| HOME | Featured Stories | November 2009 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: MOUNT AVISHAI
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 30, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Another foray into the desert this week with a peek at Mt. Avishai, which, at 235 meters above sea level, soars above the Arugot Canyon in the Ein Gedi Reserve. Standing on the canyon floor, at an elevation of 400 meters below sea level, one does have the feeling of looking up at a substantial peak, whose shape, curiously, resembles that of Mt. Everest! No snow or ice here, but plenty of water flowing from the canyon's chief attraction, Hidden Falls, where I had an opportunity to lead a workshop last month. This shot was taken as we left the falls and began our return ascent to the main trail. In the waning afternoon hours, the canyon is well shaded while the highlands take a direct hit from the sun, complicating efforts to get a good photo, but also providing an excellent opportunity for instruction. A photographer facing this kind of high contrast lighting really has
no choice but to expose the shot for the mountain peak and attempt to
build additional form into the composition using the surrounding
shadows. The nearly-solid, black canyon walls provide a useful frame
while the feathery tree in the lower half of the image is delicate
enough so that the eye easily moves past it to find the main subject.
Because the sky is cloudless, I included a piece of overhanging branch
to complete the frame. I've also stood on top of Mt. Avishai, and
while the view is spectacular, you can't see a mountain while you're
standing on it.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
HOW TO END TERRORIST KIDNAPPINGS
Posted by Truth Provider, November 30, 2009. | |
|
Dear friends, As you no doubt heard, PM Netanyahu's government is about to release hundreds of terrorists in Israeli prison in exchange for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas terrorist organization more than three years ago. This is not the first time Israel releases huge number of terrorists, some arch-murderers, for a single Israeli soul, or even for the bodies of dead Israeli soldiers. Every time Israel does this, the appetite of Arab terrorists grows and it is just a matter of time before the next kidnapping occurs. Remember, Hamas is holding Gilad Shalit somewhere in the Gaza Strip which is under their control. Where is Gaza getting electricity, water and other supplies from? You guessed correctly, from Israel. Here below is an article with good advice how to stop this charade once
and for all. It is from FresnoZionism.org
One can only wonder why successive Israeli governments did not choose to adopt this simple, logical solution. Your Truth Provider,
| |
|
Unfortunately, Israel has close to zero leverage. Hamas has held Shalit for three years and can keep him for as long as it likes. The Netanyahu government is under tremendous pressure from the media and others to get Shalit out no matter how much it costs. Although I'm sure the families of the terrorists would like them released, Hamas can afford to be far less responsive to its public than Israel! And of course the conditions under which Palestinian prisoners are held in Israel are far better than those faced by Shalit. So my guess is that if the exchange actually takes place, the price will be whatever Hamas is asking. Some of the freed terrorists will undoubtedly go on to kill Israelis. Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that there should be no negotiations with kidnappers, but that the policy couldn't be changed while Shalit was in captivity. This is nonsense, since tomorrow they will capture another Israeli soldier or civilian. Here's my program to end this:
To rescue Shalit, immediately cut off all supplies, water and electricity to Gaza until he is released. This isn't 'collective punishment' because all Hamas has to do to end it is to free Shalit, whom they are holding in contravention of (real) international law. If they hurt him, see no. 3 above. Just do it — anyone who objects will have to argue that Hamas is
justified in holding Shalit. Even the Norwegians can't say that.
To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to
ynz@netvision.net.il
|
|
JNF DONATES 3,000 TREES TO PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. RAMALLAH EXPANDS WITH UJC AND JNF MONEY
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva
|
|
(IsraelNN.com) A member of the board of the Jewish National Fund said "the system has gone haywire" after hearing reports that the venerable Zionist organization is donating 3,000 trees to the Palestinian Authority for a new city near Ramallah. Maaleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel, who also is a member of the JNF board, told Arutz 7 Monday morning he will bring up the issue with the JNF, which is considered a symbol of Zionism, particularly in the Diaspora where Jews have donated billions of dollars for planting trees and building the modern Jewish State. Kashriel said the contribution to the PA is a grave step that was taken without any request for approval and without advance notice and reflects a "system that has gone haywire." The mayor of Maaleh Adumim, which along with the rest of Judea and Samaria has been slapped with a freeze on new construction with the threat of arrest for breaking the ban, said, "The country has gone crazy when it plants trees for the PA in Judea and Samaria at the same time that it forbids Jews to build. The system does not know who it is representing — us, the Palestinian Authority or the Americans?" Concerning the government's building freeze policy, Mayor Kashriel said he is "ashamed" of the government's move, which he said are more drastic than those taken during the years of negotiations under the Oslo Accords that blew up into the Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War, nine years ago. "As chairman of the local Likud faction, I am ashamed seven times over," he said. "Even during Oslo we did not receive letters that remove our authority and turn us into criminals." He also echoed sentiments of other leaders in Judea and Samaria to continue building despite the orders to halt new construction. Kashriel said regional leaders will appeal to the High Court to overturn the building freeze, which he said violates the rights of residents of Judea and Samaria. He also has proposed that regional leaders stage a strike opposite the offices of Prime Minister Netanyahu. 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 |
|
FROM THE HOLOCAUST TO THE COPTS
Posted by Morris Sadek, November 30, 2009. |
|
The Holocaust was the state-sponsored discrimination, harassment and eventual liquidation of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its Allies from 1933 to1945. The Nazis termed this well-organized murderous policy as 'The Final Solution'. Persecution of Jews The persecution of the Jews began in 1933. They had to wear yellow stars to mark them out from the rest of the populace and they were prohibited from participating in public life. They couldn't own businesses, ride on public transport, attend German schools and universities, rent apartments from Germans, marry non-Jews and so on. Public signs were put up saying 'Jews Not Allowed'. Life grew increasingly difficult and a few Jews managed to get out of Europe while it was still possible; for most of those that remained, death was the only way out. Out of the nine million Jews from 21 European countries, close to 6 million were killed in the Holocaust. In the 1930s, the Nazis began to euthanize mentally and physically disabled Germans and Austrians. Over 5000 children were killed with lethal injections. Their parents had no say in the matter — they had to acquiesce or get arrested and thrown into prison.
After World War II started in 1939, the Nazis began ordering Jews to wear a yellow Star on their clothing so that Jews could be easily recognized and targeted. Ghettos After the beginning of World War II, Nazis began ordering all Jews to live within certain, very specific, areas of big cities, called ghettos.
Concentration and Extermination Camps
Holocaust to Copts Christians in Egypt, are exposed to holocaust by the Muslim Arabs who occupied our country, Egypt, for 1400 years and since that date, they have killed many Copts and continue in the kidnapping of Christian girls and have not approved the building of churches, but attack churches and burned them. We live in this persecution. The 21st century, security and equality for Christians in Egypt is still a dream What kinds of discrimination face Copts living in Egypt?
Red Priest Sawiris Copts do not feel secure in their own country Egypt! Condemn the Archbishop Salib Matta Sawiris "President of the International Peace Center for Human Rights in Egypt" and the heinous attacks carried out by a large group of Muslims to the Copts (Christians) in Forshat city of Qena, "south of the capital Cairo, Egypt," which resulted in the destruction of homes, cars and shops and pharmacies in the village owned by Christians, Christians of the two villages and the deportation of two of the city, namely "Red Mound Manor Alcdev" which Talthma sectarian violence. He added that the Christians in Egypt do not feel secure and protected by the failure of the Egyptian security apparatus to prosecute the aggressors on Christians in sectarian violence, which increased in intensity strongly in these days, and said that the Egyptian security should be based, in turn fully Egyptian Christians to feel safe in their homeland. Sawiris also criticized the failure of the Egyptian government and local authorities in solving the problems of Christians in Egypt. He said: "Christians are Egyptian citizens and the State must preserve their dignity in their homeland, and should not be punished because of all the Copts isolated incident on one end of the Muslims, demanding the enforcement of the prestige of the law to everyone." The work of sectarian violence and to the extent of aggression broke out Saturday in the city Forshat in the Qena Governorate because of the rumors about a young Christian raping a Muslim woman. Bishop Cyril, "the Bishop of Nag Hammadi" has said in statements published by Coptic sites, that the dean of Al-Azhar is the instigator of the violence that occurred against the Copts. My opinion is if the discrimination continues and the Coptic community loses all types of protection from the Egyptian government and the global community, it will cause individuals to leave the country. In addition to leaving, there will be a lot of violence against Copts; so many people will become victims. These two factors will cause the future to fade away for the Coptic community in Egypt. Morris Sadek is President of the National American Coptic Assembly.
