Arab. Regarding our right to build and live in Judea and Samaria, I have expressed my opinion more than once: I am not satisfied with the way this right is applied." What about the functionality of the Defense Minister? "Such questions should not be referred to me. I said I am not satisfied with the policy and I have been acting accordingly over the last two years." Will I get a similar response if I ask when will the construction freeze end? In practice no tenders are being published. "First of all, there is building in places where there is no need for new tenders, and I hope that we will soon see construction in places where there is a need for tenders. There are various considerations on this issue, but I am certainly not too pleased about this either." As a senior member of the group of seven ministers, you might be able to explain the government's policy on the Gaza Strip. We are at war with them, they shoot at us, they're holding a kidnapped Israeli soldier, and yet we help their economy and agriculture, allowing them to get millions of dollars into Gaza. What's going on here? "Our relationship with Gaza is a strategic confusion which is a result of what happened during the Disengagement, which I opposed as you may recall. We disconnected the IDF and the residents from Gaza but we continued to be held responsible for the supply of Gaza's civilian needs. Some of the recent developments are leading to a strategic change, which does not happen in one day. There's a hostile entity there and as long as they shoot at us we will react accordingly. Until they are able to supply their own electricity and water without being dependent on us we take care to ensure that there's no a humanitarian crisis there, but we should head towards strategic clarity, which means that if this is a hostile entity we should no longer be providing them with the electricity that produces the rockets that are fired at us. We should strive to complete the Disengagement." Why wait? They have a border with Egypt. Why does everything have to fall on us? "It's a question of managing and implementing the Disengagement. Indeed our desire is that the point of departure from the Gaza Strip will be through the Rafah [to Egypt, ed.] crossing." Another question of unclear policy: We've heard you before talking about the danger of a Palestinian state. Quite a few Likud ministers have also supported this position. How does this fit in with the Bar Ilan speech and with striving to renew negotiations with Abbas? "No minister among the seven [inner cabinet members, ed.] believes that an agreement with the PA can be reached in the foreseeable future. We have seen it in their refusal to accept our three conditions — a willingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, a willingness to recognize the arrangement reached as the end of the conflict, and a willingness to accept our security needs, especially in light of the Oslo experience that led to over a thousand dead and to the abandonment of Gaza which became an incubator for terrorists. These requirements have been met with absolute refusal. The ball is in their court, even if certain elements in Israel and abroad do not see it this way. One example is the leader of the opposition [MK Tzipi Livni -ed.] who experienced the Palestinian Authority's refusal after the Annapolis conference, and yet says that their government almost reached an agreement but that the elections interrupted the possibility of achieving one. This is a very serious statement that does not reflect the truth or reality. Saying such things hurts us and our interests around the world and causes more pressure on us." What you are saying seemingly implies that we are conducting a policy with the PA that relies on their refusal. "We said that we do not want to control them, and indeed they conduct their own civil affairs. If they do not have a clear willingness to recognize our rights, then we won't mention even a millimeter of concession. The question is whether there is a willing partner in the process who will prove himself as serious, with an ability to govern, manage the economy and especially educate their youth to accept Israel's existence, or whether they prefer to educate them to explode on us. Now they prefer to educate them to explode, they deny our existence, and their maps [including Israel,ed] are all covered with the flag of Palestine, so there is nothing to discuss regarding conceding space or, G-d forbid, dividing Jerusalem. It is clear that any paper we sign will be lit with the fire of terrorism." And what about the vision of a Palestinian state? "Our intention is to leave the situation as it is: autonomous management of civil affairs, and if they want to call it a state, let them call it that. If they want to call it an empire, by all means. We intend to keep what exists now and let them call it whatever they want." Even the Prime Minister is behind this idea? "As you can see we have already been serving for two years as a government, despite the left opposition parties criticizing us when there is no progress in the negotiations, and unfortunately their perception of progress is an Israeli withdrawal. Our approach is completely different. Our approach is steadfastness, development, construction, strengthening and so on. This is our approach and this is what we do as a government." |
|
MUSLIMS JUST KEEP ON KILLING IN THE NAME OF ALLAH
Posted by Rich Carroll, March 4, 2011. |
|
Muslim Arif Uka shouted "Allah Akbar" just before pulling the trigger on four United States Air Force men at the Frankfurt, Germany airport. Two died; two are severely wounded, and once again the Barack Hussein Administration is trying frantically to keep this "incident" from being called what it is: Another Islamic terrorist attack. International Jihad is upon us. Today the total number of Islamic
terrorist attacks since 911 are 16,889. During the week of February 16 -
25, there were 26 Jihad attacks leaving 181 people dead and 310
critically wounded. The complete figures for Muslim murder during the
month of January is: 158 Muslim attacks in 18 countries, 762 dead bodies
and 1650 critically wounded. If you would like to stay current on the
continual slaughter of human beings by this "religion of peace," see my
friends at
Don't you think it's time to put this lie about "the religion of peace" to rest? Where does the United States stand in all this? Today there are 35 Muslim terrorist training camps located inside the continental United States and you can keep up by simply googling the subject matter. Your local politician will probably tell you that AK-47 fire you hear coming from the Muslim compound is "a religious ceremony." Don't believe him or her. These compounds conduct para-military training for one purpose: To kill infidels and Jews as instructed to do so by their Qur'an. The Barack Hussein Administration does nothing; nor do they acknowledge that Muslims have been crossing our borders, both from Canada and Mexico, since 2002. Actually we spend far more money defending the borders of Korea and Afghanistan that the borders of our sovereign nation. What can you expect from an administration that places two radical Muslims into critical positions with our Homeland Security? Foxes guarding the hen house? The same white house that screened and hired 45 employees to work inside our sacred White House; the same administration that endorses this website: www.Islamoncapitolhill.com. The American invasion of Mohammedan's grows worse by the day. The Barack Hussein administration has imported 80,000 Muslims (who have absolutely zero intention of assimilating into our culture). Did I mention YOU will be paying the food and housing entitlements for these refugees? Not only is Obama encouraging Muslims here, he is spending American tax dollars to prop-up Jew murdering HAMAS, and the soon-to-be Sharia government of his homeland, Kenya. Prepare yourselves to see Islamic book publishers to produce your children's texbooks of the future, and prepare yourselves mentally to see more Islamic demonstrations on the streets of America. They always have something to bitch about as America in general "offends them," but alas, they come here to Islamisize you and yours. At 2% of the population Muslims conduct major recruiting from prisons and jails. From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence, pushing for the indoctrination of Halal food and securing food preparation jobs. They will pressure supermarket chains to feature Halal foods on their shelves. This is already happening in the United States. Campbell Soup is but one of the many companies who have caved-in and imprint the Halal logo on their cans. At 10% of the population, Muslims increase lawlessness and threats. You only need to look to France and Amsterdam to see this happening. I anticipate this level to begin in the United States by 2017. Become an Army of one. Stand up and stop pandering to the cult of death. Perhaps someone else will see your strength and develop a backbone to do the same. Good luck. Your future and that of your heirs depends upon it. Contact Rich Carroll by email at crossedrifles@hotmail.com |
|
UN MAY DECLARE PAL STATE INCLUDING E. JERUSALEM IN A FEW MONTHS — BIBI MUST ACT
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 3, 2011. |
|
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 |
|
Here is the argument: If Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't get in front of the ball the U.N. will declare a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip in a few months. Sanctions will follow to force Israel to respect the sovereignty of "Palestine" in all facets of its expression. The assertion that, if created, a sovereign Palestinian state would "live side by side in peace with Israel" is faith-based rather than logic-based, so debating it is doomed to failure. The firestorm sweeping the Middle East, with the very real possibility that radical Islamic regimes may ultimately bracket the Jewish State isn't relevant, the argument continues, because President Obama insists that analysis ignore the very existence of "radical Islam". Netanyahu thus, the argument goes, has no choice but to propose a sovereign Palestinian state to pre-empt these developments. Here's the problem: None of the above addresses that problem that a sovereign Palestinian state would inevitably serve as the launching pad for a deadly assault to destroy Israel. This is not the assessment of a radical right minority. There's a wall-to-wall consensus in Israel on this point. And polls of the Palestinians show that they do indeed see the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel as no more than one step in the process that will ultimately lead to Israel's demise. And since a sovereign state, once created, continues to exist even if it violates the agreements and understanding that were the basis for its coming into being, the verbiage that accompanies the creation of the state can't overcome this fundamental problem. Yes, the situation is challenging. But a plan that takes us out of the frying pan and into the fire is not the solution. We need a "Plan B". It's not too late. Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) (Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava) Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730 INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il Website: http://www.imra.org.il Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
AVOIDING ROADBLOCKS?
Posted by David Bedein, March 3, 2011. |
|
MediaLine Glorifies Those Who Find Innovative Ways to Circumvent Security Checkpoints. Why? |
|
The article."Palestinians turn to technology to avoid roadblocks
Palestinians plan to infiltrate Israeli cities. MEDIALINE buys the line of the enemy which that only Israel which "says that checkpoins are needed to thwart the movement of terrorists", while MEDIALINE accepts the notion that checkpoints "are a thorn in the side to ordinary Palestinians" and gives surprising credence to the notion of the International Monetary Fund "which calls the checkpoints the biggest obstacle to putting the economy of the region back on its feet after the so-called Second Intifada." So-called Intifada? 1478 people murdered in cold blood is a "so-called intifada"? The unkindest cut of all is the tone of the article, which glorifies Palestinians who use modern ways to circumvent checkpoints, supposedly to advance their economy. Does MEDIALINE not understand that it has just played a role in assisting those who may want to find new ways to infiltrate Israel to kill Jews? 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 |
|
SPREAD THE LOVE
Posted by John R. Cohn, March 3, 2011. |
|
To the editor, Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem in 1977. Israel was at war with Egypt, but Sadat offered an end to that. The result was Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Sinai, including oil and gas fields, and expulsion of Israelis that lived there. In 2004 President Bush promised Israel there would not be "full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949", a commitment endorsed by both houses of Congress. Now, Roger Cohen writes, President Obama has offered to the Palestinians those same rejected armistice lines as the basis for peace. This Administration has repeatedly rebuked Israeli leaders, avoided Israel on prior presidential Middle East visits, and repudiated prior commitments. Now Cohen suggests Obama "spread the love" by going to Jerusalem, to bully Israelis while making more ephemeral security promises. Such a trip will hardly calm Israelis, but it will embolden their enemies who seek a Middle East without Israel, old or new. Contact John Cohn at john.r.cohn@gmail.com |
|
THE INDEFENSIBLE CASE FOR WITHDRAWAL
Posted by Daily Alert, March 3, 2011. |
|
This was written by Ari Harow and it appeared March 2, 2011 in the Jerusalem
Post
Harow served as bureau chief to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and is currently president of 3H Global Enterprise. Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email |
|
With the Middle East at an historic crossroads, a pullback to the 1967 armistice lines is a risk we simply can't afford to take, and which the likes of Hamas are all too eager to exploit. The Middle East is in the midst of an historic upheaval. But despite the Arab street's clear demands for regime change, there are still those who insist that a withdrawal from the West Bank is the recipe for regional stability. They could not be further from the truth. In reality, moves to delegitimize our presence in Judea and Samaria, and ultimately to hasten our withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines, would prove catastrophe for democratic hopes in the region. If there is to be any progress, it must be grounded in the concept of defensible borders. With the Middle East at an historic crossroads, a pullback to the 1967 armistice lines is a risk we simply can't afford to take, and which the likes of Hamas are all too eager to exploit. The Middle East is in the midst of an historic upheaval. But despite the Arab street's clear demands for regime change, there are still those who insist that a withdrawal from the West Bank is the recipe for regional stability. They could not be further from the truth. In reality, moves to delegitimize our presence in Judea and Samaria, and ultimately to hasten our withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines, would prove catastrophe for democratic hopes in the region. If there is to be any progress, it must be grounded in the concept of defensible borders. As the world waits for Libya to become the latest tyranny to tumble, it is far from certain that democracy will follow Muammar Gaddafi's exit. Similarly, the path to freedom and truly representative government in Egypt and Tunisia is paved with uncertainty. Democracy ranks alongside military rule, theocracy and numerous other shades of autocracy as possible outcomes. Lebanon is the most recent reminder, if one were needed, that the Middle East version of democracy is tenuous at best, forever at the mercy of antidemocratic forces. Lebanon is a regional rarity, enjoying free elections for a multiparty parliament. Yet in January, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah engineered the dismantling of prime minister Saad Hariri's government, replacing him with a stooge for the Shi'ite terror movement. Abusing the tools of democracy, Iran has strengthened its stranglehold on the country. Only five years ago, Lebanon appeared poised for freedom after its "Cedar Revolution" had ousted Syria. It doesn't take a vivid imagination to picture the "Jasmine Revolution" and the "Facebook Revolution" deteriorating in similar fashion.
ISRAEL TOO has been guilty of placing its faith in half-baked democracies. The unconditional withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was heralded as an opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to institute freedom, prosperity and the rule of law. Instead, previously thriving industries in Gaza were left to rot, and poverty remained. Seizing the opportunity, another Iranian proxy, Hamas, seized the reins of power, violently overthrowing Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah, whose officials fled for their lives. More than five years later, the Negev still faces Hamas rockets. With Hamas dedicated to our destruction, the international community urges greater trust to be placed in the hands of Abbas. Yet his regime is anything but a model of good government. Abbas's term as PA president expired more than a year ago, and parliamentary elections are similarly overdue. Abbas, seemingly terrified his tenuous rule will be the next target of Arab uproar, scrambled to call elections last week. And yet this failed democracy is the regime that so many insist we empower by withdrawing from the West Bank. Even if Abbas were willing to genuinely reform his authority, introducing genuine checks and balances and democratic principles, the clear danger remains that Hamas, backed by its Iranian patrons, will repeat its Gaza trick. With the Middle East at an historic crossroads, a withdrawal to the indefensible 1967 armistice lines is a risk we simply can't afford to take, and which the likes of Hamas are all too eager to exploit. A pullout from the West Bank would surely only encourage the Iranian- inspired fundamentalists who hope to add our eastern flank to the trophies of Gaza and Lebanon. Regionally, other extremist forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood would gain inspiration from a perceived Israeli capitulation, fuelling their own appetite for power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other countries whose futures have yet to be determined. Withdrawal threatens not only Israel, but also Western illusions of peace and democracy in the Middle East. A pullback to the 1967 lines would leave the region's only genuine democracy exposed at a time of immense uncertainty. In doing so, reconciliation and genuine peace would become even more unlikely. Any future Israeli-Palestinian talks must therefore be predicated on the necessity of defensible borders. If not, the dream of a democratic triumph will become more distant than ever. 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 |
|
HOW TO AVOID ARMAGEDDON
Posted by Ralph Dobrin, March 3, 2011. | |
|
Dear friends, My book "How to Avoid Armageddon" is now available at two bookstores in Jerusalem: HOLZER BOOKS, 91 Jaffa Road (at the corner of Mashiach Borochov), a fairly new book shop with an old world atmosphere — a real gem of a place, phone 076-5433800; and YARDEN BOOKSTORE, 42 Jaffa Road, Zion Square, phone 6254761. It will take a while till it appears in other stores in Jerusalem and the rest of the country. Meanwhile How To Avoid Armageddon is available through Barnes and Noble — www.bn.com — andAmazon — www.amazon.com at $25.93 (includes shipping). If you live outside Jerusalem in Israel, I can offer you a copy at 89 shekels. To order please send me a check, made out to Ralph Dobrin. My address is: 3 Hanerd Street, Ir-Ganim Alef, Jerusalem 96626. The book offers a pragmatic way of looking at the world's future, through the prism of Israel's struggle for survival, marked and fueled from its inception to the present day with a lot of lie and hypocrisy — just like any other confrontation or armed conflict. As simplistic as this may sound, the only way to solve the Israel-Arab conflict — or any conflict or disagreement — is through an approach based on truthfulness by all parties involved. And it is only through such an approach that humanity will be able to cope with all the other enormous problems that challenge our future. While some of the material might — quite amazingly — seem to tally with biblical prophesy, the book is completely secular in its approach. Yours,
|
|
THE PARADOX OF G-D'S HOUSE ON EARTH
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, March 3, 2011. |
The concept of a Temple, a physical place that humans build to serve as G-d's dwelling place, as described in this week's Torah portion, Pekudai, is paradoxical. In his speech at the dedication ceremony of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, King Solomon touches upon this enigma: "Then Solomon said, G-d said that He would dwell in the thick darkness." (From this week's Haftarah, Kings I, 8:12) In other words, first and foremost, I did not dream up this Temple on my own. G-d directed us to build it: "And they will make for Me a Temple and I will dwell within them." This is the Divine directive that I fulfilled. The Holy Temple is not the place where the pagan idol worshipper "coerces" G-d, as it were, to descend to him. On the contrary: It is G-d Who has directed us to build Him a dwelling place, and we have merely fulfilled his directive. While G-d indeed commanded us to build Him a home on earth, the question remains: "Will G-d really dwell on the earth, for the heavens and heaven of heavens cannot contain You, how much more so this house that I have built?" (Kings I, 8:27) How can the infinite contain the finite? "And may You hear the prayers of your servant and of your Nation, Israel, who will pray toward this place and You will hear in your dwelling place in heaven and You will hear and forgive." (ibid 28) Did Solomon answer the question? Not really. Perhaps what he is saying is that a human cannot really understand this connection between the physical and the meta-physical. It is G-d Who chose this physical place from which we can come close to Him and pray the most direct and effective prayers to Him. It is G-d Who chose to "touch" the world through this point on earth. The Temple Mount and the Temple are like the brain in a human body. It is the place where body and soul meet; the physical and the meta-physical. No doctor can explain what takes place at the point of that encounter and apparently, no human can answer King Solomon's question. But we do know that our return to the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of the Temple, will, with G-d's help, renew the entire world. Shabbat Shalom,
Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside
the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character.
Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a
theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The
Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org.
To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read
their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org.
Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922
(cell)
|
|
THE ARAB REVOLT, 2011; A BUSH REDUX?
Posted by Alex Grobman, March 3, 2011. |
| This was written by Kenneth J. Bialkin, Chairman of the American-Israel Friendship League |
|
The world is watching the spreading demands for change by Arab citizens to throw off the shackles of autocratic and repressive rulers. So far, the governments of Tunisia and Egypt have fallen and demonstrations continue in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Morocco, and rumblings of unrest simmer elsewhere. A brutal and bloody civil war threatens in Libya. We do not yet know whether these strivings for freedom and democracy and demands for economic reforms, educational opportunities and jobs will produce meaningful change. At AIFL we respect and admire the strivings for democratic realization and reform by those who are seeking a better life and opportunities. A true respect for human rights and participatory democracy would bring great benefits to all the peoples in the Middle East. Democratic ideals inflame the hopes of all subjugated peoples and one never knows what it is that provides the spark which ignites the fury. The seemingly spontaneous uprising in Tunisia may have been influenced by the advocacy of the Bush Administration seeking the spread of democracy in the Middle East. The process of seeking to form a democratic government in Iraq, which is still a work in progress, has been carefully watched in Arab lands and elsewhere. Since 1948, virtually the entire Arab world (except Egypt and Jordan who have treaties with Israel) has opposed the State of Israel, and since 1967 has adhered to the Khartoum Declaration of No Peace, No Recognition, No Negotiation with Israel and has incited the Arab peoples towards hatred and rejection of Jews and Israel. They have employed scandalous lies and propaganda in their viscous assault and since 1979 Iran has joined that chorus. Yet, it is more than slightly remarkable that in all of the protests, complaint and demands of the leaders of the new Arab Revolt the name of Israel has hardly been mentioned, nor have there been cries of sympathy and support for the demands of the Palestinian Arabs, or for an end to Israeli residential construction in the West Bank or Jerusalem. Those complaints hopefully vanish when the real, sincere and desperate pleas of Arab demonstrators for recognition of their civil and human rights and their demands for participatory democracy and the end of autocratic and tyrannical rule is concerned. Perhaps the time is coming that the Arab world will see that Israel and the Jewish people are not their enemies, but indeed they offer the hand of peace and friendship and the opportunity to realize a New Middle East as advocated some years ago by Shimon Peres, now the President of Israel. Under Mubarak the Egyptian government has maintained a "cold peace" with Israel and has resisted demands from many sources to return to the state of war which prevails between many Arab states and Israel. A major test will come when the Egyptian revolution runs its course and we will know whether the resulting government of Egypt will respect or repudiate its peace treaty with Israel. If it respects the Treaty, new frontiers of cooperation and advancement in the human condition of Egyptians will become possible. If Egypt abrogates its peace agreement with Israel, the clock will turn back to before 1977 when Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem and declared "No More War", which led to the peace treaty of 1979. Israel now hopes for the best but must plan for the worst. The military and political leadership of Israel must contemplate the consequences of a possible spread of Islamic radicalism and terrorism including the possibility of another war with Egypt. The Egyptian borders become possible battle lines opening up new military threats for the IDF. In such a case, not only Egypt, but an expected growth in the power and influence of Iran throughout the Arab world, must also be included in IDF planning. The prospect of war is a two-way street and the leaders of Egypt and Iran must also contemplate the prospect of hostilities against Israel. The situation is complicated by uncertainty about the reactions of the United States. It is well known that United States influence in the Middle East and elsewhere has recently weakened. Israel's planners must consider about how much it can rely on the traditional friendship and support from the United States. Having failed to destroy Israel in more than seven wars, or through terrorism, suicide bombings, anti-Semitic incitement of Arab public opinion and relentless propaganda, Israel's enemies have turned to non-military warfare. This involves an insidious attack on the legitimacy of the State of Israel, efforts to expel it from the United Nations and other elements of the international community, organization of boycotts directed against Israeli universities, students and teachers, businesses and products and efforts to charge Israeli diplomats and government officials with violations of international law. The attack on Israel's legitimacy has extended to efforts by the Palestine Authority and others to hi-jack the biblical and historical history of the Jewish people. They deny that Jews had any historical relation to Jerusalem and other areas of ancient Israel and they assert false claims of their own existence in the Holy Land from biblical times even though the birth of the Islamic religion did not begin until the time of Mohammad in the eighth century. The Jewish claim for land and recognition derive from the days of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, King David and the prophets. This claim has abided for more than 3,000 years, persevering through the creation and universal reverence of the Bible. The Bible reports that in his first year (516 BCE), Cyrus, the King of Persia, in order to reverse the sacking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in 597 BCE, and to fulfill the prophesy of Jeremiah, proclaimed that he had been charged by the Lord to build a house in Jerusalem and to send the Jews in his kingdom to "go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem" (Second Book of Chronicles 36:23). The revival of Zionism more than 100 years ago is a part of that history and its legitimacy lies in the continuous belief and aspirations of the Jewish people. Israel's friends among many in the Christian community recognize Israel's historical and biblical rights and are eloquent testimony against the efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state. An example of the issues distorted out of proportion in the assault against Israel is the question of Israeli construction in the West Bank. The so-called "settlements" in the West Bank range from isolated outposts to thriving cities like Ariel population 40,000 including students at Ariel University, were authorized by successive Israeli governments following Israel's victory in the Six Day War in 1967 against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab states. Other small settlements were not authorized by the Israel government, which has ordered some to close, sometimes forcibly. The Obama Administration and the U.S. State Department has regarded them as illegal, different than the Reagan and Bush Administrations which, from time to time, regarded them as obstacles to peace. The issue of legality has been vigorously debated and disputed for many years. It has also been, and remains, the subject of debate in the American Jewish community. In 1982, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations debated the subject and declared its consensus view that the settlements were not illegal or an obstacle to peace. Most of the Arab world regards Israel itself in its entirety as illegal. Israel has offered to negotiate these issues in settlement discussions. Yet, it is this issue which almost stopped the U.S. from vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution to condemn the "settlements". The demands of radical, militant Islam for the establishment of a world caliphate defy belief. The western world left the Middle Ages in the 16th Century with the Christian Reformation and the time is overdue for the Muslim world to do the same. Egypt could lead the way by reaffirming its treaty with Israel and firmly confirming Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. It would then be a matter of a short time for the rest of the Arab world to follow. The present Arab revolt provides an opportunity for such progress. For Egypt, the prospect of a warmer peace with Israel, with the establishment of commercial and business ties, enhanced foreign investment and trade, cultural and civic exchanges, joint development programs to reduce poverty and unemployment is an opportunity which if not seized now may never come again. Dr. Alex Grobman is Executive Director of the America-Israel Friendship League. Call by phone at 212 213 8630. His books include "Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe" [KTAV]. He is also co-author of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of California Press); Zionism=Racism: The New War Against The Jews. His most recent book is The Palestinian RIght to Israel (Balfour Books, 2010). |
|
THE BLOODY BEAST SALIVATES AS PRO-ISLAMIST JOURNALISTS RING THE DINNER BELL
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 3, 2011. |
|
The Bloody Beast is really back. Only the willfully blind can deny it. Let me spell it out, let me risk, yet again, being accused of "Islamophobia" (which does not exist), and of "racism" which very much does. Let the record show: I am not a "racist." The Beast is radical, fundamentalist, "Islamist" Islam; the beast is anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-Jewish Muslim supremacists, who are now also terrorists/jihadists. They — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moammar Gaddafi, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah — are not wrestling with themselves quietly, spiritually, to overcome lust or hatred. Oh the contrary. They are blowing people up, sending weapons, employing mercenaries, twisting minds, spewing hatred. Yes, I am talking about the Jihad which has just claimed the lives of two American airmen in Germany — the shooter, 21-year-old Arif Uka, from Kosovo, was said to have yelled the proverbial "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) as he shot them down in cold blood. This is precisely what the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, also yelled as he massacred 13 American soldiers on their home base in Texas. The jihadists are telling us, showing us, that the Middle East and the Muslim world are here, both in Europe and in North America. Their gruesome and highly symbolic tactics and targets are here and of course, in India too. Does anyone remember 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, 11/26? How can anyone forget the World Trade Center, the Madrid train bombing, the London subway bombing, the attack on Mumbai? The jihadists are also all over the Western campus (which is about to launch its annual grotesque Israeli Apartheid Week in 55 cities); the beast is present in all the "no go" zones throughout Europe where police dare not tread; it reigns among the politically correct "useful idiots" in the pro-Islamist Western media. The beast can walk and chew gum at the same time. Thus, yesterday, Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian cabinet minister in Pakistan (Minister of Minorities) was assassinated for his opposition to the Islamic "blasphemy" laws. This means that one cannot criticize Islam (especially if what one says is true); if you do, you will be killed. According to leaflets left by his killers, the the 42-year-old Catholic Pakistani Minister was also assassinated because he was, quite simply, an "infidel Christian"; as such, Bhatti was viewed as unacceptable as a Pakistani government leader. In addition to defending the rights of minorities, Minister Bhatti had also defended the rights of rape victims. His killers claim to have acted for the Punjabi Taliban and al Qaeda. The good news? Finally, it is, or should be, overwhelmingly clear that the Arab Middle East has problems of its own that go far beyond America's military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and far, far beyond Israel's bright but tiny existence. Enormous poverty, tyranny, corruption, illiteracy, no free press, no freedom of religion, absolutely no personal and political freedom — such sorrows account for the frustration, resentment, and suffering of the majority of its inhabitants. There's more. Today, both Muslim and infidel women are increasingly at risk in Muslim countries where forced veiling, forced female genital mutilation, forced child marriage, polygamy, and routine honor killings are normalized and even valorized. Scapegoating Israel and America for such cultural, historical, tribal, and religious barbarism will not solve these larger problems. The cell phone generation that tried to launch a genuine revolution in Iran has, so far, been defeated. It remains a question as to whether their brave counterparts in Egypt will actually be able to win the day away from the far more powerful and organized Muslim Brotherhood and away from all the Egyptians who still want sharia law. This point is utterly lost on both Tom Friedman in the New York Times and Andre Aciman in the Wall Street Journal. Aciman wrote what promised to be a good op-ed piece. He understands why Israelis might be "nervous" about what's happening in Egypt. The opening of the Suez Canal to two Iranian warships does not bode well. Neither does radical Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's ability to draw over a million Egyptians to hear him preach in Tahrir Square. Nor does last week's attack by the army on a Coptic monastery, or the brutal assault on CBS News correspondent Lara Logan. So far so good, yes? But then Aciman, an Egyptian Jew, born in Alexandria, does a 360 degree turn and writes that "Israel cannot afford to wait and see which way the wind blows as rebellion sweeps through the Middle East...this means striking an honorable deal with the Palestinians, vacating areas whose occupation is unjustifiable and allowing the Palestinians to have a country....Israel must learn to dream again." Is Aciman still dreaming of an Oslo Accord? Is he truly dreaming? Israel has never opposed a Palestinian state. The "Palestinians" (who used to be the Jews) and the Arab League have "occupied" a state of refusal for nearly a hundred years, at least since the Balfour Declaration. Why is Aciman bringing Israel and the Palestinians into this column? What politically correct reflex, what tunnel vision has guided him to spend four paragraphs on this non sequitur? Then, we have Friedman. He congratulates President Obama for being an "African-American" (not a bi-racial American, which he surely is), and he congratulates Americans for having elected an "African-American with the middle name Hussein as president." He believes this is one of the "factors" that have led to what he views as a mainly positive uprising in the Arab world. Friedman mentions other factors of influence (Google Earth, for example), but then, like Aciman, he just can't help himself and he brings in Israel in a way that is both disquieting and patently ridiculous. He actually writes this: The Arab TV network Al Jazeera has a big team covering Israel today. Here are some of the stories they have been beaming into the Arab world: Israel's previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert, had to resign because he was accused of illicitly taking envelopes stuffed with money from a Jewish-American backer. An Israeli court recently convicted Israel's former President, Moshe Katsav on two counts of rape, based on accusations by former employees. Excuse me? Is he saying that the people who came out to listen to al-Qaradawi or who voted for Hamas or for the Muslim Brotherhood — the Arab men who assaulted Lara Logan, the naked-faced infidel, will be holding orderly due process trials? Is he, too, dreaming? Actually, Friedman gives Israel a great back-handed compliment. He states that since Israel tries its leaders for corruption and brings them to justice that the Arabs can't help "but notice." I worry about the Arab Muslim dissidents, the southeast Asian Christians, the women, oh, how I worry about the women. Algeria once had a revolution too — but not for women, for whom they rolled the clock back. Khomeini's so-called revolution set women back 50-100 years. I have just been told that Tunisian women are afraid — very afraid — that the post-self-immolation uprising in their country might spell their doom in terms of women's rights. Thus far, the only Arabs who have been calling for a feminist revolution are some brave Saudi Arabians (I've written about this here, here, and here) but thus far, they have remained a "virtual" revolution on Facebook only. Their modest demands for human rights and for women's rights have not been heard in Tahrir Square, in Tripoli, in Tunis, in Manama. Andre, Thomas, are you awake or are you both still dreaming? Update: Arif Uka, the Franfurt shooter, is, according to my German-based source, a "known Islamist" who "calls himself on Facebook Abu Reyyan. He seems to be friends with Salafi Islamists like Pierre Vogel and is part of a hardcore scene of Islamist militants in Germany." The Facebook page has been taken down.
Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's
Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer
and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in
Psychology (1969). Visit her website at
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/
|
|
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER
Posted by Marc Prowiser, March 3, 2011. |
|
This appeared on
|
|
Better late than never. Taking Back Zionism...that's what the party was called. It was put on by Birthright in the beginning of February in New York. The party and the concept sounds great! "[W]e have handed over the word [Zionism] to those who attack and distort it." ~ Rebecca Sugar, Birthright Alumni Director on February 1, 2011. "Contemporary discourse seeks to narrowly define Zionism and attack it by limiting its scope," campaign organizers wrote on the website. "We refuse to accept others' definitions and misrepresentations. We seek to Take Back Zionism and define it in our own terms, as a young generation who loves Israel." Wow! Them's fightin' words! I have some questions first... Who took Zionism away from you? Who did you hand it to and why? The way I understand part of the statement is that there is a wish to make Jews Zionists again and redefine it into terms for a younger generation who do not know what Zionism is and who loves Israel. Again...wow! Shai Baitel (Bet El?) defined it nicely; "Zionism is the legitimate aspiration of the Jewish people to live in peace in their own country. At the beginning it was an almost romantic but pained longing for Zion, for Jerusalem and today it is the continuing effort to building the future of Israel. People from all walks of life and political convictions came together to work on the Jewish national project. Zionism was the national project, the impetus, the driving force to create the State of Israel." I don't know about anyone else, but that seems to provide and understandable and appropriate definition to me, and probably to most others who believe in the Jewish State of Israel. I agree that this meaning has been lost to so many, and the concept is foreign to many Jews outside of Israel — and even to some in Israel. So if there is a redefinition needed, this is going to take some serious R&D, especially regarding Israel and the Jewish people today. Those who "attack and distort" Zionism today include pretty much all of the Arab nations and the majority of the Arab people, much of the Muslim population of the world, the majority of Europeans, many others and I am sorry to say, many Jewish people today. It is obvious Birthright wishes to connect Jews once again with Israel, especially now with the majority of the world rising up against Israel, havoc breaking loose among Israels' neighbors, and anti-Jewish remarks becoming the norm to come out of Hollywood. That is quite the challenge: to take back Zionism, redefine it, and make it acceptable to the "young generation". I think I can save some time in the process...no need to redefine it; it works, always has. In my travels and various speaking events among the different walks of the diverse Jewish community, both young, old, and in between, I have seen how Zionism was not given away, but was stolen away. By using the tools of deceit and manipulation, this once cherished value of mainstream Judaism was disguised, distorted and eventually morphed into the limited and faint dream it is today. I call Birthright as my first witness... Birthright trips do not even attempt to go the historical sites of the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria, our heartland no less. Citing politics as the reason, sometimes throwing in the "danger" card, this wonderful organization has been an accomplice to the same crime they wish to amend. They have helped accommodate a physical and mental "Disengagement" from Jewish heritage and history. The derogatory and wrongful use of the term "Settler" has been applied to all of those living beyond the "Green Line". Playing into the hands of political parties and enemies who oppose the existence of the State of Israel, Birthright, despite its good and noble intentions, has helped distort "Zionism" today. Various Mainstream Jewish Religious "Leaders"... have decided that if Jews are not "Orthodox" then they should be on the "Left Wing" of Israeli politics, and have kept their flocks from visiting and experiencing the places that are part of who we are today. Events and Itineraries have been manipulated into a podium for those who only share a one-sided, often biased outlook regarding our connection to the Land of Israel. So many non-Orthodox Jews today feel that they are a minority if they support a Jewish presence or right to live in Judea and Samaria, or the meaningful Zionism mentioned above. Despite that, there are still many strong Zionist Jews in these congregations. Many of their leaders have adopted a post-Zionist approach and side now with the likes of J-Street, Meretz and other similar groups. The list can go on and on. It's far from what Camp Ramah and USY used to teach. Yes, BirthRight Israel, take back Zionism, but also stop letting it get stolen from you, stop letting it be kept from you, open your eyes, it is right in front of you, it has not changed, insist on seeing your history, your heritage the next time you are in Israel. Zionism is alive and well. Chazak v'Ametz (Strength and Courage)! If you need, I would be honored to assist. Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com |
|
Z RAINDROPS ARE FALLING
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 3, 2011. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://freifenberg-newblog.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
ISRAEL'S TENURED TALIBAN TARGETS BAR-ILAN
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 3, 2011. |
|
Israel's Tenured Taliban is out in force this week. The academic extremists have a new cause celebre. They are bashing Bar-Ilan University because Bar Ilan refused to grant tenure to one Ariella Azoulay. The Tenured Taliban are claiming that she was turned down because she is a leftist and because Bar Ilan University represses and suppresses leftists. A group of 70 academic extremists sent a petition to the Israel Council on Higher Education, denouncing Bar-Ilan, demanding that the Council "investigate" politicization at Bar-Ilan. Among the signatories to this petition are people like Lev "The Hamas is Today's Heroic Maccabees" Grinberg from Ben Gurion University, Yehouda "Replace Israel with a Rwanda" Shenhav, a Marxist sociologist from Tel Aviv University, and of course Israel's academic Lord Haw-Haw, Neve Gordon from Ben Gurion University. The spectacle of THESE signatory people complaining about politicization of the campus is rather amusing. Many of them are people who were only hired and promoted by Israeli universities in the first place thanks to their own anti-Israel far-leftist and Marxist politics. Many were simply hired as acts of political solidarity by other leftists in the system. Not a single one of the signatories had anything at all to say about Ben Gurion University firing people who had expressed unfashionable politically incorrect thoughts, including Yeruham Leavitt, who was fired by BGU for saying he did not think it was healthy for children to be raised by gay couples. Naturally, Haaretz is promoting the petition and the "cause"
of Azoulay. Here is today's headline:
Now as usual when it comes to Israel's academic fifth column, the facts are precisely the opposite. Not only was Azoulay not fired for being a leftist, it seems clear she was only hired in the first place because she was a leftist. She simply never produced any serious academic scholarly work or bona fide research, on whose basis she could have been awarded tenure. She is the wife of Tel Aviv University's prominent extremist leftist professor of philosophy Adi Ophir. You will recall Ophir as the star of several Israel Apartheid Week events. The simple truth is that had she not been Ophir's wife, I think there is serious doubt as to whether she ever would have been offered any academic post of any sort in Israel. At Bar-Ilan, she taught something called "Hermeneutics." I am not
quite sure what that is, but I think it has something to do with
neutering people named Herman. In general she claims to be some sort of
expert on photography, but her "specialty" is how to twist photographs
to make political points, not exactly a real academic discipline, at
least outside of the University of Tripoli in Libya. Among the "films"
she directed is: "I Also Dwell Among Your Own People: Conversations with
Azmi Bishara." Here is an earlier expose of Azoulay and Ophir:
Now I invite you to take a look at Azoulay's curriculum vita and
"publication" record for yourself. It appears here:
Here is an earlier Haaretz piece on the story: Here we have the spectacle of Neo-Fascist Neve "SLAPP suit" Gordon,
whining that the firing of Azoulay is political repression: 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@gmail.com His website address is
|
|
CAN WE MAKE ROOM FOR EACH OTHER IN CHRISTIAN/JEWISH THOUGHT AFTER THE HOLOCAUST?
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, March 2, 2011. |
|
Lecture by Dr. (Rabbi) Eugene Korn, Scholar Jewish Ethics, Law, Theology Review by Jerome S. Kaufman |
|
The Schmidt College of Arts and Letters at Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL, February 27, 2011 treated us to another scholarly dissertation. Dr. Alan L. Berger, Director, Study for the Center of Values & Violence after Auschwitz, introduced Dr. Eugene Korn, scholar and teacher in the fields of Jewish ethics, law and theology and interfaith relations. Dr. Korn lived in Israel from 1992 -1996, is fluent in Hebrew and has extensive knowledge of Israeli culture and society and also has an arm load of credentials that we have no room to list. The primary message he presented was that there is no question that Judeo-Christian relations have improved tremendously over the last 100 years. Dr. Korn dates the Holocaust as the watershed event that precipitated this huge change in Christian thinking. He did mention the fact that many main stream establishment American churches — the Episcopalians, the Methodist, the Presbyterians — to name a few, continue to indoctrinate their congregants with anti-Israel sentiment. I personally have always felt that Israel has become the politically correct fall guy for this mindless hatred and it has not disappeared as much as we might hope. Dr. Korn's discussion further revolved around the fact that the Catholic Church has indeed made a watershed change in their thinking relative to Jews. This occurred thanks to the great work of Pope John XXIII, the "good Pope" who presided over the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI who, a couple years later, proclaimed the doctrine of Nostra Aetata. This Papal directive categorically refuted the doctrine wherein Catholics supposedly superseded the Jews and their bible (Old Testament) in the eyes of G-d. Finally, some 1900 years later, this claim of super-cession was modified in the Papal declaration, Nostra Aetata, of October 28, 1965. In this new proclamation, Jews and Catholics are declared to share a common heritage and live together as equals with no form of superiority considered or implied. This great change was enthusiastically embraced a few years later by Pope John Paul II, who was born and raised in Poland and saw personally the destruction of the Jews in his own country. John Paul II, in addition, made the magnificent supportive gesture of the first Papal mission to Israel. He visited the Second Temple Wall in Jerusalem and placed a note of reconciliation within its cracks. The Nostra Aetata statement pertaining to the Jews and other Non-Christians appears below: NOSTRA AETATE How beautiful and how reassuring. Dr. Korn then proceeded modestly to admit, however, that he could not forecast what would happen in years to come. He did declare that this sea change proved that two different peoples could eventually learn to get along but, to me, proved virtually nothing. In this case, it unfortunately took 1900 years to become supposedly resolved. He also took great solace from the fact that the Jews had survived even the onslaught of Adolph Hitler. With these two statements he lost me. Yes, the Jewish people survived but they have never fully recovered and most likely never will. At the initiation of Hitler's killing machine, there were approximately 18 million Jews in Europe. At the end there were apx. 12 million. Now, 60 years later, 3 generations, and we number worldwide only 13.3 million Jews. We have not recovered anywhere near the 6 million lost. Even more terrifying is the fact that over 37% of the Jewish population now lives in Israel and we have another maniac, Ahmadinejad of Iran, who openly declares his hatred of Jews and his ambition to destroy Israel with its Jews. Furthermore, under Islamic theology it is demanded, by Muhammad, that Islam supersede both the Christians, the Jews and any other faith that dares not embrace Islam. This imposed conversion is to come about by whatever means necessary with nuclear war at the top of Ahmadinejad's list. What to do? I don't think proclaiming an optimistic, popular message of peace furthers Jewish or Christian or world interests. I don't think Jews or Christians or the immediate world can afford to depend upon Islamic fanaticism to run its course in the same manner as that of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, we don't have 1900 years to see what happens this time. The enemy must be confronted right now and his fanaticism laid to rest. Messages of universal peace and love, although understandably popular, must be placed on hold, at least until the current problem is soundly and irrevocably defeated. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
ISRAEL FOCUS A DISTORTION OF REAL CONCERNS
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 2, 2011. |
|
This article was written by Dr. Colin Rubenstein, who is executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and former lecturer in Middle East politics at Monash University. It first appeared yesterday in the Canberra Times. |
|
It might surprise some to realise that even Gazans — frequently typecast as the greatest victims of Israeli 'oppression' — have a lower infant mortality rate than Libyans, a higher life expectancy and standard of living than Egyptians and higher literacy levels than Bahrain. The authoritarian governments in these three — and other — Arab countries ensure their tightly-controlled media not only blame Israel for all their problems, but also fabricate lies about the Palestinian situation. Surprisingly, some Western academics and commentators — who should know better — routinely recycle these arguments, rather than looking at the empirical evidence. Despite the media distortions in the region, the "Arab Street" is often cited by Western pundits as an indicator of what the "Arab World" is thinking — namely, that Israel is the source of their woes, and that Middle East peace, freedom and prosperity is dependent on a satisfactory Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. This illogic has long been adopted by the UN, which routinely ignores Arab dictators killing their own or other subjects, and instead focuses "like a laser" on Israel. Resolution after resolution in all the UN bodies — the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and others — condemn the slightest perceived Israeli transgression. Meanwhile, Arab dictatorships trampling on human, religious, sexual and women's rights is a non-issue. Thus Libya, which has recently been cruelly mowing down its own people by the hundreds using military aircraft, has a seat on the Human Rights Council. So does Bahrain, which has also been shooting unarmed civilians. Believe it or not, as Middle Eastern streets are running red with the blood of repressed subjects, the UN Security Council's focus was on a resolution condemning Israel and its settlements, which America (somewhat reluctantly) vetoed. After more than six weeks of ignoring all the Mideast regional turmoil, the Security Council only deigned to begin debating the Libya situation last Wednesday. After first releasing a toothless statement of "grave concern", the Council finally agreed on the weekend to adopt some belated and weak sanctions against arms sales to Libya, and called for a freeze on some regime funds and for an investigation of it for crimes against humanity. But this is a regime which has been routinely rated for decades as among the worst in the world on human rights. Why did it take the massive bloodshed of recent weeks to embarrass the UN, belatedly, to even look at its behaviour or tell people to stop selling this regime arms to use repressing its own people? Meanwhile, some commentators are outraged not at this UN history of indifference to the oppressed Libyan people, but that America should be opposing "Arab opinion" in voting against the anti-Israel resolution. These commentators don't seem to realise that one-sided resolutions, pre-empting real negotiations, are dead-end strategies. As US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice explained, "every potential action, including action in the Security Council, has to be measured against one test, and that's whether it will move the parties closer to negotiations and agreement or take them further apart. And our judgement was that this resolution would not have advanced the goal... On the contrary, it would have hardened the positions of one or both sides." Indeed. For as long as Palestinians receive one-sided international gestures — such as this Security Council resolution — without first needing to make moves toward peace, they will feel disinclined to return to the negotiating table, much less begin preparing their people for the concessions every sensible analyst and many Palestinian negotiators privately concede are needed for a lasting peace deal. As for Israel, constant hostility at the UN and international rewards for bombastic Palestinian behaviour only undermines any hope in Jerusalem that, if it does take required security risks but Palestinian groups exploit this, the world will help provide necessary support for Israel. It's worth remembering that the international community made this promise to Israel during the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But Palestinian terrorism actually increased steadily after the signing of the agreement and on through the next decade. Still, Israel undertook withdrawals from the West Bank, and then Gaza, and PMs Barak and Olmert made serious offers of Palestinian statehood. Yet UN condemnations of Israel only increased! It wasn't always like this. After the 1967 war, the UN did try to promote peace between Israel and its neighbours. But in 1973, the Arab states deployed the oil weapon, punishing states that voted with Israel with higher oil prices. Overnight, most countries started voting against Israel — the automatic anti-Israel majority at the UN has been cast in stone ever since. (Proudly, Australia remains in this principled minority.) Today, for the first time in decades, the Arab Street is bravely speaking for itself. What the Street is bellowing with impressive clarity and courage is 'down with the dictator', not 'down with Israel'. Arabs and Iranians want democracy, their human rights and some economic and social equity. The UN should be supporting these demands, by unleashing a range of practical measures against these Middle East dictators. Instead it continues to cravenly focus almost all of its condemnation on the only Middle Eastern country that actually guarantees human rights for all its citizens. Sadly, the UN's appalling current performance once again displays its moral bankruptcy and political irrelevance in resolving historic conflicts and advancing human rights. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
"FEARED, LOATHED, AND ISOLATED." AN OPEN LETTER TO PETER KOSMINSKY
Posted by Dave Alpern, March 2, 2011. |
|
This was written by Adam Levick and it comes from the CIF Watch
website. It is archived at
http://cifwatch.com/2011/02/02/feared-loathed-and-isolated- an-open-letter-to-peter-kosminsky/ |
|