Contact him at morrissadek@ymail.com
This appeared yesterday in Bikya Masr
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHEN I STOP LAUGHING
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 30, 2009. |
|
Sometimes I have a choice: either I laugh, or I weep. And, as my friends know, while it's not always possible (I cannot laugh about a nuclear Iran), I do try to choose the former. Without laughter, I'd lose it completely in this insane world. That said... I look at a piece by Barry Rubin. The settlement freeze, he tells us, has improved US-Israel relations. No surprise there, and nothing funny either. This, clearly, is what Netanyahu was about with that freeze: attempting to make the US administration happy, or at least less discontent. The freeze will have no effect, however, Rubin advises us: "On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab states will complain that it isn't enough and that they have more demands." Then, says Rubin, whom I respect as a frequently savvy, "tell-it-like-it-is" observer of the political scene, "In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it." That's when I started laughing. For, rather than feeling appreciation and recalling that he let us down, Obama has already tightened the screws. Hope? We can expect nothing from him, and any expectation that it is otherwise will turn out to be, well, laughable. ~~~~~~~~~~ Consider this report from today's Haaretz, which is right in line with what I wrote about yesterday. Israel is now announcing that the number of prisoners to be released to Hamas, if there is a trade for Shalit finalized, will be 980, released in two stages (if this progresses, I'll follow with details). However, this does not account for "the hundreds of prisoners Israel is likely to release in a bid to furbish the image of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas." The release would be done at the behest of the American president, if reports are correct. Some gratitude. At the end of the day, we may see close to 2,000 prisoners released. This is cause for weeping and wailing. ~~~~~~~~~~ In passing I would like to mention one other possible motivation for Netanyahu to have decided on that freeze. I doubt that this was the major factor, but a factor it indeed may have been: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is head of the Labor party, has been having trouble within his party with dissidents who are threatening to split. They had been sorely discontented with the leader of their left-wing party holding a major position in a centrist/right government. Then, lo and behold! the centrist/right prime minister out-does leftist prime ministers with his offer to freeze building in Judea and Samaria. Yesterday, Barak told his party's executive committee that he was responsible for the decision to freeze building. See? he declared to the rebels, there is good and solid reason for us to be in this government. And at least some of the rebels are listening. All of this plays to the stability of Netanyahu's coalition. What is unsettling is one comment that Barak made, which has the absolute ring of truth. "Everyone should close their eyes and ask themselves who would be in the government without us. [National Union MKs Ya'akov] Katz,Uri Ariel and [Michael] Ben Ari. Would a narrow right-wing government have frozen settlements and could it have begun a diplomatic process?" Well, never mind that there is no diplomatic process because the PA doesn't want one. Barak's point is clear. And we are left to ponder precisely what Netanyahu had in mind when he chose Labor as a coalition partner over National Union. ~~~~~~~~~~ I spoke today with the Chief of Staff for MK Danny Danon, who says that Netanyahu can make declarations as he wishes about not honoring requests to hold a debate about the freeze in the Likud Central Committee, but the law is not with him. Danon has collected the necessary 500 signatures on the required petition and expects to gather some 200 additional signatures. I will be following with more on this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Iran. It is behaving as obstinately and non-cooperatively as possible, which is stiffening backs somewhat. The latest ominous announcement is that there will be another 10 uranium enrichment plants developed. The decision to do this was made, it seems, as an act of deliberate defiance. According to the Washington Post: "Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi told state radio that Iran needed to give a strong response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution Friday demanding that Iran halt...construction of its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility and end all other enrichment activities." But stiffened backs is not enough. What is needed is international outrage of such proportions that actions are actually taken. And somehow, that point is never quite reached. For example, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday: "If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself....Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program." Time is running out??? It ran out a long time ago. But the Washington Post also cited "a senior official" as saying: "Iran will face a 'package of consequences' if it does not soon become a 'willing partner' in talks on its nuclear ambitions. " That allusion to Iran as a willing partner is worth at least a chuckle. If anything, Iran would be dragged kicking and screaming, but even that is not going to happen. ~~~~~~~~~~ And yet, and yet, we do seem to be at a turning point that will lead to actions against Iran. They better be taken mighty fast, and they had better be serious. The Wall Street Journal reports that discussions with regard to sanctions are focusing on specific areas that could be targeted: Iranian banks, shipping companies, insurance firms and energy assets. "U.S. officials said they have also focused on the assets of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard." Iran is vulnerable and serious sanctions could have the desired effect. The Iranians are defiant now, but may face the point at which they must cave or collapse. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see this extremely important piece by Fouad Adjami in the Wall Street Journal, "The Arabs have stopped applauding." "'He talks too much,' a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory. ~~~~~~~~~~ Switzerland has passed a law that forbids the building of new minarets — the towers on mosques from which the call to prayer is done. Daniel Pipes sees this as a possible turning point. "The constitutional amendment does not ban mosques, it does not pull down the country's four existing minarets, nor does touch the practice of Islam in Switzerland... Commentator Robin Shepherd agrees: "It looks as though a backlash against Islam in Europe by nationalist forces energized by the failures of multiculturalist orthodoxies is now really starting to take hold. There's more of this to come. You can rely on it." Let us pray that Europe will respond now, at the 11th hour, before it is too late. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
DRUZE IN THE IDF; INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AIMS AT U.S.;
IAEA CONDEMNS IRAN; NETANYAHU WEAKENED ISRAEL FOR WHAT?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2009. |
|
DRUZE IN THE IDF 
A higher percentage of Israeli Druze serve in the IDF than of Israelis. The figures are 83% and 72%, respectively. Druze are serving in increasingly more responsible positions, as pilots and doctors. They win many commendations (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). P.A. ON NOT HALTING CONSTRUCTION IN EASTERN JERUSALEM "Israel wants to make a distinction between Jerusalem and the West Bank. There cannot be a distinction," the [Palestinian Arab] official said, adding that the PLO believes accepting such a proposal would amount to surrendering Jerusalem." (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). He did not put it as "East Jerusalem." By that logic, extending the freeze to eastern Jerusalem would amount to Israel's surrendering Jerusalem. Now we see the importance of the freeze to the Arabs. It lends some legitimacy to their demands. Obama's demand for a total freeze on Jewish building not only was discriminatory ethnically, it was prejudicial politically. Otherwise, why Obama asked for a freeze of construction by Israelis, but not by Arabs? JIHADISTS IN NY CRIMINAL COURT Thomas Wilner, counsel to Guantanamo detainees, approves of the decision to try the 9/11 jihadists in a civilian New York court. He thinks that terrorists intimidated us into abandoning our rule of law, in dealing with them. To him, the coming trials show we are stronger than that. Concluded trials had a very high rate of conviction, not of coddling. Nor were citizens attacked over them. He prefers civilian trials, because the murder of civilians is not an act of war but of a criminal. He contends that the laws of war allow us to detain combatants until war-end. Calling them combatants gives them undeserved status as prisoners of war. "They were never intended to authorize the detention of people for terrorist activities far from the battlefield." Security has not been compromised, he states, because courts use pseudonyms, paraphrasing, summaries, etc... (Wall St. J., 11/27, A19). The blind sheikh's attorney compromised security, as an earlier piece stated. Terrorists did not intimidate the U.S., the U.S. had not figured out how to deal with them. I think that Mr. Wilner has an obsolete concept about modern war. Radical Islam is a loose confederation of fanatics at war with civilization, carrying the fight directly to civilization and its cities, thereby conducting it by means that violate the rules of war. Therefore, we are not bound to treat them by the rules of war and consider them POWs. We are entitled to treat them equivalent to pirates. Therefore we could detain them indefinitely, and there is no end of the "war" with Radical Islam. Can Wilner guarantee that terrorists will not attack us during trials in New York, merely because they did not do so before? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy keeps changing tactics. As for coddling, Wilner considers it a finding of not guilty. I would include how they are treated, and civilian courts treat them much better than do military courts. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AIMS AT U.S. Pres. Bush rejected subordinating the U.S. to International Criminal Court (ICC). He wanted to avoid its possibly treating the U.S. unfairly. Sec. of State Clinton regrets not joining it. Chief ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo already claims some jurisdiction, because U.S. troops fought in Afghanistan, which did ratify the Rome Statute that founded the ICC. He is investigating NATO and U.S. conduct there, but is coy about saying so, falling back on generalizations that could include them. At first, he confirmed what the ICC website explains, that the ICC was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serous crimes of concern to the international community." Any war crimes by NATO and the U.S. would pale by comparison with the mass-murders in Sudan and Congo. If the ICC diverts scarce resources to minor problems, it may let major crimes elude justice. Mr. Ocampo, however, believes in investigating the worse crimes in each arena. He does not want Muslim states to claim he has a double standard. In other words, he is expanding ICC effort beyond its purpose and because of invalid criticism. He boasted that NATO trainers advise troops that if they transgress, they are subject to arrest and trial by ICC (Daniel Schwammenthal, Wall St. J., 11/27, Op.-Ed.). Mr. Schwammenthal objects to U.S. troops falling under foreign jurisdiction. He does not state why. He does not attribute his objection to wanting to rely upon the U.S. constitution. He does not assert that the U.S. has high judicial standards, though it has taken time for the U.S. to adopt them to the new kind of warfare undertaken by international jihad. He does acknowledge that so far, Mr. Ocampo has done exemplary work. He does not attribute his objection to foreign public opinion turning increasingly and non-objectively against the U.S.. He does not deny objecting to U.S. being held to account. IAEA CONDEMNS IRAN 
Israel applauds the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) finding, a new approach for it, that Iran has violated IAEA and Security Council Resolutions, secretly was building an enrichment facility in Qom, also in violation of IAEA safeguards, and must halt construction immediately. Israel warns, however, that the IAEA and UN must be prepared to impose binding schedules for implementation of the finding's resolution and penalties that should have the desired effect. Otherwise, what's the point? ((www.imra.org.il, 11/28).