My initial skepticism over the objectivity of your multi-part drama to be aired on British TV which, as you say, strives to "come to an understanding of the most dangerous and intractable war of our age...the conflict between Arab and Jew in the Middle East", called The Promise, seems warranted now that I've read your introduction to the film printed in the Guardian on January 28th. You claim that, among the lessons you've learned from researching modern Israel, is that 60 years after the Holocaust: "Israel is isolated, loathed and feared in equal measure by its neighbours, finding little sympathy outside America for its uncompromising view of how to defend its borders and secure its future." You then ask: "How did Israel squander the compassion [derived from the horrors of the Holocaust] of the world within a lifetime?" To this question, I'll briefly ask an admittedly rhetorical one: How dare you. "Isolated", you say? Actually far from being isolated, my country is actually more economically entwined with Europe than we've ever been — the story of a tiny nation with little in the way of natural resources outperforming not only its neighbors, but some larger European nations as well. That Arab countries on our borders don't wish to share in our relative prosperity, that 62 years after our birth those same Arab states continue in their self-defeating (either de facto or de jure) economic boycott of our country is not a reflection of our values, but rather of theirs. In nearly every measurable social, educational, and economic category, my country often wildly exceeds the performance of our oil rich neighbors. That my Israeli passport makes me persona non-grata in most of the Arab world is an indictment of their intolerance, their intransigence, their bigotry, not mine. "Loathed", you say? If by "loathed", perhaps you're referring to the fact that 90% of the Arab world have an unfavorable opinion toward Jews? That is, empirical evidence demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Arabs are openly not just anti-Israel, but wildly anti-Semitic — polling data which is thoroughly consistent with the evidence of state sanctioned Jew-hatred documented continually, yet frequently ignored by those who see such facts as inconsistent with their predetermined conclusions. While the overlap between anti-Israel sentiment and outright anti-Semitism in the rest of the world is a bit more complicated, in our region the data proves that the two are quite simply one and the same. That copies of the Elders of the Protocols of Zion sell briskly on the Arab street, that conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for 9/11 are popular, and that state-owned newspapers in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia continue to publish cartoons portraying Jews as hideous, treacherous, bloodthirsty villains is not a reflection on me. It is an indictment against them, their culture, and their values. "Feared", you say? The notion that my democratic Jewish state is feared would almost be comical if it wasn't so dangerous. Tell me, Mr. Kosminsky, were we feared when six Arab armies sought our destruction on the day of our birth in 1948? Were we feared in the weeks prior to June 1967 when Arab leaders were telling roaring crowds in Cairo, Damascus, and Tripoli that the annihilation of the Jewish state was near, or when those same leaders conspired with the Soviet Union to launch a surprise attack on us six years later on the holiest day of the year? Have all the civilian casualties and human carnage we've suffered as the result of suicide bombings and rocket fire in the years since those full-scale attacks indicated to you that we are feared? What you characterize as fear may simply be something more akin to a grudging acceptance by our enemies regarding our resolve, our steadfastness, and our will to survive despite their enmity — not a commentary on our villainy. That Jews — who have but one state to call their own, and who represent 2/10 of 1% of the world's population — inspire fear in others is again not proof of our sins, our phobias, our behavior — but is a window into the soul of those who allow themselves to believe the most ludicrous, and historically lethal, Judeophobic calumnies. As a citizen of the country which you now claim expertise, I can assure you that I don't seek the compassion you audaciously claim we squandered. I have no need for your sympathy, and I don't require your affirmation. Our national right to exist, my rights as a citizen in the national homeland of the Jewish people, is not suspended in mid-air awaiting your approval. I refuse to give you that power. To the degree to which my stubborn refusal to allow you, and others, the right to pass judgment on my merit may inspire fear, loathing and isolation, I'm okay with that. I'd rather be alive and hated than posthumously loved. Sincerely,
Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net |
|
HEBREW U. BERNARD AVISHAI'S SUPPORTS SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Bryna Berch, March 13, 2011. |
|
I don't know if it's ignorance, stupidity, slow adaptation over time or what, but people aren't horrified that Israeli children are educated to adopt Arab claims to Jewish land by Jewish teachers and professors. It is appalling that they can promote a non-existent Arab claim and not provide the students with real information that would make it clear that Israel owns ALL of Israel and all of Jerusalem. These teacher-traitors ignore that the Jews were kicked out of eastern Jerusalem when Jordan tried to kill of the new-born State of Israel in 1948 and then brought in Arabs from neighboring areas to live in the Jewish homes. When Israel reclaimed all of Jerusalem after fighting off another invasion in 1967, it stupidly let these Arabs "squat" — live in the houses and mostly not even pay rent — instead of forthrightly taking back Jewish property. So over the years, Jews have been forced to fight long and expensive battles in court to regain their property. Does it make sense that Arabs can live all over Israel but won't allow Jews to live in their villages and areas? Does it make sense that Middle Eastern Arab countries and "The World" castigate Israel for returning these Jewish houses to their real owners, but no one cares that Jews aren't even allowed to immigrate to the 22 Arab countries, let alone own property there. Does it make sense that these pro-Palestinians professors don't see a problem in trying to exclude Jews from living in a part of the Jewish land? Does it make sense that these pro-Palestinian academics don't seem to understand that if they succeed in helping the Arabs satisfy their mission — killing off Israel as a Jewish state — they themselves will likely be killed by their Arab buddies? This article comes from Israel Academia Monitor and is entitled "[Hebrew U, Business] Bernard Avishai's ties with the anti-Zionist Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, and his support of selected sanctions against Israel." |
|
Professor Bernard Avishai of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is an activist associated with the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement. He was quoted on a Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement brochure asking for donations as stating, "Solidarity is poised to become a transformative movement. Its young leadership instructs and inspires me. Here are the future leaders of Israel's global democracy." On March 2, 2011, the Jerusalem Post published an article that quoted the Jewish Agency as claiming that the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement opposes the existence of Israel as "a Jewish homeland" and promotes an "anti-Zionist agenda." Evidently, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement put the Jewish Agency, along with the Jewish National Fund and the Israel Lands Administration, "on a list of entities that should be dissolved or fundamentally changed [...] because it encouraged Jewish immigration to Israel." According to Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement spokesmen Avner Inbar "Israeli policy allowing Jews to immigrate freely while denying similar rights to Arabs and Palestinians clashed" with his organizations "commitment to equality." It is unacceptable that "any Jewish citizen can invite his aunt to come live here while a Palestinian citizen can't even invite his sister to become a citizen." The Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement believes that the situation in Israel today is comparable to South Africa under apartheid. Inbar claims that he is "concerned by the rise of fascism and racism in Israeli society and the possibility that Israel shall become an apartheid state, if it hasn't already turned into one." On January 1, 2010, Avishai wrote an article entitled "Sheikh Jarrah: its happening." In this piece, Avishai wrote that "the protest is a way of asserting that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state, that the annexations that have gone on since 1967 must stop, and that the only way either can come about is by international intervention; that Jerusalem is an international problem, not Israel's internal affair; that Jews who want a peace deal can at least demonstrate solidarity with our Arab neighbors..." To Avishai, this is the larger issue at hand, while the more pressing issue at hand for the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement is to help these Palestinian families return to their homes. On January 30, 2010, Avishai wrote in his blog an entry entitled "Sheikh Jarrah: Ground Zero." In this piece, Avishai claimed that while the protests have not grown in size, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement was growing in moral prestige, for they received recognition for their work from J-Street and from CNN, who referred to Sheikh Jarrah as "ground zero." Avishai also concluded: "little by little, Israel is turning the 230,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem into an unexploded bomb looking for a blasting cap." On April 10, 2010, Avishai wrote another blog entry entitled "Sheikh Jarrah: Common Decency." In this entry, he describes the backgrounds of the following leaders in the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement: Assaf Sharon, Avner Inbar, Amos Goldberg, and Sara Benninga. Thus, it appears that Avishai knows each of these Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement leaders on a personal level. Evidently, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement leaders invited Avishai to "gather at the homes of the" evicted Palestinian "families at 1:30 PM, where" they "conducted a kind of impromptu seminar for a couple of hours." After this, at around 3:30pm, Avishai and some of the other Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement activists congregated behind the Israeli Police lines, which upset the Israeli Police, as could be expected. Soon after this happened, Assaf Sharon was arrested by the Israeli Police, which in turn prompted Avner Inbar, Dr. Amos Goldberg, and another Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement leader to decide that they wanted to get arrested as well. So the Israeli Police arrested all four of these Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement leaders. Avishai attempted to testify on behalf of the arrested Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement leaders, but was prevented from doing so by the Israeli Police. On April 12, 2010, Avishai wrote an article in the Palestine Note entitled "Waving the flag of humanism at Sheikh Jarrah." In this article, Avishai explains why in his opinion it is inappropriate to wave Israeli flags in Sheikh Jarrah. According to Avishai, "in the present situation, in the current balance of power between us and the Palestinians," the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement understands "who is the weak side and who is obligated to show generosity, concessions and the willingness to swallow their pride and national honor. The Israeli flags seen today in Sheikh Jarrah are the ones waved defiantly on the homes of the settlers who heartlessly took over the Palestinian homes." [...]The Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement activists "do not have to wave the Israeli flag anywhere. Each one of them is to me a waving flag of humanism, compassion and true loyalty to their country and people." On May 7, 2010, it was reported that Avishai signed onto "A Call to Investigate Political Bias of the Jerusalem Police." According to this petition, Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement activists accused the Israeli Police of engaging in "illegal and inequitable actions [...] in the context of the ongoing protests in Sheikh Jarrah." [..] The Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement activists asserted that "events of recent months in East Jerusalem clearly reveal that the District Police has been acting illegally and in violation of decisions by the courts when the latter are not to their liking. Over the last months the Jerusalem Police have carried out a number of clearly illegal acts in the course of the legal demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah. First of all, there have been large-scale illegal arrests and acts of physical violence directed against the demonstrators..." On June 14, 2010, Avishai wrote a blog entry entitled "Sheikh Jarrah Movement in Crisis." In this entry, Avishai wrote that he was disturbed to discover that after he came back from a trip to the United States, he found out that many of the leaders of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, many of whom Avishai claimed are graduate students with young children, are facing "crushing legal costs." Avishai claimed that he donated money to their defense fund and called upon the readers of his blog to do likewise. He also published a short entry by Avner Inbar that detailed the financial problems faced by the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement activists. On June 29, 2010, Avishai wrote an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post entitled "Raising the stakes in Silwan." In this op-ed, Avishai claimed that the weekly Sheikh Jarrah demonstration was moved one week to Silwan due to a plan to raze Palestinian homes in that particular neighborhood in order to make room for an archeological excavation. Avishai, along with student Assaf Sharon, were both present at this demonstration and evidently conversed with each other about how excited Sharon was that this demonstration had such a large turn-out, despite the fact that Silwan is a far more dangerous area to be in than Sheikh Jarrah. Sharon asserted that his group was prepared to interfere with the demolition of Palestinian homes in Silwan. As Avishai wrote in the Nation, that Boycott and Divestment would accomplish driving Israel into an even greater siege mentality but targeted sanctions, on the other hand, are something that Avishai supports "Foreign governments might well ban consumer products like fruit, flowers and Dead Sea mineral creams and shampoos produced by Israelis in occupied territory, much as Palestinian retail stores do. The EU already requires Israel to distinguish products this way. If Israel continues building in East Jerusalem, and the UN Security Council majority sanctions Israeli tourism, the US government might well choose not to veto the resolution. The Pentagon might sanction, say, Israel Aerospace Industries if, owing to continued settlement, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations break down." |
|
TALKING ABOUT RIGHTS; PALESTINE — THE EXTREME WEST'S PROBLEM, NOT THE ARAB WORLD'S
Posted by Ido Pachter, March 2, 2011. |
|
TALKING ABOUT RIGHTS Due to an American veto, Israel was saved from a condemnation by the UN Security Council. However, Israel shouldn't be so proud of herself. It won't take long until the US won't save Israel and Israel will have the privilege of being subject to a binding condemnation that will require the country to act against its will. What can we do to prevent such a situation? How can Israel convince the world that its actions in Judea and Samaria are legal and the Palestinians do not have a right to a country in that territory? A proposed bill to annex Judea and Samaria was recently rejected by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, showing that Israel is in denial when it comes to this matter, even when nations of the world show support for Israel. For example, the Dutch Parliament recently recognized Israel as a state that is both Jewish and Democratic, and tried to prevent the European Union from recognizing Palestinian proclamations of statehood. The motion passed with a majority of 113 out of 150. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination, also expressed his support for Israel recently. On a visit to Israel, Huckabee slammed the Palestinian demands that Jews leave Judea and Samaria, calling it racism and apartheid. He said the land of Israel is the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people, and therefore, Jews have the right to live in all of its territory, including Judea and Samaria. As for a Palestinian state, Huckabee said that he does not oppose the idea of such a state, but he does not see such a state as realistic. "I think there needs to be a Palestinian state, but it doesn't have to be on a piece of land as tiny as a postal stamp, like Israel," he said, adding that he does not see how two nations with two governments can exist here. Here we see that the simple fact of the Jewish people's right to its land, which is anchored in international law, is proclaimed publicly by world leaders. It is an embarrassment that we need them to say so. The time has come for Israel to start speaking the same way, without apologizing. Israel should say clearly, with full confidence, that the Jewish people have a historic right to its land, and only those who deny it are delaying Middle East peace. If the prime minister will confidently present this stance, an essential part of the Zionist vision, we will not see the US condemning Israel in UN Security Council votes, because such resolutions will no longer be proposed. PALESTINE — THE EXTREME WEST'S PROBLEM, NOT THE ARAB WORLD'S An article by Brandon O'Neil of The Australian analyzes the recent uprisings in Arab countries, and reaches the conclusion that the Palestinian problem only concerns the Western left-wing, which narcissistically searches for meaning in their everyday lives, but doesn't really want to solve the political problems in the Middle East. Here is an excerpt from the article: "Yet, one of the most striking things about the uprising in Egypt was the lack of pro-Palestine placards. As Egypt-watcher Amr Hamzawy put it, in Tahrir Square and elsewhere there were no signs saying "death to Israel, America and global imperialism" or "together to free Palestine". Instead, this revolt was about Egyptian people's own freedom and living conditions. This reveals something important about the Palestine issue. In recent years it has moved from the realm of Arab radicalism, where Egyptians and other peoples frequently demanded the creation of a Palestinian state, and has instead become almost the exclusive property of Western middle-class radicals, such as Pilger. Emptied of its nationalist vigor and militancy, the Palestine problem, it seems, is now of little immediate interest to protesting Arabs and is instead the ultimate cause celebre for Western liberal campaigners who like nothing more than having a victimized people they can coo over. The power and allure of Palestine in Western radical circles is extraordinary. Palestine is the only issue they get excited about. But there is nothing progressive in their pro-Palestine fervor. It is not driven by future-oriented demands for economic development in a Palestinian homeland in the West Bank or Gaza. Instead it is driven by a view of Palestinians as the ultimate victims, the hapless and pathetic children of the new world order, who need kindly, wizened Westerners to protect them from Big Bad Israel. Today's pro-Palestine leftism is more anthropological than political. It treats Palestinians less as a people who ought to have certain democratic rights and more as an intriguing tribe to be prodded and preserved. Some Western radicals have even adopted the fashions of their favorite tribe. Step on to any university campus in the West, or join any left-wing march, and you'll see concerned-looking youths wearing the Palestinian keffiyeh scarf, a politically correct version of blacking up. This is the politics of pity rather than solidarity. Groups of Western middle-class youth have taken Palestinian pity holidays in the West Bank and Gaza. They turn up and marvel at the dignity of this beautiful besieged people, like those wives of old Victorian colonialists who discovered they rather liked the African tribes they had been sent to Christianize. "I've never met people like the Palestinians. They're the strongest people I've ever met", gushed British peace activist Kate Burton, who hit the headlines in 2006 after being kidnapped by a Palestinian faction in Gaza. Of course, Westerners have often gone on moral adventures overseas, whether as missionaries or revolutionaries. What's different about Palestinian pity tourism is that these Westerners seek neither to convert Palestinians to a religion nor to take up arms with them, but simply to empathize with them, to immerse themselves in what they consider to be the ultimate victimhood experience. One pity-tripper wrote in the New Statesman about her experience living "under siege" in Bethlehem. "I'm beginning to understand what it must be like to be a Palestinian," she said. That is the ultimate aim of these empathy tours, to have an experience that makes real the politics of victimhood that so many of these Western activists subscribe to. Where some bored Western youth who feel their everyday lives lack zest go on bungee-jumping trips in Peru, Western leftists who feel politics at home has been zapped of urgency go on tank-stopping trips in Palestine. There is a profound narcissism in the pity-for-Palestinian movement. When American activist Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, it gave rise to a play called My Name Is Rachel Corrie. The killing of British peace activist Tom Hurndall in Gaza in 2004 led to a film called The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall. This is clearly all about Us — the good and pure Westerners who went to find themselves in Palestine — rather than about Them, the actual Palestinians. There's now also a ship called the MV Rachel Corrie, which was one of those attacked by the Israel Defense Forces as it sailed to Gaza last year. Everyone who's anyone in Europe's liberal set is desperate to sail in her. MPs, thinkers, Nobel Peace Prize laureates, novelists . . . all have taken the MV Rachel Corrie to Gaza, super-keen to promote their whiter-than-white decency by standing, Kate Winslet-style, on the deck of a ship that is Against Israel. Because being "for Palestine" today is ultimately a self-serving way of advertising that you are Good, Decent, an opponent of the modern-day "Nazism" being practiced by the Israeli state. For these historically ignorant campaigners, Israelis are the New Nazis and Gaza is the new Warsaw Ghetto. As the title of a recent talk in London put it: "A New Hitler for a New Age? The Rise of Israeli Terror." Palestinian pitiers have no time to think about the inconvenient fact that Hamas is an intolerant political entity that has no time for gay rights or women's equality. Instead, everything gets reduced to a Narnia-style story of wicked witches v happy fauns, because this is ultimately about providing vacuous-feeling Westerners with some much-needed momentum in their lives, not about untangling a messy political reality." WANTED: INNOVATIVE THINKERS The recent revolution in Egypt and those that are sure to come in other Arab countries raise a question about Israel and America's policies in the Middle East. For nearly 20 years, the whole world has focused its attention on the Palestinian problem and a two-state solution, thinking that it is the reason for all regional problems, and that there will be peace and quiet the minute it's solved, removing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. Now we see that, without any connection to the Palestinians, there are much bigger problems in our region. The problems have to do with the lack of freedoms in the Arab world, which threaten to overturn friendly regimes and put extreme Islamic movements in their place. How do Israel and the world plan to deal with these problems, and what reverberations could they have in a future Palestinian state? What if Palestinian factions take over Jordan, and instead of an ally we will get an enemy? These questions and more remain unanswered, and the reason is simple: No one knows. Israel and the world have been caught with their pants down. They show that there is no alternative plan or long-term strategic thinking in Middle East policy. The world and Israel are caught up in what to do here and now, but don't plan for future possibilities that could upset the Middle Eastern balance of power. Therefore, it's a good thing that the two-state solution has been on the back burner recently. However, we can't wait for the atmosphere to change again. Israel needs to use this time to promote innovative thought. Now we know for sure that a peace treaty signed today could prove dangerous after a regime change; now we see how the threat of Iran-sponsored Islamic extremism in our neighboring states is greater than ever before. This needs to wake Israel and the world up so it can make long-term plans to solve the Palestinian problem and give up on the idea of a state that will be too dangerous. A solution is needed that will neutralize these threats in advance. Contact Ido Pachter of the Israeli Iniative by email at hayozmaNL@gmail.com |
|
DENNIS MILLER ON ISRAEL
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 2, 2011. |
|
For those who don't know, Dennis Miller is a comedian who has a show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO. Although he is not Jewish, he recently had the following to say about the Middle East situation: A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you Really need. |
|
Let me share my current thoughts on the blockade of Gaza by Egypt and Israel. Here we go: The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like 'Wiccan,' 'Palestinian' sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was Owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no Palestinians.' As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the 'Palestinians,'weeping for their deep bond with their lost 'land' and 'nation.' So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word 'Palestinian' any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone Points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: 'Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death. ' I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this,then: 'Adjacent Jew-Haters.' Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing: No, they don't. They could have had their own country. Anytime in the last thirty years, especially several years ago at Camp David. But If you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks. And Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course that's where the Real fun is — but mostly they want Israel. Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel — or 'The Zionist Entity' as their Textbooks call it — for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab Countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth,and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something. It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mid east. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one. Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals.. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive very Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding. My friend, Kevin Rooney, made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of Innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11th our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to to see more of his graphic art. |
|
"NO MAGIC BULLET FOR IRAN'S NUCLEAR EFFORTS," DEFENSE NEWS, FEBRUARY 28, 2011
Posted by Marcia Leal, March 1, 2011. |
|
This was written by Ilan Berman and it appeared in Defense News
Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington. |
|
So much for Stuxnet, it would seem. Ever since the news broke last summer, much has been made of the mysterious computer worm that has ravaged Iran's nuclear program. Observers have billed the malicious software (which circumstantial evidence suggests was developed by Israel, the United States, or both) as the "world's first cyber weapon," and as a nail in the coffin of Iran's atomic ambitions. The former it may indeed be. There's certainly no mistaking the revolutionary effect that Stuxnet has had on warfare in cyberspace — a medium which, years of Hollywood moviemaking notwithstanding, has only emerged as a real arena of conflict comparatively recently. But, when it comes to derailing Iran's nuclear progress, the impact of the notorious cyber worm may end up being much more limited than many would like to think. Thus, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a Washington-based think tank specializing in nuclear proliferation, has estimated that between 2009 and 2010, Stuxnet succeeded in disabling close to 1,000 of the existing 9,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges at the Natanz facility in central Iran. But, ISIS notes, the effect of the malware has been limited, and is most likely transitory. "Assuming Iran exercises caution, Stuxnet is unlikely to destroy more centrifuges at the Natanz plant. Iran likely cleaned the malware from its control systems," said a Feb. 15 ISIS study, "Stuxnet and Natanz." Nor has Stuxnet substantially slowed the pace of Iran's enrichment. "[The Iranians] have been able to quickly replace broken machines," one Western diplomat in the know tells the Washington Post in a Feb. 16 article. "The Iranians appeared to be working hard to maintain a constant, stable output" of low- enriched uranium. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog has come to similar conclusions. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano disclosed that Stuxnet has had only a temporary impact on Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium, and that the Islamic Republic's stockpile of enriched uranium is growing anew. Despite the damage it suffered from Stuxnet, Amano says, "Iran is somehow producing uranium enriched to 3.5 percent and 20 percent" and doing so "steadily, constantly." Stuxnet, in other words, may have bought the international community a bit more time to formulate a plan for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. But it has stopped far short of meaningfully derailing the country's nuclear endeavor. The damage to international diplomacy, on the other hand, has been greater than most people think, because news of the worm's impact on Iran's nuclear infrastructure has bred a dangerous sense of complacency among the United States and its allies. The outgoing head of Israel's Mossad foreign intelligence service, Meir Dagan, even went so far as to tell the country's parliament in early January that, as a result of Stuxnet and other asymmetric methods, Iran now won't be able to field a nuclear capability before 2015. Israeli officials have since walked back these estimates, and now say Iran could have nuclear weapons within just "a year or two" of making the decision to do so. The Obama administration, meanwhile, is showing signs of slowing the pace of its sanctions policy. Having passed the most comprehensive economic measures ever levied against the Islamic Republic last summer, the White House is now deferring additional pressure on the Iranian regime. In a number of private and public forums in recent weeks, administration officials have tried to discourage new or complementary sanctions, arguing that existing sanctions need to be given a chance to work. Underpinning this wait-and-see approach is a sense that Stuxnet has bought Washington enough time to play out its current hand. Thus, for all of its tangible benefits, Stuxnet may also turn out to have played a distinctly unhelpful role: feeding the hopes of policymakers desperately seeking to avoid a confrontation with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions that such a conflict has, in fact, been deferred. The stubborn reality, however, is that Iran's nuclear program is moving ahead anew — and that Stuxnet's impact, while significant, was just temporary. Finding a lasting solution to the menace posed by the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions will require more than a bit of software, however ingenious it might be. For that, the United States and its allies will need to marshal far greater resolve, creativity and urgency than are on display currently.
Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com |
|
BIBI! DON'T GO TO THE QUARTET'S KANGAROO COURT INTERNATIONAL MEETING
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 1, 2011. |
|
ATTENTION! PRIME MINISTER BINYAMIN NETANYAHU!! The following article from Ha'aretz speaks of your indecision in sending your "peace-talks" representative, Yitzhak Molcho or attending yourself a meeting of the Quartet (called the Diplomatic Quartet or Madrid Quartet) as to Israel's future. The Quartet was established in Madrid in 2002 by the Spanish Prime Minister Aznar and is comprised of the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Russia. It is currently being led by Tony Blair, the Quartet's Special Envoy. Perhaps you have forgotten the 1991 Madrid International Conference of October 30-November 2, 1991, attended by then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir against all advice to the contrary. Among others, I wrote copiously that the Madrid International Conference was going to be a "Kangaroo Court" — with Israel alone in the dock and the rest of the world against her. And it was! PM Shamir assured us all that he could handle all that would be thrown at him. The ultimate result was that they "beat the hell out of him". Leading the hostile pack were Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer, who came to be known as (James) Baker's "Jew-Boys", denials notwithstanding. They pretended to be low-profile, even as they bounced from room-to-room, assisting in denigrating and undermining the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, by offering plans to bend Israel to the will of the Muslim and Arab nations. At the time, I forecast that one of the Arab/Muslim countries' delegates would offer a plan to make the Middle East/North Africa "Nuclear-Free" — meaning Israel was to abandon her heretofore undeclared nuclear deterrence. Needless to say, it was the Egyptian delegate who presented this proposal, no doubt, at the behest of Baker's Boys. Bibi, IF you go to this next "Kangaroo Court", regardless of promises made to you by the Quartet — especially Dennis Ross — you will have willingly entered an obvious trap! Once they vote on a mandate wherein Israel must move to the 1967 Armistice lines, that vote will be frozen in time and purpose (like the Road-Map). Expect penalties to be attached for non-compliance with the "orders" of the Quartet, which carries the weighty influence of the U.S., U.N., E.U. and Russia. If you remember your American slang, this is a "sucker" play — especially guided by President Barack Hussein Obama and his "Baker's Boys" resuscitated. Hopefully, this memo has reached you in time, before a weak Cabinet offers a "yea" vote, delighted to be included in the "Big Game" — as if they were important. If you, the reader, have access to Netanyahu, please forward this to him at the PM's office and his home. None of the Quartet is a current friend of Israel — except when they wish to dangerously manipulate Israel to her detriment. This below is called "Netanyahu wary of new international efforts in
peace process" and is by Barak Ravid and it appeared February 27,
2011 in Haaretz |
|
Prime Minister has yet to say whether or not he will cooperate with an upcoming Quartet meeting with Israeli, Palestinian officials, fearing Israel's participation could allow world to dictate peace-talks terms. Four days before Mideast Quartet officials are planned to meet Israeli and Palestinian representatives, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still hasn't decided whether or not he will be sending his adviser and peace-talks representative Yitzhak Molcho. The forum of seven senior ministers will be meeting this Tuesday to reach a decision on the matter. Over the weekend, the United Nations envoy to the Middle East, Robert Serry, announced that Quartet representatives would hold separate meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials later in the week in Brussels.
The goal of the meeting is to hear the sides' stances on core peace-talk issues, as well as to attempt to come to an agreement regarding the negotiations' resumption. However, Netanyahu has voiced his reservations to the meeting, fearing that by agreeing he would open the door to international influence on the terms of the renewed talks. Specifically, the premier is worried of being forced to resume talks toward a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Netanyahu is concerned of the possibility that an announcement would come out of the foreign ministers' Quartet summit, planned to take place in Paris in two-weeks time, where potential solutions to the core peace issues would be presented. Consequently, Netanyahu is still on the fence on whether or not to go along with the process. Tony Blair, the Quartet's Mideast envoy, arrived at the region on Sunday, and met Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. On Monday, he is scheduled to meet Netanyahu in an attempt to sway the premier to send Molcho to the meeting. Officials in the Prime Minister's Office indicated that Netanyahu had been in contact with the U.S. administration in an attempt to find out the purpose of the Brussels session, and its purported goals, before making his final decision. The move spearheaded by Quartet members, Russia and the European Union, specifically, is another part of the intense international pressure brought to bear on Netanyahu in wake of the recent standstill in peace talks. For a while now, the premier has been trying to fend off these attempts, while failing to offer an alternative diplomatic proposal, other than the general statement released by Haaretz on Friday, according to which he was preparing a policy speech, akin to the one he gave at Bar-Ilan University in 2009. Netanyahu is said to be very frustrated both by the lack of diplomatic policy and from the continuous drop he has been experiencing in opinion polls. That jumpiness was demonstrated in the Likud ministers' meeting, and later at the weekly cabinet meeting, where he chastised ministers, later calling them to give media interviews where they would spell out the governments' achievements. "This government is accomplishing things that previous governments did not, but a distorted picture of inactivity is being presented," Netanyahu said, telling ministers to "start presenting those achievements to the public." He repeated that request at least three times during the cabinet meeting. 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: STOP THE PRESSES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 1, 2011. |
|
I've written before about the UN, the most vilely corrupt of institutions. And I've certainly written plenty about Barack Obama, who is a horror as president. One major problem with him is that he has chosen to relinquish US power, opting instead to be an internationalist, which for him includes participation at the UN. Now I have information that juxtaposes the two in a shocking (or maybe not so shocking) revelation. That information comes straight from Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the UN (www.EYEontheUN.org), a thoroughly reliable source. ~~~~~~~~~~ The story involves the UN Human Rights Council, likely the most blatantly anti-Israel of all UN agencies. The Council, you must understand, is not a two-bit operation. It has sizeable headquarters in Geneva: ~~~~~~~~~~ Reversing the policy of his predecessor, George Bush, who shunned the Council, Obama became the first president to seek membership for the US on the Council. As Bayefsky puts it, this was "the flagship of his UN-focused foreign policy." The reason given by the president for joining was to engage "from the inside" in the reform process that was going on at the Council. The Council had been established in 2006 to replace the thoroughly discredited Human Rights Commission, and was given five years to review its failings and make necessary corrections. That five years has now come to an end, and the review process has turned out to be nothing but "an abysmal failure." ~~~~~~~~~~ The Council's most blatant and egregious flaw has been its "standing agenda that governs all of its operations." There are ten items on the agenda. "One is dedicated to condemning the state of Israel and one is for the remaining 191 UN countries that it might be interested in should it ever decide there was another 'human rights situations that require[d] the Council's attention.'" The Council's use of "its so-called human rights system to demonize the Jewish state has been a roaring success. Half of its special sessions on specific countries and half of all its resolutions and decisions critical of any state condemn Israel alone." "When President Obama joined the Council, it [the Council] promised that changing the discriminatory agenda would be their first priority. On Thursday, we discovered, it was a hoax." (Emphasis added) The review process had been taking place under the jurisdiction of a working group of all interested members of the UN. On Thursday, the working group adopted its report by consensus. The US was present. If we move past the "usual opaque UN language," and look at it plain English, the consensus report states that it's business as usual: the discriminatory agenda, adopted in June 2007, stands. ~~~~~~~~~~ "Last year...the US delegation placed on the table its demands for reform...Agenda reform was top of the list." Read the US demand: "The most entrenched and indefensible manifestation of structural bias in this Council comes in the form of...the only agenda item devoted to one country...it is incumbent upon us...to do what is right to help the Council become more evenhanded and depoliticized." That demand was made available to the American public, but that's as far as it went. "...when the business-as-usual UN 'reform' report was approved late Thursday, the only thing the US delegation did was to make a short statement that it 'did not support' the permanent Israel-bashing item...." (Bayefsky calls this diplomatic backstabbing — agreeing to participate in the consensus, but hedging in a manner that has no clout.) "If the Obama administration had really wanted to stand on principle they could have said 'we do not join consensus on this document.' (The point is that the US delegation permitted themselves to be counted in the consensus.) They could have demanded that there be a vote in the Council on the document before sending it to the General Assembly for formal approval, and then voted against it for the world to see. And most importantly, they could have made it very clear that the absence of a change would result in the US departure from the Council. They did none of the above." "Instead, Obama caved. Saving the Council was most important and the US was going down with the ship. The 'reform' process will now proceed merrily through the UN system without a glitch. The President of the General Assembly said...: 'I congratulate the Working Group on adopting the Human Rights Council review by consensus.' The US delegation was all present. Nobody peeped." (Emphasis added) ~~~~~~~~~~ My American friends, I can only hope that you are deeply ashamed of this official US action — or lack thereof. And that you are sufficiently enraged — is smoke coming out of your ears yet? — to make as much noise about this as you can. Clearly, the Obama administration had hoped all of this would pass under the radar screen. And indeed it might have, except for the report of a tireless Anne Bayefsky. My bet, as well (this has got to be a sure thing), is that Obama was less motivated to take genuine action in the Council because it was Israel that was being vilified. Less motivated than he would have been, for example, if Jordan were on the block. ~~~~~~~~~~ It's important to understand how much duplicity is at work here. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state and Obama lackey, was in Geneva yesterday doing damage control. One of the things she addressed in a public statement at the opening of the current session of HRC was this: "The structural bias against Israel — including a standing agenda item for Israel... — is wrong. And it undermines the important work we are trying to do together. As member states we can take this council in a better, stronger direction." Try not to gag. How cheap and easy are words for public consumption, compared with the hard work of really doing something. Here's the evidence that the administration was counting on our not knowing what actually went on inside the Council. And notice the consistent use of "we." The US is one of the guys now, and what horrendous company they are in.