ARAB REFUGEES IN LEBANON 
Lebanon did not grant Arab refugees from the war against Israeli independence citizenship or even residency permits. Their descendants still need permission to pass checkpoints and go out of the original refugee camps. Lebanon partly may have been concerned over the delicate population balance between Muslim and Christian populations (www.imra.org.il, 11/28 from Maan News). Why no outcry against those checkpoints, only against the ones in Judea-Samaria? However, later, the PLO oppressed southern Lebanon. NETANYAHU WEAKENED ISRAEL TO PLEASE OBAMA, THE ARABS, AND UN 
PM Netanyahu weakened Israel, recently, but Pres. Obama may demand more. To appease Obama, Netanyahu imposed a new building freeze on Jews in Judea-Samaria. To appease the anti-Zionist UN, Netanyahu agreed to a measure that would strengthen Hizbullah. Again to appease Obama, Netanyahu appears ready to release a thousand convicted terrorist in exchange for one Israeli. Netanyahu suggests that the freeze was to balance the benefit to Hamas from the terrorist release with the building freeze of benefit to Fatah. Both measures, however, injure Israel. Fatah claims the freeze does not benefit it. (Nothing strengthens Fatah. Bigger question: why should Israel strengthen an enemy?] When Netanyahu was in the opposition, he demanded that Olmert not agree to a lopsided prisoner exchange. Now in preparing it, Netanyahu let Hamas leaders and their kidnapping appear legitimate. Strengthening Hizbullah? Ghajar, controlled by Israel, straddles the Lebanon-Israel border. The UN and U.S. have been demanding that Israel evacuate from the northern half. They know that as soon as Israel does, "it will again become a smuggling capital for drugs, terrorists, Hizbullah spies and ordnance." Appeasement is counter-productive. Reports indicate that Obama is demanding that Israel allow U.S.-trained Palestinian Authority (P.A.) troops to deploy in areas of Judea-Samaria under Israeli military control. Obama is demanding that Israel let Fatah control land in the Jordan Valley, critical for Israeli security from invasion [as part of a natural tank barrier]. Those may be U.S. preconditions for starting negotiations. Yediot Aharonot has the impression that during negotiations, Obama will demand that Israel include part of Jerusalem in an Arab state and ethnically cleanse that part and Judea-Samaria of Jews [and not Israel of Arabs]. To relieve immediate U.S. pressure, Netanyahu started down the wrong path. He should not have left the question of where Jews may live up to foreign powers. He had better rescind that concession. He made it for nothing, for immediately, the P.A. called it worth nothing. Why should the P.A. be impressed by it, when it knows the U.S. will demand more for it? [As part of its diplomacy, it criticizes the U.S. for not already insisting on more. It probably encourages further demands.] Indeed, when Israel announced the freeze, Sen. Mitchell professed to be unmoved by it (www.imra.org.il, 11/28 from Caroline Glick). Netanyahu talks differently, but acts as if his job were to bring
down Israel, at Obama's behest. Obama acts as if his job were to bring
down the U.S., too, one way by overloading its economy with debt and
taxes and stifling business.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
GLASS REFLECTIONS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 30, 2009. |
To Go To Top |
|
NEVE GORDON TURNS HIS OWN HOME INTO A SPA FOR CONVICTED TERRORIST
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Paul Shindman and appeared today in
Front Page Magazine
Paul Shindman is a veteran freelance journalist in Israel who has worked with several North American media outlets and the BBC. He is the former Jerusalem bureau chief for United Press International. |
|
Jerusalem — Dr. Neve Gordon of Israel's Ben Gurion University is known as one of the most radical academic Palestinian sympathizers. However, his activities appear to have peaked this year with a call for an anti-Israel boycott, and revelations that he hosted a convicted Palestinian sentenced to house arrest. Despite being the chairman of the political science department at Israel's Ben Gurion University, Gordon wrote an L.A. Times op-ed calling for a worldwide boycott of Israel, including Israeli universities, to achieve what he calls "ending our apartheid." Gordon's call was widely seen as an anti-democratic attempt to undermine Israeli democracy and sovereignty and drew scathing criticism from his peers in both the academic and activist communities. The president of BGU, Rivka Carmi, went so far as to say Gordon's call meant the university " is being threatened by the egregious remarks of one person, under the guise of academic freedom." In a rebuttal editorial, Carmi had to point out that it was only Israeli labor law that prevented the university from firing Gordon. In a harsh assessment, she said his boycott call meant "Gordon has forfeited his ability to work effectively within the academic setting, with his colleagues in Israel and around the world." Veteran Israeli left wing anti-Zionist activist Uri Avnery was with Gordon and other Israeli extremists when they barricaded themselves in Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound during a prolonged siege by the Israeli army in 2002. Despite their common background, even Avnery rejected Gordon's op-ed, saying it was an "example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy." This was harsh criticism from a political colleague that raised questions about Gordon's professional abilities as an academic. Gordon is viewed in his own country as notorious for his venomous anti-Israel writings and statements. The Israeli media reported when Gordon and other activists illegally entered Ramallah in 2002 to serve as human shields inside Yasser Arafat's headquarters. They wanted to prevent the Israeli army from arresting the suspects wanted for the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister. Gordon was shown in newspaper photos embracing Arafat. The terrorists were eventually apprehended, tried and convicted. Gordon also has a fractious track record in his teaching career with numerous run-ins with students who hold opposing views. Gordon regularly denounces Israel as a fascist apartheid entity and admitted that his boycott call was a tactic to force Israeli concessions with the Palestinians. Gordon's articles are so openly anti-Israel that they are often published on neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial web sites. Around the same time as the boycott call, Gordon turned his own home into a refuge for convicted Fatah organizer Mohammed Abu Humus, a resident of the Issawiya neighborhood of East Jerusalem. As a local Fatah organizer, Abu Hums had previous convictions for several security related offenses including arson and assault. Despite the latest conviction for directing demonstrators to throw rocks, Gordon described Abu Humus as a "political prisoner" and "a Fatah leader." A Jerusalem district judge earlier this year convicted Abu Humus and handed down a nine-month sentence, converted to house arrest. Gordon organized a group of far-left academics to testify on behalf of Abu Humus, and Gordon offered the court to host Abu Humus in Gordon's own home in Beersheva for the duration of the house arrest. It is evidently the only case on record of a Palestinian terrorist being released to house arrest in the home of a Jewish Israeli citizen. Abu Humus and Gordon have collaborated in the past in an organization called Ta'ayush, which Gordon himself is on record as describing as a seditious group, but according to its website its activities appear to have petered out in 2007. Abu Humus provided an interesting complement to Gordon's position. Interviewed at his office in the Alternative Information Center, a pro-Palestinian lobby group in Jerusalem, Abu Humus stated that archeological excavations in the Old City prove that despite Jews worshipping at the remaining wall of the ancient Jewish temple, the Jews had no claim to Jerusalem. After years of archeological digging, he insisted no evidence of the Jewish temple exists. "Have they found anything of the Jews? They didn't find anything," Abu Humus said. Talking about the holy sites appeared to get Abu Humus riled up. Despite Gordon's testimony that Abu Humus was a tolerant pacifist opposed to violence, the activist continued on a roll. "If somebody believes in (the Jewish or Christian) religion, he has to change his religion," Abu Humus said. "And after Jesus came, it says Mohammed will come. And Mohammed came. If you are religious as a Jew, you have to believe in Mohammed. You have to believe in Jesus." Gordon is the father of two small children and stated in the media that the time Abu Humus spent in his home under house arrest was "in a way, it's a wonderful experience, probably the best political education that you can give to a child." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
US COLLEGES TEACH ANTI-ISRAEL, PRO-IRAN COURSES THANKS TO ALAVI
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 29, 2009. |
|
Several things need to be done to deal with this matter. Since Iran has stated that its policy is to wipe out the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, it should be sued in the International Court of the Hague as an official Declaration of War. Using its funds, from its copious sweet oil to subvert American Universities to follow its murderous policy and oft-proclaimed goal to commit Genocide, each University and collaborating Professor ought to be sued in a class action litigation for teaching hate crimes. Clearly, this is a matter for lawyers who practice International Law. This should be worth a great deal in contingency fees. As starting number could a as much as a Billion Dollars against each of the participating Universities, plus separate penalties for each Professor. Separate suits against Iran and Iran's assets in the U.S. and abroad would be appropriate. This article is by Malkah Felisher and appeared November 24, 2009 in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), |
|
(Israelnationalnews.com) An Iranian front organization is donating huge sums to American academic institutions who employ pro-Iran, anti-Israel professors and speakers, according to back-to-back reports by the New York Post and New York Times. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the prestigious Columbia University and Rutgers University for Middle East and Persian studies programs, according to the papers. The courses are taught by professors who openly slur Israel and express sympathy for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, as well as terrorist groups Hizbullah and Hamas. The Alavi Foundation, which recently had up to $650 million seized by United States federal law enforcement, donated $100,000 to Columbia University in 2007 after the institution agreed to host Ahmadinejad, who is responsible for a bloody crackdown on protesters last summer following a controversial election in Iran, and who frequently denies the Holocaust, as well as Israel's right to exist as a state. Last year, Britain's director of the Brunel University Center for Intelligence and Security Studies, Anthony Glees, reported that up to 48 British universities have been infiltrated by Muslim fundamentalists heavily financed by major Muslim groups, to the tune of more than a quarter billion Sterling. 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 |
|
IF WE SACRIFICE JERUSALEM, WHY DEFEND LONDON?
Posted by Boris Celser, November 29, 2009. |
|
This was written by James Lewis and it appeared today in
American Thinker
|
|
It is an interesting exercise to question all the assumptions of American foreign policy for the last sixty years — that is, for as long as we've provided the defense umbrella for Europe, the free countries of Asia, and for our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That's after all the meaning of Pax Americana. We do the work, they do the bitching. Obama and the Left don't have the least inkling of the vital peace-keeping role of America as the cop on the world beat for the last six decades. They hardly understand the idea of peace officers on domestic beats. It just doesn't get through those hard plastic space helmets around their heads. Let's pretend there is no Pax Americana. Obama sounds like he's ready to shaft Israel, which certainly would be consistent with his whole upbringing and his locked-in Leftist worldview. Jerusalem, according to the administration, is doing the dirty on the Palestinians by adding housing in the city for Jews. Funny thing, nobody seemed to mind much when Obama sent that message to Benjamin Netanyahu. Least of all the Israelis, who just ignored it. Well, the Left has managed to conceive an inveterate hatred of Israel while not losing many Jewish liberal votes. Shafting Israel is a no-lose proposition for them. And still they keep their liberal Jewish voters. It is a miracle to behold. No wonder Obama wants to walk away from that troublesome little country that gets all the Arabs so angry. What's he got to lose? Well, Taiwan, for one thing. There's another troublesome little country right off the coast of mighty China, which owns a lot of US debt, and has had lines into the last two Democrat administrations that have looked mighty suspicious. Nothing would please China more than having the US Navy withdraw its protection from Taiwan. See, Obama's making peace already. Then there's South Korea, another troublesome partner. Why not have the Kim family take over the South? It's no skin off our noses. The conquest of South Korea could probably feed the hungry people of the North for years and years before the whole peninsula went kaput. And Kim Jong il could finally get his nukes to work. We could dump Afghanistan, too. Obama is turning up his nose at Hamid Karzai because his re-election looked dubious. Which makes Kabul sound just like Chicago. It takes awesome gall for a Chicago Machine politician to criticize an impoverished and nearly ungovernable Third World country for its electoral imperfections. Well, let's send Mayor Daley over there to fix Afghan politics. Maybe he can teach them to make the dead rise up on Election Day. That way Afghanistan will come up to high Illinois standards of democratic probity. That solves our biggest foreign policy problems, right? But that's not all. Why should the United States defend Europe against the Russians? Or protect the free nations of Asia against China and North Korea? Why not let them all go down? And why do we have to defend free trade in the world? Why are we in the Persian Gulf? Just think of all the money we can save — and we'll need that money if O-Mob-O-Care passes Congress. We've subsidized Europe's and Asia's defenses for sixty years. Maybe Uncle Vlad the Poisoner over in Moscow would be willing to protect Europe against militant Islam just the way he did with Chechnya. For a price, of course. To be sure, if we walk away from our allies they will inevitably build up their own nukes and missiles. Japan could have WMDs rather quickly, with South Korea and Taiwan not so far behind. The French would be happy to supply nukes to the emerging EU army. Israel and the Saudis both want to stop the mad Twelver Cult in Tehran before it gets nukes. All nations want to survive; they may hate each other, but that has never stopped alliances. Europeans who hated each other still made alliances for a thousand years before the United States became a world power. They can do it again. Pax Americana has been the most benevolent imperial enterprise in all of human history, bar none. Our good friends in Europe love to rant at us, especially if they can get us to knuckle under to Euro-Socialism, which puts them in charge of the United States. That's after all the reigning goal of the EU and UN corruptocracy. That's what the Global Warming Fraud has been all about. The newly appointed President of the EU just declared that 2009 is the first year of global governance. Guess who gets to do the global governance? It's not us. No, this is Year One of the Belgian Empire. Americans forget that we've defended the civilized world for almost a hundred years because the Europeans couldn't be trusted to do it. Europe has been the source of almost every single aggressive imperialism in the last two centuries, from Napoleon to Bismarck, Karl Marx, the Kaiser, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin in the Cold War. Imperial Japan is the sole significant exception. Our liberal media constantly cover up that inconvenient fact. But it is true, and we forget it at our peril. Euro-Imperialism is rising again today under the smiling face of EU socialism. That's Obama's creed, as we know. That's why he keeps apologizing for the United States to all the socialists of the world. Obama's mental blinders come straight from Karl Marx's Prussia in the 19th century, and from V.I. Lenin in 1917. Now those were real imperialisms, not the Coca-Cola kind that has our European friends crying in their beer. If we walk away from the world, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Brits, the Czechs and Poles, the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans have to accelerate their own nuke and missile defenses, because in the nuclear age that's their only chance for survival. China may not really want to see Japan owning nuclear weapons and missiles. They still smart from the pain of Nanking. Obama's deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not buy him any friends in Beijing. Tehran already tried to stir up riots in Mecca. Without the United States to control the Gulf, what is to keep the Iranians from overrunning Saudi Arabia? They have the population and the military power to do it. If the US goes home, all the Iranians have to do is bust through the desert (good tank country) and go straight to the Holy Cities of Islam. Think they wouldn't dare, if they owned a nice set of nukes and missiles? Who would stop them? Obama? For sixty years we've lived with the fantasy that the world has become a safe place at last, and that peace is the natural condition of mankind. Let's see if Barack Obama is fool enough to tinker with that delicately balanced contraption. The last time a delicate power balance broke apart, the immediate result was World War I, Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution and Hitler. If Obama walks away from Afghanistan, Israel and Taiwan, we will see Europe and Asia switching all their alliances very fast. Pull out that American peg from the Big Circus tent, and it won't look like peace on earth, good will to men, forever and ever, amen. It might look a lot more like August, 1914. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY
Posted by Chuck Brooks, November 29, 2009. |
|
"President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations ...." This was written by Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries. He is an author and retired attorney, |
|
Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama's policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization. We heard it in Jesse Jackson's "HYMIE town" remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright's remark about "them Jews" not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a "Jew" problem. Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were "greedy cheaters" who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were "evil". Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community. In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of "The Nation", but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, "he speaks the truth" and "stands up for the black man". What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived "enemies" of the black community — white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery. The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan — Wright's friend — to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what "good" he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support. The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World," he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation". Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest — albeit undeclared red — sensibilities Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are. NEVER AGAIN! Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
PHILLY GROUP ASKS THAT PEACE NOW BE INVESTIGATED AS UNREGISTERED
AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Posted by David Bedein, November 29, 2009. | ||
|
"Philadelphia Attorney Asks US Justice Department to Investigate "Peace Now" as an Unregistered Agent of Foreign Governments" 29.11.09 Atty. Lee Bender is the head of the Philadelphia based ISRAEL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE, which has perused documentation which shows that the government of Norway has allocated a new grant to "Peace Now" in the amount of 1.3 million Kroner, which is something over $200,000. Since Peace Now is a legal entity in the US and NOT in Israel, Atty. Bender has asked the US Department of Justice as to why Peace Now has not registered itself as a foreign agent in the USA. The consequences of Peace Now not registering itself as a foreign agent are that Peace Now runs the risk pf prosecution for functioning in DC as an unregistered foreign agent, since it has been receiving funds from foreign governments for many years. Here is the letter filed by Atty. Lee Bender with the U.S. Justice Department:
"Knesset Committee Conducts Investigation of Alleged Espionage Activities of "Peace"
Mon May 16 2004 This week, the Israeli "Peace Now" organization revealed that it has been conducting aerial surveillance of Israeli Jewish communities in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria, to determine the extent of settlement expansion. At the same time, the Israeli Knesset Parliamentary Interior Committee held a special session to discuss foreign government funding of Israeli left wing movements Documents shared with the Knesset Interior Committee confirmed that the Peace Now organization received a budget in the amount of 50,000 Euros from the government of Finland to conduct intelligence activity in the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Jerusalem. Peace Now is a political organization in Israel with an IRS tax deductible affiliate in the United States. The Knesset Committee examined a Peace Now grant application to the government of Finland, that indicated how Peace Now intended to use the grant. This included regular bi-monthly ground surveys to be conducted with the purpose of documenting the numbers of empty houses in settlements and ongoing construction in settlements. This work engages tens of volunteers, who travel around the West Bank in cars (armored if possible) tracking developments. "Settlements" has come to be used in the press now as a euphemism for Jewish communities and towns, no matter how big or developed. Also included was a provision for aerial photography: Twice a month a light plane is rented in order to allow "settlement" watch staff to ascertain the extent of ongoing physical expansion in existing "settlements." Once a baseline survey is completed, subsequent surveys can be used to measure expansion using GIS satellite positioning overlays. The document stated that this "mechanism will yield tangible graphic and quantitative data for the public." Peace Now defined its objectives to the government of Finland in the following manner: "To monitor settlement developments on the ground, accurately and reliably; To make this information available to the Israeli and international publics; To advance the fulfillment of the Road Map." Peace Now further informed the government of Finland that it would use the $50,000 grant in the following manner: "$17,000 Coordinator, $13,000 Jeep, $20,000 Aerial Surveys." Peace Now informed the government of Finland that "funding is necessary to support the staff and rent the vehicles for aerial photography. Peace Now defineed itself for the government of Finland as an "educational foundation". Peace Now indicated in that grant request that it also received $100,000 from the Americans for Peace Now and 150,000 Euros from "European Foundations" for its "settlement watch project." A spokesperson for Peace Now indicated that the "European Foundations" mentioned in their grant request to the Finnish government were actually funds from the European Union. In other words, from other foreign European governments...Far from being an indigenous Israeli organization, Peace Now it is obvious actually acts as an agent for foreign governments. The Israel Penal Code for Espionage was distributed to Knesset Interior Committees. Clause 3 of that code defines "photography of sensitive areas of Israel for any foreign power" as an act of espionage, punishable by ten years imprisonment if convicted. Dr. Yuri Stern, Chairman of the Knesset Interior Committee, announced that he would ask his legal counsel to examine the matter and report back to the committee if there were indeed grounds for application of the Israel Penal Code's special clauses on espionage against Peace Now. While the Knesset interior committee members from across the political spectrum carefully listened and examined the documents relating to allegations of felonious activity by Peace Now, the Peace Now lobbyist in the Knesset, Behira Bardugo, screamed at Committee Chairman Dr. Stern and accused the committee of not investigating those who financed the campaign to defeat Ariel Sharon in the recent referendum campaign over the Prime Minister's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza. When Stern explained that there is a difference between funding from a private individual and funding that is received from a government, Bardugo reacted with surprise, and simply said that there is no difference. The Peace Now settlement expansion maps do not only wind up in the
hands of European governments and they do not only include the
civilian expansion. The Peace Now settlement expansion maps also
include military installations and the maps are featured in all PLO
offices...
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
|
|
NETANYAHU'S FREEZE
Posted by Ted Belman, November 29, 2009. | |
|
When Netanyahu came to into office he continued the freeze that Olmert had started in August 2008 and came under withering pressure from Obama for more. Why Olmert agreed to it in the first place has never been discussed. Last summer it appeared that the quid pro quo would be normalization steps by Arab countries. Nothing came of it. Then Netanyahu and Obama counted on getting Abbas to accept the freeze when they were all in New York. Abbas didn't bite. Finally, Netanyahu decided to announce the freeze unilaterally which he did on Wednesday. Surely he doesn't want endless negotiations with no hope of progress. So one must conclude that its all about gaining time to deal with Iran. Herb Keinon in his article Gaining Grace? points out that Yossi Beilin knew about this 9 days ago, Yossi Beilin — former MK, minister and one of the architects of the Oslo accords — was downright prophetic nine days ago when he accepted a French honor from visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. How did he know? Everything unfolded as he foresaw with one exception. Beilin, in short, went three for three in his predictions. But then he made a fourth prediction, that the Palestinian refusal to resume negotiations under these terms would create a "dangerous vacuum" that would trigger a chain of events that could very well lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Keinon maintains that The prime objective of his settlement-start moratorium was to get the burden of being blamed for stalling the diplomatic process off of Israel's back. Netanyahu keeps repeating that the ball is now in Abbas' court. BUT WHAT is even more important from Netanyahu's point of view is that the Americans — as evidenced by Mitchell's statement — don't see the step as hollow. The US realizes that it hadn't delivered on normalization or the end of incitement so it took what it could get from Netanyahu. It had no choice. The moratorium was never meant to be a unilateral step, but ended up being one because no one moved on the other side. The expectation is that this will now be appreciated in Washington. Netanyahu managed to convince right-wing ministers like Bennie Begin, Moshe Ya'alon and Avigdor Lieberman to vote for the moratorium, something done because — one government source said — they had sat in the discussions over the last few months and seen what was initially demanded, what was agreed upon, and the whole array of pressures coming to bear on Netanyahu and the country. Keinon believes that Netanyahu's moves in accepting a Palestinian State, all be it with conditions, and announcing a freeze, although limited, are cut from the same cloth. Netanyahu is now gambling that as a result of what he gave, the world will press the Palestinians to take the gestures and run with them. If the Palestinians don't do so, Netanyahu seems to be assuming, it will be clear who will get the blame. I agree with Keinon when he writes Wednesday's move may have bought Netanyahu some temporary grace in Washington and the international community, but that grace — judging by other unilateral steps Israel has taken in the past — may prove fleeting. Netanyahu will only get temporary relief from pressure. It would appear that the revelations in the Yediot Aharonot's Thursday article which Caroline Glick referred to in Bibi's Bad Week,may not have any import. Now we will have to wait to see if Beilin's fourth prediction comes true. Keinon makes no mention of any agreement on Iran. But Alex Fishman does in Saving Abbas published Thursday. He also said its about avoiding Beilin's fourth prediction. The construction freeze in the settlements is yet another oxygen tank en route to reviving the "diplomatic horizon," without which we shall see the Palestinian Authority increasingly disintegrating. And Israel must prove she is serious about enforcing the freeze. Barry Rubin has speculated that Clinton's statement on the parameters for a peace deal was negotiated as part of the moratorium. This raises a fascinating question: Was it coordinated with the Netanyahu government as part of the freeze deal? If so, the Netanyahu government has certainly proved itself to be flexible and peace-oriented. Certainly, there isn't everything Israel wants in this statement yet it does encompass some important points taken out of the cabinet's position on peace arrangements. This makes eminent sense. Remember that Netanyahu once remarked that he wants to know where he is going while negotiating short term deals. Aslo his BESA speech setting out Israel's conditions that must be present in a peace deal were part of these negotiations. Clinton's statement gave him what he demanded except she was silent on Jerusalem. Obama made it clear to the Israelis in Washington that he is willing to try this move in order to promote the revival of talks, but expects much more later on. Evidently then there are mutual commitments.
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: CONFRONTING REALITIES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2009. |
|
I begin today with an article I co-authored with David Bedein, which appears in today's Jerusalem Post: "Questions people are afraid to ask Salam Fayyad." It was written in response to a column by Post editor David Horovitz a week ago, which described PA Prime Minister Fayyad's plans to build a state; Horovitz failed to inform his readers of the very serious problems inherent in these plans. These stumbling blocks make the establishment of a "moderate" Palestinian Arab state impossible, for the PA is not "moderate" — in spite of the face of moderation that it offers to an "eager-to-believe" Western world. The issues that the article touches upon: [] The constitution of Fatah (the predominant element in the PLO and the PA) to this day calls for the destruction of Israel within the Green Line via "armed resistance." This is not an anachronism, or an idle academic issue: Fatah held a major conference in August and declined to remove references to "armed resistance" from its constitution. Please, see this, save it, and share it broadly. It touches upon the key issues that the world prefers to ignore. ~~~~~~~~~~ I had suggested last week (and a computer virus prevented me from returning to this more quickly) that there was a possibility that Netanyahu might have frozen building in Judea and Samaria communities for 10 months in a quid pro quo deal with Obama regarding Iran. There was this possibility implicit in the secrecy of the last meeting Netanyahu had with Obama, and I indicated that I had seen sources after that meeting that suggested this. Since I wrote that, Dr. Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA (www.imra.org), suggested the same possibility in his weekly commentary. But, sadly, I confess that I'm less and less of this mind, as the Netanyahu decision seems to be a case of caving that is nothing if not regrettable. Part of what is moving me in this direction are the reports that Obama is already making MORE demands of us. This would be the case if we were seen as having caved, and would much less likely be so if there had been a deal. It does seem that Obama will never be satisfied, and will always project that "you made a concession yesterday, what can you do for me today?" attitude towards Israel. In response to this, there is only one acceptable response: strength. There must be an ability to say, NO! Particularly is this so as the current occupant of the White House has no regard for Israeli rights or security. ~~~~~~~~~~ The demands? These, also reported elsewhere, were delineated by Caroline Glick in her Friday column :
First, apparently Obama wants the IDF to pull out of the Jordan Valley and allow PA security forces to take over. The Jordan Valley is essential for our security, and Netanyahu had made it clear up front that we would want to retain this in any deal. What is more, in spite of attempts to represent the case as otherwise, the PA forces are not capable of going it alone anywhere in Judea and Samaria. Note this quote from a piece by Ethan Bronner of the decidedly not pro-Israel New York Times: "...But without nightly Israeli raids into Palestinian cities, the violence would never have stopped. "'Last night we carried out between 15 and 20 actions,' a top Israeli commander said of the West Bank raids, in a recent interview under military rules of anonymity. 'That was a fairly typical night. It's like throwing a blanket on a fire. If we stop for a minute, we will go backwards very quickly. We call it cutting the grass.'" ~~~~~~~~~~ I've written that there is concern that if we trade 1,000 terrorists for Gilad Shalit it will strengthen Hamas in the street and make Abbas even weaker than he already is. Well, not to worry, Obama has a solution. That's his second demand: When we release those 1,000 prisoners to Hamas, Obama apparently wants us to release ANOTHER 1,000 terrorists to Abbas. What's another thousands killers on the loose, when it's only Israelis they'll be aiming for? This policy is so bad it's a parody of itself. But I fear Obama may be serious. ~~~~~~~~~~ G-d forbid, G-d forbid! our government should cave to such dangerous nonsense. But I must note this, which has already transpired: Last week the Shin Bet (Israeli security) "pardoned" 92 Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade members who were fugitives. This means we will no longer pursue them and they are free to move about in the areas controlled by the PA (Area A under Oslo). Above, you read the description by an IDF officer of the nightly IDF raids to maintain peace. It might have been in an operation such as this that we would have gotten these guys, who have now been removed from our "wanted" list. In return they had to promise to renounce terrorism. This is hardly the first time we've cooperated in an arrangement like this with Al Aksa Brigades, which, by the way, is part of Fatah. I am especially impressed with the idiocy of having them promise to renounce terrorism. The deal is that ultimately they will have the opportunity to join the security forces — then they can carry their guns legally. And why did we do it now? To strengthen Abbas, of course. Does anyone ever consider the implications of this: That if we refrain from pursuit of members of a terrorist group it makes Abbas look good? ~~~~~~~~~~ We are witnessing a strong response to the decision made by the Netanyahu and the Security Cabinet regarding the building freeze: Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) has filed an appeal for a debate with the government secretariat: "This is a central issue in the state agenda, and it is essential that all members of government get a chance to express their opinions." He is pushing for a debate within the full Cabinet (the Security Cabinet constituting a smaller group). Within Likud it amounts to a power struggle, and I say forthrightly (and regretfully) that when it comes to playing power politics, Netanyahu gives no quarter. His concern is for sustaining his decisions, not for democratic voice within the party. Earlier today, MK Danny Danon addressed a rally of activists in Ra'anana, under the banner "Real Likudniks don't surrender." He told those gathered that: "The prime minister should have told the Americans that on Judea and Samaria he would not surrender. We are starting a campaign to put the breaks on what Netanyahu is trying to do. We will be attacked for this and it won't be easy, but we, the silent majority of the Likud, will struggle and succeed." He promised to promote a debate on the issue of the freeze within the Central Committee of Likud. The prime minister's office, anticipating this, last night released a statement stating that Netanyahu would avoid convening the Central Committee (even if signatures were garnered by Danon calling for a Committee debate). Said Netanyahu associates, if the Committee were to be convened, it would discuss only procedural matters. In addition, Netanyahu leaned on Likud MKs not to attend Danon's rally. Well, Danon today garnered the requisite number of signatures of Likud members on a petition demanding that the debate in the Central Committee be held. He has turned it over to Chairman of the Likud Central Committee, Minister Moshe Kahlon. And Kahlon has advised Prime Minister Netanyahu to convene the Committee for a debate on the construction freeze. Now we shall see. Danny Danon is to be praised highly. Perhaps you'd like him to know how much you appreciate his efforts:
~~~~~~~~~~ Chair of Ihud Leumi (National Union), Ya'akov Katz, is challenging the government on another issue. The Shamgar Commission had been charged with examining the implications of a prisoner exchange with Hamas, but the findings, which were completed in 2008, have not been released. Katz has now filed an appeal with the High Court of Justice, asking that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu be ordered to publish the findings before a trade for Shalit is done; he says that the Commission found that the effect of a trade would be negative. "Netanyahu must reveal the findings before we make any decision to release terrorists, and he must have a debate in the government and in the Knesset before he reaches any conclusion." Don't know that he can succeed with this, but Bravo! to him, as well. ~~~~~~~~~~ Today is Kaf Tet B'November — the 29th of November — when the UN voted Palestinian partition in 1947. I will return soon to some matters regarding the UN and the international community. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is a hopeful matter, that Iran is behaving so defiantly that nations that were hedging are beginning to be genuinely irked and ready to think about taking some action. There's more to say on this, as well... Tomorrow is another day. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
WHAT TO DO WITH TERRORIST PRISONERS
Posted by Benami, November 29, 2009. | |
|
This is actually a true story and shouldn't be missed at all for its ironic & humorous content. Please do go through it. A lady Canadian libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the government, complaining about the terrible inhuman treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She received back the reply shown below and an offer. P.S. - Gordon O'Connor never heard from her again in spite of several reminders regarding acceptance of his offer. | |
|
Contact Benami by email at farme@012.net.il |
|
US DIPLOMACY/JOURNALISM ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT;
PART 3: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 29, 2009. |
|
READER DENOUNCES ISRAELI FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA AS "NOTHING" President Obama postulated a linkage between Iranian nuclear development and the Arab-Israel conflict. He contended that if the Arab-Israel conflict were resolved, Iran could more readily be isolated. He then postulated a linkage between Israeli building in Judea-Samaria, which are disputed Territories, and Israel-Palestinian Authority negotiations. Israel protested that there were no such linkages in logic or in fact. They said it was necessary to deal with Iran before it is too late. Pundits pointed out that the Iran issue will come to a head long before the Arab-Israel conflict could be resolved. They saw this as Presidential pressure on Israel, not constructive, for it encourages Arab recalcitrance. They found that Arab states privately approve of an Israeli or U.S. raid on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Arab states did not want to endure further risk because of waiting for this misconceived linkage, not that they favor Israel. Neither does Israel want to defer action and find a mushroom cloud rising during their negotiations with the Arabs. What does one reader dispute on this? He said that Bibi Netanyahu conceived the linkage with Iran, not Obama. Apparently, Bibi conceived it privately, but the reader has a mole who informed him of it, Obama publicized it, and Bibi objected, but it really was Bibi's idea though it could get Israel destroyed. Wow! The same reader also disputes calling Israel's freeze a freeze. Why? It is a partial suspension. I call that a partial freeze, openly stated as such. How can one deny it? Denial is not logical. He also denies that this freeze is an Israeli concession. Why? It is not all that Abbas asked. That is no reason, ether. What was offered did not have to be offered. That makes it a concession. In this, the reader either does not understand the Arab mind or has one. I state this with no disrespect for different cultures, which I realize have different ways of thinking and different values. Disrespect, though inadvertent, is by Westerners with the ethnocentric belief that the way they think, everyone else must think. Muslim Arabs feel that the non-believers are wrong, and if Muslims accept a compromise from them, then they are sharing non-Islamic evil. Hence, they resist compromise except for their doctrine of accepting a truce during which they prepare for resumption of war. Why didn't the Arabs make a concession? Disregarding Arab culture, again, that same reader gave these reasons: (1) Israel did "nothing." It is not nothing for the many young Jewish couples, who have to move some distance away to find housing. Nor is it nothing for Israel to curb its national rights at outsiders' behest. (2) If Netanyahu offered more, he would have been deposed. A reason he may have limited a concession does not make it a non-concession. Pure logic. (3) Pres. Obama calls Jewish construction over the green (armistice) line illegal. An ideological politician is not the arbiter of international law. (4) The Arabs already conceded 78% of the original Palestine Mandate, and see their way to getting only part of the other 22%. Bingo! Congratulations, reader, this is the first time I have read a layman's reference to the original Mandate area. Too bad you got the facts on this incorrect! When the Mandate was proposed, its boundaries were drawn to coincide with the Biblical Land of Israel, and left 99% of the Mideast to the Arabs. The Mandate included the Golan and what now are Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jordan. Before the Mandate was ratified, Britain withdrew the Golan from it. Not long after that, Britain withheld what now is Jordan from Jewish national development, but not from the Mandate and passports from there still were stamped "Palestine." With independence, 78% of the original, ratified Mandate was emancipated from the Mandate, to become another desert kingdom. The reader calls that a loss for Palestinian Arabs. Nonsense! The original population included villagers, Bedouin, and followers of the Hashemites, who had fled from Saudi Arabia. This was before the Arabs had a sense of nationality. They identified as Muslims. Most were Arabs. In 1947-49, many fled from their defeated attempt to drive the Jews out of Israel. Most Jordanians are descended from them. In other words, Jordan is an Arab Palestinian state. That was not a loss for Palestinian Arabs. It was their gain, but a loss for the Jewish people, who had been promised, under treaties and international law, the whole of the Palestine Mandate. So now let's turn the reader's point on its head, and observe that there already was a division of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, most going to the Arabs. The rest is hardly viable for one state, never mind two. It makes neither sense nor justice for a second Arab Palestinian state to be formed. (For more on the Palestine Mandate, check the original document or
ask me to quote the substantive provisions of it. For the prior
discussion of the freeze, goto:
U.S. DIPLOMACY & JOURNALISM ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT How realistic and fair are U.S. diplomacy and reporting on the Arab-Israel conflict? Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reports that Israel's Defense Min. Barak has approved building 28 public and educational institutions in Jewish "settlements" in the "West Bank." He ordered a temporary freeze of other Jewish construction there. The freeze does not apply to Jerusalem. "Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of the city; the "Palestinians" want the eastern part as the capital of a future state (11/28, A5). The U.S. asked Israel for a complete freeze and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to "crack down on anti-Israel violence" and the Arab states to somewhat normalize relations with Israel. The Arab states refused. Israel offered a partial freeze, more than any predecessor had offered, but less than Pres. Obama wished, and Abbas rejected the Israeli compromise. The opportunity to restart negotiations was lost. "At some point, extremists will try to provoke another war..." (Ed., 11/28.) The framework of those presentations is slanted to obscure Israel's high legal and ethical position, the Arabs low position, and U.S. Executive branch exceeding its jurisdiction. One method of injecting bias is the terminology devised to make the Arabs seem justified in their demands: (1) "Settlements," for Jews building in their historical homeland in an area that the Palestine Mandate reserved for them, including in their own capital, and not calling Arab construction "settlements. In another omission of what might lend truer perspective, Ms. Kershner ignored Israeli complaints that the public approval for more schools in Judea-Samaria was of an early stage in a series of approval steps, but that Min. Barak already had denied the next stage. These figures are misrepresented for domestic politics. Israel doesn't just claim sovereignty over its whole capital, it has it, via annexation through a normal process. That the international lynch mob disapproves does not make truth. To mention what Arabs want of Jerusalem as if on a par with it actually being Israel's capital, is an attempt to equate what is not of equal right or entitlement. This is a similar technique to using those loaded terms mentioned earlier. Nor is it candid to refer to the Arabs wanting eastern Jerusalem. By covenants, maps, school and TV presentation, Islamist ideology, and Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel, the Arabs signify their intent to take over all of Jerusalem and of Israel. Is the New York Times assisting the Arabs' next phase? Notice that the Times referred to Israel and the Arab states not meeting Pres. Obama's requests, but did not refer to the P.A. not meeting it. The newspaper puts it as the P.A. is supposed to "crack down on anti-Israel violence." That is disingenuous, being incorrect and vague enough to allow claims that the P.A. fulfilled its obligation. The Oslo Accords, which have a legal basis, and the Road Map, which is advisory, both state that the P.A. must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Oslo does not require a building freeze. The Road Map suggests one after P.A. action. As many of my articles show, the P.A. has not done that. Instead, the P.A. raised a new demand, the freeze, as a pre-condition for negotiation. If U.S. diplomacy and media reporting were fair, they would admit that the onus for non-negotiation is on the Arabs. (Not that I expect negotiation to bring peace with Arabs who use diplomacy to pursue Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel). And some of the onus is on Pres. Obama, whose suggestion for Israel facilitated making it an Arab pre-condition for negotiating. Both U.S. diplomats and the Times make another false equivalency between the Arabs and Israel, in suggesting that both sides need to prove good faith before negotiation. The Arabs walked out of earlier negotiations, refused to negotiate, and set pre-conditions for it. Israel long has been willing to negotiate and without pre-conditions. That shows which side demonstrates bad faith. The New York Times reportage demonstrates advocacy journalism, in which it steers, rather than informs, the public. PART 3: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE I quoted one source, ZOA, and cited its source, MEMRI, about a new Arab blood libel against Israel: 'Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV 'that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians.'" Since the inner quotation starts with the word, that, a reader should be able to tell that it is my source's paraphrase of the broadcast, and I am not claiming it is a direct quote of the broadcast, with all its flowery verbosity, but just reporting the news. The rest of my article discussed other Arab blood libels against Israel and the Jewish people. A critic of mine replied that when I acknowledge membership in ZOA, it doesn't mean anything except beware of my prejudice. He does not understand that journalists acknowledge what, if they did not, might seem like concealing a potential conflict of interest. As some phrase it, it is "In the interest of full disclosure." I have found these sources accurate, though I sometimes reach different conclusions from theirs. The critic called my article "lies." He calls it a "deception" by my sources and me, on the grounds that the original report [not sure if he means the Arab broadcast, reporting of it, or MEMRI) did not mention the word, "sexual." I had noticed that the source did not use that word in the text, just in the title. I examined the quotation form the original Arab broadcast alleging brutal discrimination against women, in an alleged attempt to break up the family. It was clear enough to me that this was sexual harassment. Even without the sexual angle, what the Palestinian Arab statement that some of his, as he put it, "lowly" people were recruited to do, shames them and, because of its undocumented accusation, is a shameful broadcast. The critic' logic, even if it were correct, is like the tail wagging the dog. That broadcast joins broadcasts and press releases by Abbas, Arafat, Egyptian clerics, a Syrian Foreign Minister, Ahmadinejad, et al that constitute a library of blood libel of Israelis and the Jewish people. I have reported accusations that Israel sends prostitutes to impair Arab families, attempts to inflict sexual and other diseases upon Arabs, leaves poisoned candy for Arab children to find, poisons Arab water supplies, and more, giving sex a prominent role. As to that, the critic totally spares his indignation over lies, harmful ones, at that. The critic ignores the mass of evidence, in behalf of quibbling. Strange ethics! On the libel that Israel tries to poison the Palestinian Arab water supply (which uses the same aquifer), I reported years ago that Arafat's first terrorist mission was a failed attempt to poison an Israeli water source. On the accusation that Israel tries to deprive them of water, more recently, I reported that Israel restored Gaza's failed water supply twice, and continues furnishing Gaza with some water. On the libel that Israel tries to sicken them, I reported only a fraction of the incidents in which Israel's competent medical researchers who try to work with regional counterparts to eradicate diseases, but some Arab governments refuse to cooperate. As for the charge of Israel attempting to break up families, I reported that Israel has let many Arabs immigrate for family reunification, though the Arabs constitute a hostile minority largely sympathetic to their fellow, outside Arabs. You can see which side is obsessed with religious/ethnic/racial hatred. This is like a case of the pot calling the white kettle black. The critic accuses me of hating Muslims, to explain his accusation that I regularly lie. Since I use the same sources as for the libel article almost every week, sources he claims engage in deception, then perhaps he thinks that they, too, hate Muslims. In other words, disagree with him, and you must hate Muslims and lie about them. Although the critic talks about responsible journalism, he accuses people of hatred, without showing hatred. How responsible is that? I think that hating people because of their religion, nationality, or race is very immoral. I report on actions and doctrines that do and act on it. Some cultures are largely given over to such hatred. In such instances, one may generalize about its society, it being understood that there are some individual exceptions but that they do not govern or influence that society, for which the bigoted rulers speak and polls and actions confirm. The critic of this issue, like several others, keeps harping on the same points, sometimes repeating the same exact comment immediately after the prior one. That is making a nuisance of oneself. It reminds me of an element of the big lie technique, repetition. I recommend he consider the reliability and the characters of the many Arab leaders who engage in the documented stream of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish blood libel and of the Jewish leaders falsely accused of it but who do not libel the Arab people. There is the mass hatred and mass lying in this era of the big lie technique. PART 4: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE We've discussed the confusion besetting people over which sources to believe, in an era when there are more sources but fewer honest and informed ones. To some extent, this is generational. People would be wiser to respect the older and the younger generations for what they have and can contribute to society. Generational rivalry or contempt hampers society. Both generations think they know everything. The older one can develop wisdom from experience. The younger one can bring to bear newer technology. I've seen older people naïve about the veracity of news sources, but younger people have less behind them, with which to evaluate. Educational institutions have not and do not educate enough. Hence so much floundering and repeated historical mistakes. I've seen naivete about major threats to civilization repeated. I gained political consciousness during the Nazi era. Shortly before it, Nazism enjoyed some popularity in the West. European and American pacifism outside of Germany prompted appeasement of Germany. Did the result, WWII, teach us the lesson that's appeasement fails? No. I remember objecting to Pres. Roosevelt's appeasement of the Soviets. Did the Cold War and hot proxy wars by the Communist International teach us that appeasement is dangerous? No. Now we appease Radical Islam so much, that our political leaders are afraid to mention it as the current international enemy of civilization. Now the old Nazis and successors, and the old Communists and successors, many liberals, and Radical Muslims and allied Muslim governments are working with their customers and independent rogue states in what I see is a ganging up on the Jewish state, because it is a Jewish state. That is the "international community" that sides with the Arab aggressors against Israel. I've seen ganging up on individual Jews. I've seen ganging up on blacks, and rescued one black boy by driving him home. Internationally, it is similar. Many Muslims either deny the Holocaust or express intent to complete it. Facts are irrelevant to them. I just saw photos of a monument and thousands of shoes that the Nazi S.S. had robbed from Jews in Lithuania. Holocaust denial presumes that Jewish public relations deceived all of Europe into thinking there was a Holocaust that tons of documentary and thousands of eye-witnesses confirm, and which Europeans do not deny. Denial is not rational. It is psychotic. It is mob behavior driven by bigoted ideology and the need for a scapegoat for frightening or puzzling modern society. When my grandparents' generation fled the persecutions abroad, and found sanctuary in the United States of America, they called this country, in their native Yiddish, if I recall the spelling, the "goldene medina," the golden state. They meant the relative freedom and tolerance more than the economic opportunities, which they also valued. Considering the growing intolerance and chaos abroad, all my Jewish friends express deep gratitude for living here and now. My generation was nurtured during and shortly after WWII, a time of patriotism. For example, in elementary school, we heard of Patrick Henry, who said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Sometimes I pass by the Manhattan monument to Nathan Hale who, about to be hanged for spying on the British during the American Revolution, says, "I regret that I have but one life to live for my country." That is just what my uncle did, in the Pacific theater of WWII. Nor have I forgotten the forlorn sentiment expressed in "The Man Without a Country," during his loss of U.S. citizenship. I regret to see that esprit de corps waning, especially when young people are attracted to an alien spirit of intolerance. Seeing America's warts, they don't realize its overall and growing decency; they do not know how much they have to be thankful for. I think that our young soldiers do know, and so I am thankful for them. US REASSESSES TALIBAN 
The Taliban leaders are inspired by a harsh religious doctrine, but the U.S. is reassessing whether its troops are. Western officials believe that most Taliban troops are fighting to earn a living or for personal grievances. If they can be offered a living outside the rebellion, they can be peeled away from it. This is Gen. McChrystal's strategy. It was, with the surge, successful in Iraq. Winning enemy troops over requires treating them with respect. It may mean letting tribal elders be intermediaries. It means local application, not a heavy-handed or one-size-fits-all procedure by the national government. The chief difficulty of instituting the strategy in Afghanistan is that the national government is so corrupt and incompetent, that it lured away thousands of insurgents on false promises of jobs and protection, left them in the lurch, and finds them back in the trenches now embittered (Agand Gopal, Wall St. J., 11/28, A8). If the assumption be correct that most troops are not driven by their leaders' ideology, then I over-emphasized ideology. RADICAL ISLAMIC INTERNET RECRUITMENT Governments' intervention has reduced the number of foreign language Radical Islamic Internet sites from about 1,000 to 50, hampering Islamist recruitment. The number of English language Radical Islamic Internet sites, however, has risen in seven years from 30 past 200. Most of the English-language Internet sites are not run by al-Qaida. They are run by individuals who share its ideology. Many of these individuals are radical clergy like the one who influenced the Ft. Hood massacre. Their messages are theological, not bomb-making. Hence, they recruit people. Most of the arrested native Canadian terrorists and some American ones were inspired to jihad by English-language sites, and formed their own bomb plots. U.S. officials did not comment on the sites and there servers (www.imra.org.il, 11/27 from Naharnet, Lebanon). Can their numbers be reduced? CLERICS TAKING OVER IRANIAN SCHOOLS 
The total program is not clear, but Iran is having clerics take over or inserted into Iranian schools. This is part of a drive against Western influence (www.imra.org.il, 11/27 from Jordan Times). The Iranian people overthrew the Shah for democracy, but the clerical counter-revolution deprived them of it. They still want it. The clerical regime is resorting more to totalitarianism, in an effort to defeat the pro-democracy movement.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
IAF JETS IN RECONNAISSANCE SORTIE OVER JEWISH COMMUNITIES
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 29, 2009. | ||||
|
This was written by Gil Ronen and appeared in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). | ||||
|
(IsraelNN.com) The Israel Air Force carried out a photographic reconnaissance sortie over Judea and Samaria in order to obtain an accurate picture of the construction being carried out in Jewish communities and outposts there. The aerial photographs were transferred to the Civilian Administration in Judea and Samaria, where they will serve as a basis for enforcement of the construction freeze order issued Thursday by Central Command head Maj-Gen Avi Mizrachi. Photographic reconnaissance is usually carried out to gather intelligence about the enemy. However, this is not the first time that IAF jets are used to collect photographic evidence on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. In early 2004, IAF jets carried out a photographic sortie over all of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. The photographs were then used to demarcate the communities' boundaries. This was done after then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon committed to then-President George W. Bush to allow construction only within previously-developed areas, and to forbid growth of the settlements' size. The United States and Israel carried out negotiations over an agreed "building line," using the reconnaissance photographs as their guides. The freeze order issued on Friday is more severe than the one agreed to by Sharon because it forbids construction within the communities' boundaries as well. The order strips the local authorities in Judea and Samaria of the right to grant permits for construction, be they for adding a second floor to an existing structure or for closing off a porch. A house owner who wishes to add a floor to his house has to request a special permit from the Civilian Administration and give his reasons for wishing to add the floor. The Civilian Administration will then inform him within 14 days whether the request has been approved or not. The authority to grant such permits, in communities with valid building plans, belonged solely to the municipal authorities until now.
EDITOR'S NOTE: EXCHANGE BASED ON THIS ARTICLE
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
RABBI KAHANE: THREE TRANSGRESSIONS" (Conclusion)
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, November 29, 2009. |
|
Barbara Ginsberg writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article
and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written
by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at:
barhow@netvision.net.il Visit my blog for previously e-mailed Rav
Kahane writings: |
|
And the reality for American Jewry is that the Galut, the bitter exile of the Jewish people, did not stop at the western shores of the Atlantic and was not barred from entering the United States. The exile — that bitterest of all curses, punishments and sins — cannot and will not ever be a sweet refuge. The curse of the Tochach (admonishment) will never be changed even though Reform and Yeshiva men alike rip out its pages from their Torahs. "And the L-rd shall scatter thee among all peoples... and among these nations shall thou have no peace." How we ignore those Torah parts that disturb our tranquility! How superb we are at rationalizing them away! How angry we become at those who persist in speaking about it. How we prefer to create the myth of American Jewish bliss that nothing can disturb since "it cannot happen here!" but, the reality is that it will because it must, because the All Mighty knows full well that unless we are forced to, we will never go willingly back to the Land. And the reality of Soviet Jewry is that never since Stalin have they faced such a potential for pogroms and physical threats. The illusion was that public protests and demonstrations could only hurt and when Jewish militants disproved that, the myth arose that it was really the twice-a-year establishment picnics and the respectable protests that had been the true cause of the sudden emigration flow and that became a delusion that everything would always remain as a permanent victory. But, the reality is that Jewish refusal to mount ever-greater attacks on détente and Jewish betrayal of Henry Jackson and now the worst perfidy of them all — the Israeli and Jewish treachery and selling out of all Soviet Jews who will not go to Israel — are all things that are aiding a potential Holocaust for Soviet Jewry. Where is the sense of urgency, where is the note of emergency? They are the realities and in the delusion that is born of such apathy, we prefer not to see the danger and be forced to act and do unpleasant things. We are a people that dearly loves to fool itself and deeply resents those who refuse to allow us to. But the reality is here and it is clear. Jewish destiny and Jewish history are not things of chance, of permutations and combinations. They are directed and ordained and we cannot avoid that which shall be unless we do that which should be. A refusal to be Jewish under the pretense of being "practical" will only make us un-Jewish and the most impractical of peoples. Faith. Only this is the key to the redemption and salvation of the Jew and how tragic it is that from one end of the spectrum to the other, from the secularist and Marxist Jew to the pious, practitioner of ritual in the yeshivas, real faith and real understanding of this era and the call of Jewish destiny is so lacking. It is the era of the final redemption that can come so quickly and so magnificently if only we are prepared to believe in the G-d of history, the Jewish Creator of all and director of that which will be. There is a Jewish destiny that awaits us and this is ours for the asking and taking. The Messiah knocks and the door waits to be opened if only we turn the key. The key is faith; real faith. Faith based on courage and boldness and sacrifice. Faith that is more that lip service but is measured by three intensely practical concrete yardsticks:
Three acts of faith that can absolve us of our three transgressions. Only thus can we be practical, realistic, pragmatic. Only by being Jewish can we stop being ridiculously mystical and believe that our salvation lies in the hands of the gentile. We are a people that is different, that is chosen, that is great, that can never be destroyed. Why do we persist in refusing to recognize ourselves? Why, if we are giants, do we insist on being dwarfs? Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il This essay is taken from the magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea, January 1977. |
|
PROSECUTING AMERICAN 'WAR CRIMES'
Posted by Boris Celser, November 28, 2009. |
|
This was written by Daniel Schwammenthal and it appeared
November 26, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe. |
|
The Hague Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague. The ICC's chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court's authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction — at least with respect to Afghanistan. Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute — the ICC's founding treaty — all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC's oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock. "We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan," Mr. Ocampo told me. "There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government." Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, "there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture." It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out. Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that "we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned." The fact that he avoided a straightforward "I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers" showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Appointed in 2003 for a nine-year period, the 57-year-old Argentinian has — so far — established a record of cautious jurisprudence. Mr. Ocampo is famous in his home country for prosecuting military juntas as well as starring in a reality program where he adjudicated private disputes. And in his first six years at the ICC, he pursued real evildoers. He indicted Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony, militia leaders from the Congo and Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, responsible for the genocide in Darfur. Yet collecting information about possible war crimes by American soldiers smacks of just the sort of politicized prosecution critics of the ICC had always warned about. Mr. Ocampo remained tight-lipped about the specifics of his preliminary examination. Asked whether waterboarding — a practice that simulates drowning without causing lasting physical harm — is a form of torture produced a telling "no comment." Yet if the Obama administration considers this practice torture, one has to wonder if the ICC's chief prosecutor would give it his stamp of approval. There is also the issue of whether Predator strikes of unmanned drones targeting terrorist leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan — as carried out in the very first week of the Obama presidency — are part of the bombings he's looking into. Mr. Ocampo chuckled and answered evasively. "We have people around the world concerned about this," he said, and when pressed, added, "Whatever the gravest war crimes are that have been committed, we have to check." "Gravest" is the operative word here. The court was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," as stated on the ICC's Web site. This would suggest that even if U.S. soldiers have committed war crimes by the prosecutor's definition, the ICC would have no reason to get involved as those transgressions would surely be insignificant compared to the butchery in places like Sudan or Congo. Mr. Ocampo's own words, though, suggested that he disagrees. I asked him if he was going to prosecute the worst crimes in his jurisdiction or the worst crimes in a particular case, such as Afghanistan, irrespective of how they compare to crimes around the world. He paused before answering. "Normally," he said (another pause) "we select situations which are grave, for instance when I choose. . ." Mr. Ocampo didn't finish the sentence, sighed and began afresh: "Both [scenarios] are right. Normally, we open investigations in the worst situation in the world and in some cases [countries] we investigate the worst situation." This is an expansive and controversial interpretation of the court's mandate, one that may put an end to the debate about whether former President George W. Bush, fearing just such judicial activism, was justified in unsigning the Rome Statute his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had endorsed. Although the prosecutor's preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans. In any event, the ICC's very existence is already changing the way Western nations fights wars. Mr. Ocampo recounted how a legal adviser to NATO told him that troops these days are trained to realize that, in case of transgressions, they could be arrested and brought to the ICC on war crimes charges with the help of evidence provided by NATO itself. "That is the new world," Mr. Ocampo said proudly. I asked the obvious follow-up. "If this is the 'new world,' why do you bother collecting information about NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan?" Why, in other words, when his task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does he spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world — which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals? Mr. Ocampo got slightly irritated. "You are suggesting that we are a court only for the Third World. That's what the Arab world said about Bashir, that we are using double standards," he explained. "I said no, I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate, if they don't, I shall investigate. That's the rule and we have one rule for everyone." Mr. Ocampo — who has a photo of himself with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, on his windowsill — could have pointed out to his Arab interlocutors that the real double standard was their own complaining about alleged Western aggression against Muslims while they protect Sudan's Bashir, the greatest butcher of Muslims in modern history. The fact that Mr. Ocampo mentioned the Sudanese perpetrator of genocide in the same breath with alleged crimes of NATO soldiers shed light on what the International Criminal Court may have in store for the U.S. in the future. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
IF THEY VOTED TO ADMIT ISRAEL TO THE UNITED NATIONS TODAY...
Posted by Perry Ashley, November 28, 2009. |
|
On the eve of the 62nd anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan for Palestine to create a Jewish and an Arab state), Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel said "If there was a vote to admit Israel to the United Nations today, there is no doubt in my mind that we would not get in." Ayalon also said that in 1949, when Israel was admitted, two-thirds of the nations represented at the United Nations were democratic, whereas today the opposite is true. "Many of these nations are dictatorial and human-rights abusers who form an automatic majority against us which is formed by political expediency and group-think," Ayalon said. "If the Arabs or Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority." The Deputy Foreign Minister also talked about how Israel has to make creative strategies to counter this situation. He made the comments at a forum sponsored by Hadar: Israel Council for Civic Action, at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem To see more of the speech, please click on the link below
Contact Perry Ashley by email at ashley.perry@mfa.gov.il |
|
PART 2: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE; ARAB
TERRORISM NEAR HEBRON; BARGHOUTI IS HOW POPULAR AMONG HIS PEOPLE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2009. |
|
PART 2. ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE BIG LIE ERA. EXAMPLES Like the press, the Internet has become an arena for ideological combat, though people still think of it as a source of information. Truth and knowledge may fall by the wayside. A small percentage of readers key in whatever insults they can imagine, against author or source. Sometimes they just pass judgment on the author. They do not promote any exchange of ideas. There is no point to their comments. For example, they accuse me of being a paid Israeli agent. Amusing, but sad that they can sink to nasty libel. Sometimes there is just nastiness. There is no good reason for personalizing their comments, especially since they do not know the author. For one thing, they accuse me of lying. It doesn't occur to them that someone can have studied the issue and honestly disagree with them. They will claim that I do not know the subject but also that I know the subject and will not admit their truth. Alternatively, they cover their own dissimulation by accusing opponents of it. Citing counter-arguments that I already have disproved, sometimes in the same article they comment about, they urge me to "admit" the case against Israel. How can they expect me to admit what I have just disproved? That is a failure of logic on their part. Another failure of logic is to denounce Israeli defensive measures, such as checkpoints, without seeming to understand that those measures were forced on Israel by Arab terrorism. They should blame Arab terrorism as the cause of checkpoints. They do not blame Arab terrorism for its many crimes. It is they who do not admit obvious truths. These illogical responses are not just by my readers. Human rights organizations and the State Dept. also make such errors, even after having been advised of the errors. Truth is no object, to them, either. In a failure of chronological logic, some critics assert that the Israeli presence in the Territories caused terrorism. They seem unaware that terrorism preceded the Israeli take-over of the Territories. And Arab aggression caused the Israeli take-over. Terrorism now is a continuation of terrorism earlier. What came later can't cause what came earlier. Elementary logic. They do not grasp it. Some of the comments are frankly antisemitic. I have explained the rules to readers, that the Examiner does not tolerate insults. The critics would not submit insulting comments to the New York Times. They know that newspaper would not publish them. I delete them. Too bad those critics do not try to contribute to adult discussion. If they disagree with decorum, their comments stay. Some complain of censorship, when their nasty posts are deleted. They imagine they have a right to force nasty remarks upon a publisher. How absurd! It reveals either lack of understanding of democracy or an attack upon civilized behavior. One tells me I cannot properly