~~~~~~~~~~ As if all of this was not enough, there is yet another major issue confronting the UN Human Rights Council right now — which Bayefsky says Clinton is attempting to paper over "to protect the administration's investment..." This has to do with Libya's involvement with the Council. In 2003, this nation actually held the presidency of the now defunct Human Rights Commission. I wish this were a joke, but it is not. It was subsequently elected as a full member of the Human Rights Council. As John Bolton once pointed out, the General Assembly resolution that set the Human Rights Council in place included no membership criteria. All that was required was that: "when electing members of the Council, Member States [of the UN General Assembly] shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto." A website was set up on which prospective members of the Council were able to post their "pledges." "This is what Libya posted: 'The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [a term coined by Gaddafi that means, roughly, "people's republic"] is fully committed to the promotion and protection of human rights principles...including the right to direct participation in public life...The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has paid great attention to human rights over the past 30 years.' That statement was good enough to garner the votes of 155 of 188 UN members and to send Libya to the Council." Of course, Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba were also deemed fit to be members of the Human Rights Council. This is surreal. ~~~~~~~~~~ At any rate, the Council prides itself on an innovation called the Universal Periodic Review, which is supposed to review the human rights record of each nation of the UN, in due course, including the members of the Council itself. During the review process, other nations sitting on the Council are permitted to comment. Last November, the human rights record of Libya was reviewed. See this Eye on the UN video, with comments by the likes of Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, Iran, Egypt and Cuba: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgNH6AHh6RE ~~~~~~~~~~ The formal report based on this review of Libya — which praises Libya's human rights accomplishments — was placed on the agenda of the current session of the Council, to be presented on March 18 and then accepted at the end of the month. Even in the face of the on-going horrendous human rights violations of Gaddafi and the call to remove Libya from the Council, this remained on the agenda. To allow this presentation to move forward would be a travesty of justice, and make a mockery of everything that is sensible. And here I refer to another fine organization, UN Watch (http://blog.unwatch.org). Its tireless executive director, Hillel Neuer, has been leading the campaign to remove the report from the session's agenda. "The report is a fraud, an insult to Libya's victims, and should be withdrawn immediately," he has said. ~~~~~~~~~~ I devoted today's posting to this, instead of J Street and a host of other hot issues, because it is information everyone needs to have, and which is not given enough prominence. Bravo and bravo, to Neuer and to Bayefsky, for their important work. But it's time for every American to ask the president and the secretary of state precisely what the US is doing as a member of the Council. Do the American representatives to the Council in Geneva do anything beyond using their tucheses (their rear ends) to warm their seats? Did Clinton avoid calling for the removal of the positive report on Libya from the Council's agenda because exposing the current situation would have made clear to one and all what sort of Council the US had opted to join? ~~~~~~~~~~ Take note, please, of how Bayefsky closes this particular piece on the UN: "And then there's this: On Friday, March 4, Iran — the country that buries women naked to their waist and then stones them to death for 'adultery' — is going to take its seat as a full-fledged member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
JEWISH PURCHASE OF NOF TZION GETS GREEN LIGHT
Posted by Gil Ronen, March 1, 2011. |
|
The Nof Tzion apartment project in Jerusalem has cleared what may be the final hurdle on its way to becoming a Jewish neighborhood. Digal, the project's developer, revealed in a statement to the stock exchange Tuesday that Bank Leumi has approved, in principle, an improved offer by the firm for settling its debt to the bank. The meaning of the announcement is that the bank has given the go-ahead for a deal in which the parcel on which Nof Tzion stands will be sold to businessman Rami Levy and an American partner. The two will complete construction of the planned neighborhood and market the remaining homes to religious buyers. The first phase of the project, which houses 90 families, was completed several years ago. However, Palestinian Authority semi-resident Bashir Al-Masri has been making efforts to buy Digal, and has confirmed that if he succeeds, he intends to market the 180 planned units of Stages II and III of the project to Arabs. The latest development became possible after Levy made an improved offer to Digal Tuesday morning. Gil Ronen is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today. |
|
THE VATICAN VS THE 'ZIONIST TSUNAMI'
Posted by Barbara Taverna, March 1, 2011. |
|
This was written by Giulio Meotti and it appeared
in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
The slandering of Israel is growing at an alarming rate among the most important Catholic journalists. The January edition of La Civiltà Cattolica — the most authoritative magazine of the Jesuits, printed under the supervision of the Vatican — opens with an editorial about Palestinian refugees. Adopting the Arab propagandist word Nakba, it declares they are a consequence of "ethnic cleansing" by Israel. The journal also supports anti-Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, and falsely proclaims that "the Zionists were cleverly able to exploit the Western sense of guilt for the Shoah to lay the foundations of their own state." The Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, just joined an "interreligious meeting" in Doha, Qatar. Sponsored by the Arab League, the event occurred on Jerusalem, with the participation of "Christian and Muslim leaders." But no Jewish presence. The slandering of Israel is growing among the most important Catholic journalists. Vittorio Messori, who conducted the first book-length interview with Pope John Paul II, recently wrote an editorial for the Italian daily Il Corriere della sera where he stated "All governments of all Muslim nations are under the tsunami of the violent intrusion of Zionism that has come to put its capital in Jerusalem." The Vatican's teachings have a direct influence on 1.166 billion people. To understand its new mood about Israel, one has only to read what happened in the special synod on the Middle East, hosted in Rome. Nothing was said about Islamist persecution of Christians; indeed, every effort was made to show the Catholic Church sympathetic to Muslim grievances, especially against "Zionism" — a word evoked as a symbol of evil. Archbishop Edmond Farhat — the official representative of Vatican politics — proclaimed that the ultimate cause of all the evils in the Middle East is that "foreign body" which is Israel: "The Middle Eastern situation today is like a living organ that has been subject to a graft it cannot assimilate and which has no specialists capable of healing it". US Archbishop Salim Bustros wrote the final message of the synod, claiming that the Jewish Promised Land had been "nullified by Christ," thus reviving the infamous replacement theology that played a great role in the Holocaust. Bustros also claimed that the Bible can't be used to justify the "occupation" of the West Bank, attempting to sever any link between the Jewish people and its homeland. The former patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, named by Pope Benedict XVI to address the concluding session of the synod, presented a document against Israel called "Kairos" bearing the signatures of many Christian leaders in Jerusalem. It says: "The Israeli occupation is a sin against God," and takes sides against the very presence of Israel. It likens the security barrier that has blocked suicide attacks to "apartheid," it cancels the concept of a Jewish state and proclaims that "resistance to the evil of occupation is a Christian's right and duty." The document was presented in a Vatican-owned building run by Pax Christi, Catholic Action and the Franciscan Custodian of the Holy Land.
THE CURRENT Vatican patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, affirmed also that "you can't have both Zionism and democracy," supporting the "one-state solution" — a euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state. Elias Chacour, the Catholic archbishop of Galilee and Nazareth, went on to say that Israel committed "an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians." Israel bashing is also part of the strategy of the Vatican Secretariat of State in the Middle East; its default position visà- vis militant Islamism is to try to reach accommodations with regimes and forswear condemnation of Islamist ideology. Israel is easily expendable in this horrendous scheme. Yet the Church should have a strategic interest in a friendship with Zionists. Israel and the Vatican should be natural allies against the devotees of death. There is only one Middle Eastern country where the number of Christians has grown — Israel (from 34,000 in 1949 to 163,000). Pope Benedict should now reverse the tragic wave against Israel and the Jews — which its enemies want to annihilate — with the same powerful determination with which he raises his voice in defense of the "nonnegotiable" principles concerning human life. Israel is also not negotiable. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
THE WEST'S PROXY WAR AGAINST THE JEWS
Posted by David Bedein, March 1, 2011. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick, the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com. |
|
By focusing attention on Israel and its crimes, Europeans, American admirers ignore Islamic war against Israel, global jihad. It was a stunning moment of moral clarity. As the South Vietnamese refugees clambered onto rickety boats in the South China Sea to escape the victorious Communists, the American Left that orchestrated the US defeat through a sustained campaign of propaganda and fake calls for peace stood silent. As Pol Pot, the "progressive" dictator tortured and murdered a third of his people in Cambodia, the leftists "peace" activists in the US and Europe who never saw a US military operation that was justified, turned a blind eye. The silence of the likes of Susan Sontag, Jane Fonda, Noam Chomsky and their fellow travelers came to mind last week when the Western media and intellectual elites averted their gaze as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the long exiled spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood spoke before a crowd of millions at Cairo's Tahrir Square. Qaradawi, who had been living in exile in Qatar during Hosni Mubarak's reign, became an international jihadist superstar thanks to Qatar's unelected potentate Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani who gave him his jihad indoctrination show on Al Jazeera. From his internationally televised soapbox, Qaradawi regularly preaches international jihad and genocide of Jewry to millions of fans worldwide. Two important things happened during Qaradawi's appearance in Cairo. First, his handlers refused to allow Google's Egyptian Internet revolutionary Wael Ghonim to join the cleric on the dais. For anyone willing to notice, Qaradawi's message in spurning Ghonim was indisputable. As far as the jihadists are concerned, Ghonim and his fellow Internet activists are the present day equivalent of Lenin's useful idiots. They did their job of convincing credulous Western liberals that the overthrow of Mubarak was all about sweetness and light. And now they are no longer needed. The second message was Qaradawi's call to destroy Israel. With millions of adoring fans crying out "Amen," and "Allahu Akhbar," Qaradawi called for a Muslim conquest of Jerusalem — that is, for the destruction of Israel. As a first step, he demanded that the Egyptian military open the Egyptian border with Gaza. In the dismal tradition of its Vietnam-era teachers, today's international Left had nothing to say about Qaradawi's genocidal speech. In the New York Times' write-up of Qaradawi's triumphant return to Egypt for instance, the murder-inciting cleric was referred to as a champion of democracy and pluralism. Leftist writers like Peter Beinart have spent the better part of the past month whitewashing and belittling the significance of the Muslim Brotherhood. The same Muslim Brotherhood that was founded in 1928 and got its first boost
from the Nazis who funded their anti-Jewish pogroms in Cairo and Alexandria
in 1939 is seen as nothing to worry about. US President Barack Obama's
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assured Congress that the
Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular. This is the same Muslim Brotherhood
whose motto is, "Allah is our objective; the prophet is our leader; the
Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; Dying in the path of Allah is our goal."
THE SAME Left who champions Qaradawi as a liberal is absolutely adamant that the revolutions now raging throughout the Muslim world are a mere sideshow to the region's chief drama. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Oman, Morocco and Saudi Arabia are nothing. And the anti-regime protests in Iran have no strategic significance whatsoever to the West, which is mortally threatened by the mullocracy. Who cares if the Arabs are ruled by tyrants, democrats, jihadists, or fascists? The only thing that matters is that "Palestine" is free of Israeli "occupation." How can anyone get excited about the future of the oil-dependent global economy when Jews still reside in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem? The Left's essential indifference to the plight of hundreds of millions of Arabs and its significance for the West was exposed in a news analysis by Brendan O'Neill in The Australian on February 16. O'Neill noted that whereas the demonstrators in Cairo were fairly silent on the issue of the Palestinians, anti-Mubarak demonstrations throughout the West prominently featured anti-Israel slogans and chants of "Free, free Palestine!" O'Neill concluded that the contrasting messages, "reveals something important about the Palestine issue.... [It] has become less important for Arabs and of the utmost symbolic importance for Western radicals at exactly the same time." Actually, it is important to Western leftists and jihadists, which is why
the Palestinians only became a salient issue in Egypt after the Muslim
Brotherhood began taking control over the opposition movement with Qaradawi's
sermon on February 18.
IN A groundbreaking study of the propaganda war against Israel entitled "The Big Lie and the Media War against Israel: From Inversion of Truth to Inversion of Reality," published in Jewish Political Studies Review in March 2007, Joel Fishman showed that the Muslim Brotherhood's propaganda war against Israel, like the Left's propaganda war against Israel, relied heavily on Nazi propaganda against Jews. The early partnership between the Brotherhood and the Nazis, brought together by Palestinian Arab leader and Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini imported European anti-Semitism to the Muslim world. Beginning in the early 1950s, Nazi war criminals immigrated to Egypt. There they recreated much of Josef Goebbels' anti-Semitic propaganda operation for Gamal Abdel Nasser. Fishman also documented how in the aftermath of World War II, and particularly after Israel's victory in the Six Day War, the Soviets adapted Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda to demonize Israel as the new, collective Jew and in turn demonize the collective Jew as the new Nazi Germany. Two sources fed the Soviet anti-Jewish/anti-Zionist propaganda machine: former Nazi propagandists in Egypt; and former Nazi propagandists employed by the East German Communist regime. According to Fishman, the messages developed by these ex-Nazi propagandists were the basis for the Soviet campaign to delegitimize Israel which began in earnest after 1967. The call to arms was published first in a Pravda editorial in October 1967. There, Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement was reviled as dedicated to "genocide, racism, treachery, aggression, and annexation...all characteristic attributes of fascists." With both the Soviets and the Arabs spewing the same inverted message, it didn't take long for it to become the rage in Europe. Europe's adoption of the Nazi-inspired propaganda in which reality was inverted and Israel — the victim of Arab imperialist, genocidal aggression — became the imperialist, genocidal aggressor was facilitated by France's embrace of the Arab camp after its withdrawal from Algeria and effective withdrawal from NATO. By 1975, with the UN General Assembly's adoption of the Soviet-Arab sponsored resolution 3379 defining Zionism as racism, most European governments had fallen in line with the Soviet-Arab propaganda war. They in turn spent the next generation bringing their message to America.
TODAY, THAT message has become the sum total of Europe's Middle East policy. From their massive global funding of anti-Israel NGOs, to their financing of anti-Zionist films, plays, art exhibitions and educational curricula throughout the world and their bankrolling of the Palestinian Authority, the Europeans have put their money where their mouths and well-washed brains are. As Norway's plan to run the Israeli embassy out of Oslo because its security measures annoy its neighbors; to European authorities' refusal to provide police protection for their threatened Jewish communities; to initiatives like the Dutch Parliament's current bid to outlaw Jewish ritual slaughter all make clear, hatred of Israel runs seamlessly into outright governmental aggression against Jews. So too, as The Guardian's recent onslaught against the PA for its leaders' willingness to make minor compromises with Israel in the framework of a peace treaty demonstrates, mainstream forces in Britain and throughout Europe now side openly with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in their annihilationist war against the Jewish state. It is this obsessive campaign against Israel that explains the so-called Middle East Quartet's insistence that the most urgent item on the international agenda is coercing Israel to surrender land and rights to the PA. Whereas the EU cannot figure out a coherent policy regarding Libya even as Muammar Gaddafi massacres his own citizens and sets fire to his oil fields, Europe's leaders are unified in their firm conviction that the so-called "peace process" must be reinvigorated. So too, the Obama administration remains incapable of lifting a finger to prevent an Iranian proxy from taking over Bahrain or a consortium of al-Qaida terrorists from taking over Yemen. Obama refuses to take any action to help the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi. As for Iran, Obama maintains his steadfast refusal to take any action to help the Iranian people overthrow their nuclear-proliferating, terror-supporting regime. But at the same time, the president and his advisors are absolutely committed to coercing Israel to block Jews from building homes in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and ensuring that everyone is clear that Jews have no legitimate right to our capital city and historic heartland. As for the Left itself, as Ron Radosh reported in Pajamas Media this week,
attendees at J Street's annual post-Zionist confab could barely muster
polite applause for the mildly Zionist MKs from Kadima that spoke at the
conference. But they broke into raucous applause when Arab and Jewish
anti-Zionist speakers proclaimed that all progress in the region is tied to
Israel ending its so-called "occupation."
AND THIS brings us back to 1975, to the boat people in the South China Sea, the killing fields in Cambodia, and the Left that couldn't care less about them. It could be argued that the Bill Ayres, Howard Zinns and Jean Paul Sartes of the world can be forgiven for their decision to side with the Soviets and their Third World proxies against the US and the Western alliance. After all, they had nothing personal at stake. The Soviets were not threatening their freedom. And what did they owe to "unprogressive," "reactionary" people from Southeast Asia who agreed with America that Communism was evil and wished to be free? But the situation is different today. By waging its war against Israel through Palestinian proxies, the West threatens itself. The Nazi propaganda recycled by the Soviets which has enslaved the peoples of Europe and much of America's intellectual elite has not only turned them into willing participants in the new war against the Jews. It has turned them into instruments for their own destruction. By focusing their attention entirely on Israel and its imaginary crimes, the Europeans and their American admirers ignore the fact that the Islamic war against Israel is itself a proxy war for global jihad. That war, informed by the same Nazi propaganda, but refined through the prism of Islamic Jew hatred and totalitarian imperialism, does not see Israel's destruction as its ultimate aim. The jihadists, whom the West so happily ignores and whitewashes, have made it absolutely clear that destroying Israel is but the first skirmish in their great war. Their ultimate aim is the conquest of what remains of Western civilization. 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 |
|
J STREET'S LAST HURRAH?
Posted by YogiRU, March 1, 2011. |
|
This was written by Elliot Jager and it appeared in the Jewish
Idea Daily
|
|
In a little over three years, a liberal lobby calling itself "passionately and unapologetically pro-Israel" appears to have either supplanted or co-opted other likeminded groups on the Jewish Left-among them, Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, and the New Israel Fund. By any measure, this is a remarkable achievement, seemingly confirmed by the organization's just-concluded policy conference in Washington, D.C. The event drew 1,500 "pro-peace, pro-Israel" conventioneers, 500 animated college students, progressive rabbis, advocacy journalists, junketeering opposition Knesset members from Israel, and even a welcoming letter from Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima party. One need not question the good faith of the attendees, most of whom may well
have been unaware of J Street's real agenda and policy prescriptions
But what, unadorned, is J Street and what does it advocate? In reality, it
is the preeminent Jewish force committed to pushing Israel back to the 1949
armistice lines, no matter what the Palestinians do or do not do. As a
registered lobby, moreover, J Street stands apart from other Jewish groups
critical of Israel in its ability to raise money and give it away to
political candidates who share its peculiar definition of "pro-Israel."
Making no substantive demands on the Arabs, J Street blames Israel alone for
the breakdown in negotiations between Jerusalem and the Palestinian
Authority. Claiming to support Israel's right to self-defense, J Street
since its founding has opposed every measure Israel has taken to defend its
citizens. It is against the security barrier that has kept suicide bombers
at bay. It opposed military action to stop Hamas's bombardment of the Negev.
It abandoned Israel in the face of the Turkish flotilla frenzy. And it had
to be dragged kicking and screaming to embrace even mild congressional
sanctions
J Street professes to oppose the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS)
campaign against Israel. In practice, it has partnered with BDS proponents
and shown no scruples about aligning itself with the vociferously
anti-Zionist U.S. Council of Churches. Far from repudiating Judge Richard
Goldstone's lawfare
In fact, one is hard put to discern any policy differences whatsoever
between the stated positions of J Street and the Palestinian Authority or
the PLO. Both J Street and the PLO oppose any and all Jewish presence beyond
the pre-June 1967 borders; like the PLO, moreover, J Street brazenly prodded
the Obama administration not to veto the recent UN Security Council
resolution branding as illegal any Jewish presence whatsoever over the Green
Line-metropolitan Jerusalem included. Both the PLO and J Street (through its
partner, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement) want to abolish the Jewish
Agency and the Jewish National Fund. Both oppose Palestinian recognition of
Israel as a Jewish state.
These positions — they are only a representative sample — may help explain why J
Street advocates that the U.S. impose
J Street has openly relished the role of domestic enabler to the Obama
administration in the latter's pursuit of policies whose net effect has been
to harden the already intransigent positions of the Palestinian Authority.
But circumstances have changed, and there is reason to think that this
year's conference may be the group's last hurrah. Rep. Gary Ackerman
(D-N.Y.), a leading congressional dove, has acrimoniously broken with J
Street, and he is not alone among his disillusioned peers;
Taglit-Birthright, which brings young Jewish Americans to experience the
state of Israel first-hand, has rebuffed the lobby's request to co-sponsor a
trip; and even journalists sympathetic to its professed aims have registered
discomfiture at what they witnessed at the recent conference.
But it is the momentous upheaval in the Arab world, along with Iran's
ramped-up quest for the atom bomb, that may prove to be J Street's ultimate
undoing. To anyone with eyes to see, no amount of wordplay may suffice any
longer to make the case that pushing the Jewish state back to indefensible
borders is the "pro-Israel" thing to do.
Contact YogiRUs by email @yogirus@aol.com |
|
BRINGING MORE JEWS INTO THE WORLD — KOSHER STYLE
Posted by Fern Sidman, March 1, 2011. |
|
A conversation with Lea Davidson of Puah Institute |
|
"What a wonderful kiddush Hashem it is to be part of an organization that helps bring more Jewish neshomas into the world", declared Lea Davidson, executive director of Machon Puah (Puah Institute) in New York. Founded in 1990 at the behest of the late Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, ZT"L, (the former chief rabbi of Israel), Puah Institute is an Israel-based, international organization that assists Jewish couples with problems relating to infertility and serves a vital role in bridging the gap between fertility treatment and halacha (Jewish law). "Rav Eliyahu was deluged with questions pertaining to infertility and halacha and he believed that more concrete research was necessary. He then appointed Rabbi Menachem Burstein to go to the labs and to speak to medical professionals to ascertain whether infertility reproductive medicine could be reconciled with Jewish law", said Mrs. Davidson. Equipped with a background of specialization in research concerning the interface between Torah and science, Rabbi Burstein then established Puah Institute. "In any field of science there is always the possibility of human error, of mix ups, and because halacha takes the concept of verifiable lineage very seriously, the majority of orthodox rabbis have ruled that Jewish law requires an outside supervisor present to monitor the procedure and storage of the genetic material" added Mrs. Davidson. The Orthodox Jewish community has long had a cautious relationship with reproductive technology, illustrating the age-old schism that pits modern versus ancient, science versus religion. Yet, after years of contentious debate, fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are today permissible within most rabbinic circles, allowing otherwise childless couples to fulfil the Torah's chief commandment to be fruitful and multiply. An orthodox man or women must oversee all aspects of the (IVF) in vitro fertilization process, including sample washing, centrifugation, freezing and loading of pipettes. If the clinic can spare it, the lab will have a dedicated incubator or storage tanks for the Puah-supervised couples. That particular incubator, unlike those containing the reproductive material of non-supervised couples, is locked with a latch and key. The Puah supervisor is the only person with a key. An alternative is a stainless steel case with dime sized holes in it, known as a Puanite box. The material is placed inside the container, which is then locked with a plastic or metal tie embossed seal with the supervising organization's insignia and placed on one of the incubator shelves. The case can only be opened by snipping the tie. "Just like rabbis supervise the production of kosher food, we supervise the fertility process," explained Bracha Friedman, a New York-based supervisor with Puah. "It's not that we don't trust the labs, but this is the only way this process is halachically sound.". Puah's educational department works to educate medical professionals to better understand the religious lifestyle and restrictions of the Orthodox Jewish patient and to educate rabbonim in the comprehension of the medical challenges and options confronting their congregants. "I first got involved in Puah when I lived in Israel and then when I moved to New York years ago, I found that there was nothing in the way of an organization that deals with the complex nature of Jewish infertility," intoned Mrs. Davidson. She is proud to add that, "When Puah first opened its doors here in the United States we only had one supervisor and now we have 30 supervisors. Mrs. Davidson says that the supervisors are very frum, married women who are totally dedicated to the couples that they work with. "For example, last year on Purim we had two couples in two different labs and when genetic material is being feeded supervisors need to spend the whole day there. Rather than spending the day with their families, our supervisors gladly spent Purim with the couples in need," she said. Mrs. Davidson said that today, "99.9 percent of all fertility clinics in Israel have Puah sponsored supervision and the organization works with 50 cooperating labs in the United States. She adds however that not all infertile couples will have to take the in-vitro fertilization route. "One out of every six people will experience fertility problems, but 95% of these people can find alternative solutions that don't require these kind of procedures", she said. Puah assists these people in acquiring the appropriate method for each individual case. "Puah is a unique organization in that it works with all Jews from diverse backgrounds and levels of religious observance. That is what I love most about it. About 20% of those Jews who seek our help are non-religious but want to follow the halachic mandates. For our religious clientele, we don't poskin for them, but with them. If they follow a certain shita we respect that and work closely with their rabbonim. Because we are a non-political organization, every Jew is treated with the utmost of respect and that is the greatest kiddush Hashem," said Mrs. Davidson. Puah Institute also provides supervision and counseling services in Israel, Europe, Australia, South America, and Canada. With great joy, Mrs. Davidson relates the narrative of two couples who sought out the help of Puah. "Recently, we had two sets of triplets born to two couples. One couple lived on the west coast and one lived on the east coast and they were helped by the same doctor! Both sets consisted of two girls and a boy and one set was born on a Monday and the other set were born on Tuesday. It was quite miraculous." In addition to supervision and counseling, Puah also provides a veritable plethora of resources to help allay the stress that couples often endure during the fertility process. "We have instituted informative classes for the entire community and that means the imparting of knowledge to rabbonim, chosonim and kallah teachers and community rabbis and rebbetzins", said Mrs. Davidson. Puah is also licensed in the field of continuing medical education and as such, holds courses for medical professionals that assist in senstizing them to the needs of the Orthodox Jewish community. "We have been received in the most respectful manner by those in the medical field and they truly appreciate our input, and for that we are exceptionally grateful", she said. "Every year, we hold our international conference in Jerusalem that draws over 1500 people and it always takes place on the Wednesday before Parshas Shemos. We chose that time of the year, when we begin reading Sefer Shemos as representative of our namesake, Puah, who, as we know was Miriam, the sister of Moshe Rabbenu and the most loving and compassionate mid-wife", said Mrs. Davidson. Upcoming Puah events include a special musical melava malka to take place at The Shul in Bal Harbour, Florida on March 12th and their annual dinner in New York which will be held on April 5th at the Fifth Avenue Synagogue. "Most of our operating expenses are raised through fundraising events such as the selling of raffles and other charitable events", said Mrs. Davidson. Those wishing to contact the Puah Institute in New York can access their web site at www.puahonline.org or by visiting their offices at 1709 Kings Highway in Brooklyn or by calling 718-336-0603. Contact Fern Sidman by email at ariellaH@aol.com |
|
A SUDDEN SHIFT OF THE TIDE
Posted by Ari Bussel, March 1, 2011. |
|
It is often said that left on her own, Israel does not need enemies. For the past two months we have been witnessing the reverse: The Middle East, Israel aside, has insurmountable problems. Neither the so-called "Arab-Israeli Conflict" nor the "Palestinian Problem" has anything to do with the Middle East upheaval. It also became clear in Tahrir Square and later in Tripoli that the United States has much to do with what is taking place. Although it has not been shown the USA has instigated the so-called "Youth Uprising," Obama and his Administration have taken a very active role in interfering, orchestrating and directing the events toward a "New Middle East." It was a few years ago that I had a very contentious discussion with a prominent Dutch businessman. While the disagreement was about Israel and her Muslim enemies, it was a comment made he made, that I dismissed initially, that left a lasting impression. "There is a very small group of people that control what is happening in the world, and their motive is simple: power and money." Normally I would have discounted this statement to a conspiracy theory not worthy of attention. The person, though, is a very rational businessperson to whom money (and power) are paramount. He would not treat such a thought lightly, nor would he utter it offhandedly. As we look at the force with which the 2011 Tsunami is sweeping the Middle East, one is left at awe gaping at its strength: Iron clad grips of three and four decades crumble within two to three weeks, one country's regime collapses after the next, nothing seems able to stop the advancing menace. Almost like a ferocious virus to which humanity has not yet devised an antidote. Who may have introduced this virus? What is the end game? Are the specific hits targeting pipelines and refineries in Egypt and Iraq and the (current and planned) stop of flow of oil from the major producing countries incidental (i.e. designed by Al Qaeda or Iran) or part of the very plan to drive oil production to a halt, a point where the global economy will come to a stand still and collapse? I am not going to venture a guess as to the mechanisms driving the current Storm of the Century. Instead, I would offer one course of action that has been advocated for a very long period of time, and I would end with a warning to all those who refuse to accept reality. Rather than looking at designing a New Middle East, the USA should focus its resources and energy at finding an alternative to oil, one that can be implemented immediately. When a looming threat is so great and we are driven into a corner, it is then we use our ingenuity and everything good in America to come up with viable solutions. An American Administration did exactly that and brought World War II to an end. A "zero sum game" threat balance was subsequently maintained for decades with the Soviet Union until President Reagan's famous "Tear Down this Wall, Mr. Gorbachev" speech. The United States of America can undoubtedly do the impossible again, if we only possessed the impetus. President Obama, it is time for a new Manhattan Project. The warning is to President Obama too, for there are still nine months and a year left in his presidency. The Tsunami sweeping the Middle East could be your finest hour. It is now time to prepare for a shift in the tide, from calls to "Democracy" to "Death to America." Decades of hatred toward everything Western do not abate in a historical second. The Friday sermons over the loudspeakers in the mosques throughout the Middle East and on their 24 hours a day TV broadcasting cannot dissipate into nothing overnight. The sediment and hatred already exist and are ready to explode. President Obama seems to light more matches, rather than diffusing the threat, getting involved in the very actions from which we must stay distanced. His actions, slight flip-flopping style and conflicting voices speaking on behalf of America seem to indicate an immature, unprofessional approach. It is the behavior of one who has not yet mastered international diplomacy and refuses to recognize Middle Eastern culture and mentality. It is American diplomacy at its worse. The Presidential matches may not create the explosion. Something else will trigger it. But at that very moment, all the hatred — some admittedly justified — toward those decades-long rulers will turn on America and its Zionist Advance Force on the Ground, Israel. There is nothing more galvanizing in the Middle East than shared hatred of the West. Let us remember that basic fact, or we will pay a high price for our forgetfulness. Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com |
|
READER-SELECTED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, March, 2011. |
|
Jeff Jacoby in Toledo and Latest Video Clips From Truth Provider (31mar11) Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe visited Toledo today and spoke to the Jewish community on anti-Israel bias in the media. After his excellent presentation, during the Q&A segment, members of the audience mentioned these two video clips: ] Did Obama ever attend Columbia University? From (31mar11) Attention From Dov (31mar11) Losing Our Sons Trailer From Charles Jacobs (30mar11) Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT) has produced aa documentary about AbdulhakimMohamed, formerely Carlos Bledsoe, a 23 year-old Baptist-born youth who converted to radical Islam and killed a young Marine in Little Rock, Arkansas. On March 10, 2011, Carlos's father, Melvin Bledsoe testified at the House Homeland SecurityCommittee hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims. Mr. Bledsoe told the committee and the American public how his son Carlos converted to radical Islam while attending Tennessee State University in Nashville and was encouraged to go to Yemen by Islamic extremist leaders in Nashville, TN. After receiving terrorist training in Yemen, Carlos returned to the United States to terrorize a Jewish Rabbi in Nashville and murder Private William Long, an American Marine, outside an Army Recruitment Center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The mayor speaks. Would that our Rabbis would speak too. From Paul Rotenberg (30mar11) Az Yomru Ba'Goyim, we say it in Shir HaMa'alot, but did you pay attention to what you're saying? The nations of the world will see that HaShem is doing with them (us), then we will (recognize it and) be happy. 145 Passover Videos including these new ones From Jacob Richman (30mar11) Enjoy! Enjoy! Happy Passover : Good film "The Palestine Wall of Lies" From Barbara Sommer (30mar11) IRANIAN JIHAD VIDEO From Truth Provider (30mar11) Can anybody explain to me why is the world so obsessed by tiny Israel when Iran is preparing a war against the west, Israel, Saudia and the USA? Can anybody explain to me why the US and the West are wasting money and efforts on Libya and its crazy Muamar while real danger is brewing in Teheran? Beck: "I stand with Israel" From Barbara Taverna (30mar11) Brilliant Young Conservative Journalist From UK Stands for Israel. From Shoebat.com (30mar11) Douglas Murray has become a new star of the conservative movement in UK. He is proudly pro Israel and runs a think tank called The Centre for Social Cohesion. He is a righteous Gentile. Murray is a bestselling author and political commentator. He is the co-author of 'Hate on the State: How British Libraries encourage Islamic Extremism' and 'Victims of Intimidation: Freedom of Speech within Europe's Muslim Communities.' Iranian Video Says Mahdi is Near From UCI (29mar11) CBN News has obtained a never-before-seen video produced by the Iranian regime that says all the signs are moving into place — and that Iran will soon help usher in the end times. The propaganda footage has reportedly been approved at the highest levels of the Iranian government. It's called The Coming is Near and it describes current events in the Middle East as a prelude to the arrival of the mythical tweflth Imam or Mahdi — the messiah figure who Islamic scriptures say will lead the armies of Islam to victory over all non-Muslims in the last days... Rape Factor in Islam From Truth Provider (29mar11) This is last night's interview of the courageous Dr.Wafa Sultan by Bill O'Reilly. Where does Glenn Beck go when he wants information on Israel. From Jeff Dunetz (29mar11) Melanie Phillips on Israeli TV From Gabrielle Goldwater (29mar11) How the Israeli Government Allows Arab Incitement From David Bedein (28mar11) Anti-Jewish incitement is being broadcast on radio waves owned by the Israel government. Palestinian Authority textbooks that contain violence and propaganda against Israel are being funding by European governments, with the approval of the Israeli gov't. Now is the time to contact the Israeli government to complain about this serious problem. Israeli Gov't allows arab incitement. Foreclosures — A MUST SEE From Billy Mills (28mar11) Watch Arabic TV station and see why peace is impossible From Irvin Goldstein (28mar11) For any person who believes that peace is possible between Arabs/Islam and Israel, please watch this video and learn what the Muslims teach their new Generation. SICKENING...... The THree Tenors From Albet Wendroff(28mar11) IDF Humanitarian Aid Delegation Lands in Japan From Gabrielle Goldwaater (28mar11) For Israel's sake From Isaac Judah (27mar11) Obama and the Muslims From Gabrielle Goldwaater (27mar11) Libya versus Iraq From YogiRUs (27mar11) Glen Beck: Libya is a Precursor to Israel! From Sheval57 (27mar11) Human RIghts and Sexual Orientation in Islamic States From Gabrielle Goldwater (25mar11) Different concept than in Western culture Jacksonville School part of FBI Investigation for Islamic Indoctrination From Richard Swier (25mar11) "Fethullah Gulen, was dubbed 'the most dangerous Islamist on planet earth,' is now under investigation by the FBI. for his network of charter schools throughout the country. The 140-plus charter schools, according to a newly released federal document, may serve as madrassahs where students are "brain-washed" to serve as proponents of the New Islamic World Order that Gulen purportedly seeks to create. Gulen, who fled his native Turkey in 1998 upon being charged with seeking to overthrow the secular Turkish government, presently resides within a mountain fortress in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. The 7 Reasons to Support Israel. From Dave Nathan (24mar11) Moret: Japan earthquake and nuclear "accident" are tectonic nuclear warfare From David Pisanti (24mar11) Only Surviving Auschwitz Album From LS (24mar11) UNW on CNN's Backstory * Upcoming Events in Oslo, New York, Geneva, Cincinnati, Cleveland, DC, Toronto, London From Gabrielle Goldwater (24mar11) Adrianne Tolsch From Fred Reifenberg (24mar11) Tamar Fogel, the 12-year-old who discovered her murdered family in Itamar, speaks out From Justice for Jonathan Pollard (23mar11) Tamar Fogel. English subtitles. Prager University-The Middle East From Shula Kogan (22mar11) Ice Skating in Jerusalem From Jacob Richman (22mar11) From aa San Diego TV report From Barbara Sommer (21mar11) What's happening IN and TO America From Sergio Hadar (21mar11) Georgia Tech students speak up Educate yourself & your friends to understand Israel's security needs! From US4Israel (21mar11) UCLA Muslim group pledges allegiance to Allah and Jihad From YogiRUs(21mar11) For those of us who have children and grandchildren in college, this video of the Muslim Students' Association pledging allegiance, not to this country but to Allah and Islam, should be an eye-opener. Especially if one is of the typical liberal mindset that Islam is to embraced in this country as a "religion of Peace," just as we do Christianity and Judaism. Loyalty on the part of Muslim college students, the "leaders of the future," appears to be not to this country but to the primitive beliefs of Islam. They are to be considered as dangerous to this country and must be held accountable to demonstrate their total loyalties to this country first and to their religion second. No ifs, ands or buts. We should expect Muslim students, not of the Muslim Students Association beliefs, to stand up and speak out against the abominations of the MSA. Silence on their part must be understood as acceptance of their radical beliefs. UCLA Muslim group pledges allegiance to Allah and Jihad Israel in Haiti From Barbara Taverna(21mar11) A legless victim of the quake walks 495 Photos and a Video of the Purim Parade in Ma'ale Adumim From J. Richman (20mar11) Israel seizes weapons headed for Gaza From Barbara Sommer (20mar11) Netanyahu impresses in 1978 From IsraPundit (20mar11) The young Netanyahu debates whether there should be a Palestinian state created on the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu argues that such a state would have but one goal: to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. Channel 2 TV interview with Tamar Fogel From Justice for Jonathan Pollarrd (20mar11) Tamar Fogel first speaks of the ideals that her parents, Ruth and Udi Fogel HY"D lived and died for. She speaks of the strength of Am Yisrael that lies in its unity. Tamar says her parents believed that there is room for all kinds of Jewish expression, but the main thing is that all Jews must be united — that there should not be strife between brothers, nor should brothers lift a hand to each other — only unity! Fogel, we are told, does not talk about herself or about the tragedy that struck her family, left her and 2 brothers orphans, their parents and 3 siblings brutally slaughtered, and their home turned into a devastated terrorist attack site. She does tell the interviewer about the cuddly bear she received from Jonathan Pollard who sent bears to her and her siblings via his wife Esther during a shiva call. Esther Pollard told Tamar that these may look like bears, but they are really hugs that Jonathan is sending to you. Fogel introduces each of the 3 bears to the interviewer and explains which one belongs to each of the siblings and how you can tell them apart by the different bows they are wearing. IIn every interview that Fogel does, this one included, she makes a principled call for Jonathan's release. (Amazing!) She later goes on to speak about the promises made by senior Israeli politicians, including the prime minister, who indicated to her that the response to her parents 'and siblings murderers would be to build and settle the Land. Tamar makes short shrift of all of these fine promises when she points out that the reality is that the government of Israel is far more involved with destroying and evacuating Jewish settlements than with building them. The balance of the video deals with the funeral and shiva for the 5 Fogel family members who were brutally slaughtered by Palestinian terrorists. Although the video is in Hebrew any one who has read this introduction will follow it, and will certainly be amazed by the poise and grace of this lovely young lady who speaks from the heart, cogently and compellingly, in the midst of the most unspeakable grief. 12-year old Tamar Fogel (Hebrew) Videos From One Jerusalem (20mar11) Netanyahu visits Fogel Family Mourners China interrupts UN testimony of ex-political prisoner; USA defends Yang Jianli From UN Watch (19mar11) China tries to silence former political prisoner Obama's friends and enemies From Truth Provider (18mar11) Netanyahu Interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN From Truth Provider (18mar11) A first rate lesson in truth, logic and sanity against bias, stupidity and blindness of such as Tom Friedman and David Remnick interviewd by Morgan the night before. segment on peace with Palestinian Arabs. Leftist LEADERS co-operate with Muslim organizations & biased media to boycott Israel From Wmani (17mar11) Leftists in the forefront of economic attacks on Israel Delusion or Lies? That is for you decide From Gabrielle Goldwater (17mar11) On a Recent visit of President Obama to Indonesia and his speech. Not a word about persecution of Christians, just the usual pandering. . . How will liberal women fare under sharia law? From Gabrielle Goldwater (17mar11) The True face of Terror From Avodah (16mar11) This is on the culture of death in the Arab and much of the Muslim world. The more people who really understand what is happening in the world of radical Islam, the better we will be able to persuade our government to respond in an appropriate manner and end the worn our and self-destructive foreign policy strategy that has been the policy of the United States for the last fifty years. Beck called them Israelis not settlers From Fred Reifenberg (16mar11) Victoria Weaponry Photos From Gabrielle Goldwater (16mar11) Photos of the weaponry from the Victoria, and of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inspecting the weaponry, may now be viewed at Israel submits complaint to UN on terror attack in Itamar From Gabrielle Goldwater (16mar11) Itamar Massacre From Emanuel Winston (15mar11) What Tamar found when she came home. Boarding of the Victoria From Gabrielle Goldwater (15mar11) Boarding of ship carrying weaponry to terrorists Orphaned Fogel child lashes out at Obama's America From US4Israel (15mar11) Can the Israeli orphan's sentiments be dismissed? President Obama has made settlement-bashing — not barbaric terrorism — the linch-pin of his foreign policy and his secretary of state only recently branded the entire community of 300,000 Judean/Samarian Jews, one of the largest Jewish communities in the world outside of the USA and sovereign Israel, as "illegitimate" 12-year old Tamar Fogel from Itamar, Israel. Nazis and Arabs — killing Jews From Jack Golbert (15mar11) Notice, as they show the Nazi footage of the tormented, and tortured Jews and the trenches full of emaciated corpses, how openly filled with envy the Arabs are of the Germans who had the honor and privilege and joy of perpetrating the Holocaust. The Nazis had to give Germans a chance to believe it was not happening, that what they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears was not happening; that it was "only" Theresienstadt; what they heard from their own sons at the front was not true.. Not so, the Arabs. They have no problem with it. They openly and without embarrassment wish for the chance to do the same. One enthusiastically blurts out the wish that "next time it will be the Believers [meaning the Muslims] who will do this to the Jews. They would parade it before their people and pass out candy in the streets like they did on 9/11 and every time a terrorist atrocity against Israelis is successful. No need to hide it from ordinary Arabs. And they are the ones who solemnly proclaim that we are "worse than the Nazis. "The leaders and the media know. When they say "tear down the Apartheid wall," they mean "how dare you make it more difficult to kill you?" And when they demand that roadblocks be removed "to enable the Palestinians to go about their normal lives," they know that the "normal lives" of the "Palestinians" includes the mass murder of Jews and that what they demand is that the Jews acquiesce and assist in their own murder. "They know that the "peace" process is about the dismemberment, demoralization and demise of Israel. That is why they can turn around after every atrocity and urge Israel to be more forthcoming for "peace." When they pressure Israel to "take bold initiatives" to advance the "peace process" what they are demanding is that Israel walk into the gas chambers willingly and even enthusiastically. It is not shown on the "Roadmap" but the road ends at New Auschwitz. "Peace process" is today's exact equivalent of "Arbeit macht frei" and they would have us believe that what we see beyond the elegant wrought iron gate with the words "Peace Process" is just showers. Anyone who supports the Arab position is either a useful idiot or a genocidal Jew-hater, a Nazi, in short. Anyone." Nazis and Arabs — natural allies US to rebuild mosques overseas From Gabrielle Goldwater (15mar11) Natalie Portman donates $50 million to Hadassah Hospital From Albert Wendroff (14mar11) Muslims taking over Europe From Gabrielle Goldwater (14mar11) Massacre in Israel From Eric Phillips (14mar11) Friday night two Palestinians slew an entire Israeli family in their house while they were sleeping: Rabbi Udi Fogel (36), his wife Ruth (34), 11-year-old Yoav, four-year-old Elad and three-month-old Hada. Only 74 Miles of Pipeline needed !!! From Wake Up America (13mar11) Rep Don Young on Producing American Energy
From Alex Grobman (13mar11) New trends in Arab AntiSemitism Apartheid Again From We are for Israel (13mar11) At a time when there are growing attempts to delegitimize Israel and portray us as an apartheid state, take a look at this material. Palestine 101; Fogel Family Massacre, 11mar11 From Eshel, Gadi (13mar11) Netanyahu at Fogel Family Shiva From Nurit Greenger (13mar11) Every kid in Israel already knows the Israeli government is scared of Obama! Shame on Bibi and his government! Shlomo Carlbach From Myriam David Pollack-Daniels (13mar11) On Anti-Semitism From Phyllis Chesler (13mar11) Massive Solar Flare From Fred Reifenberg (12mar11) Sderot Media From Evelyn Hayes (11mar11) CUT THE SPENDING From John D. Trudel (11mar11) America is bankrupt. See the official numbers from Washington. If we don't act aggressively now, Greece is our future. Cut EPA, FCC, NPR, PBS, ACORN, AmeriCorps, Teleprompters.. How to cut? Use this link. Chaos in State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin From Ryan J. Gill (10mar11) Union mobs organized by Barack Obama's "Organizing for America" and MoveOn.org stormed into the Capitol, knocking down police officers, and vandalizing the Capitol. Union mobs vandalize the Capitol. The Jews of Calabria Italy....Fascinating From Fred Reifenberg (9mar11) Many of the Italians living in Calabria (Southern Italy) have Jewish roots going back to the Inquisition. JUDEA & SAMARIA — PRESENTING THE TRUE SIDE OF THE STORY From Truth Provider (9mar11) It is almost a universal convention that handing over Judea & Samaria to the "Palestinians" and evicting over 300,000 Jewish people from their homes, villages and towns in J&S will once and for all resolve the Israeli "Palestinian" conflict. On world and even on Israeli media this false assumption is uttered daily and incessantly using all king of erroneous data and libelous information. Listen to the facts. Arabs and Germans From Wake Up America (8mar11) Now we can look around the Arab World and see that the Nazi Spirit is very much alive today in the Islamic Arabs around the world. Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, South Yemen and the United Arab Republic — they all have taken up the emblem of the Nazis. Nazi Spirit in Arab World p>Pale Horse Rider Start at 6:16 for short summary. NPRer caught making bigoted comments about jews/conservatives From Barbara Sommer (8mar11) Subject: Fw: NPR Executives Caught on Video Making Bigoted Comments About Jewsand Conservatives in Meeting with "Muslim Brotherhood" A sting operation with Project Veritas people pretending to be Muslim Brotherhood agents and NPR executivess spouted hate. NPR executive on Jews and Conservatives New video from Ohr Ganuz From Tsila (8mar11) Qaddafi rep panics and cuts off torture victim testimony From Hillel Neuer, UN Watch (8mar11) "For more than a decade, Al-Hajjaji whitewashed the crimes of the Qaddafi regime as its representative to UN human rights bodies in Geneva." 17 Al-Hajjaji, Apr 2009 UN session Apartheid State? Israel? From Truth Provider (7mar11) Pro-Israel J Street on tape From MrLa26 (7mar11) Pat Condell From Susana K-M (7mar11) Pat Condell: Bedbugs etc at UN Obama seeks to correct mistake of establishing Israel From Jack Golbert (7mar11) This interview was more than a year and a half ago. Nothing has happened since that is inconsistent with Dr. Rubenstein's thesis. On the contrary, everything Obama has done since has been entirely consistent with it. Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, author of "Jihad and Genocide", Harvard Phd, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", states that president Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel ." Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim - to the point of wanting to see the destruction of Israel and the Western world. BRING ON THE ELECTRICAL CARS AND LET GO OF OIL DEPENDENCY! From (6mar11) Alex Jones Interviews Lindsey Williams BRING ON THE ELECTRICAL CARS AND LET GO OF OIL DEPENDENCY! From (6mar11) Alex Jones Interviews Lindsey Williams http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNC0V8l7OLk&feature=player_embedded Lindsey Williams Sarah Palin gets better and better From IsraPundit (5mar11) Judge Jeanine interviews Sarah Palin On the Muslim Brotherhood From Susana K-M (5mar11) Blood Brothers" — Who Is the Muslim Brotherhood Al-Qaeda and the Middle East Protests From One Jerusalem (5mar11) Al-Qaeda and Middle East protests The charm of daily life in France on a bus From Boris Celser (4mar11) Translation: Oh Allah, turn their children into orphans... Amen
Muslims chanting on French Bus UN Watch Asks Rights Chief: "Why Were You Silent on Qaddafi's Crimes? From UN Watch (4mar11) Recent UFO Spotting Over Temple Mount From Avodah (3mar11) Hillary Funds Islamics with millions of our tax dollars From John D. Trudel (2mar11) Millions going to Islamics who hate us at a time we're broke. Libya OR the Fakestinisans. Whose Rally Was it? From Barbara Sommer (2mar11) Times Square Rally for Libya. 26Feb11 Crank up the sound, Go full screen, & Get ready to worship. From Wake Up Americans (2mar11)
Wake Up Mosque Makeovers with Your Tax Dollars From YHogiRUs(1mar11) We are paying to refurbish Mosques. Brazil's new president on nationalTV (cooking program) making an omelet From Boris Celser (1mar11) All about food, diet, economics. 3rd Grade Song. You'll Love It. From Billy Mills (1mar11) Awesome. I hope this sweeps our country and gets sung in all our schools. The music teacher wrote the song and had all the third graders sing. Enjoy — great message. Who Was in Palestine First? From UCI (1mar11)
|
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |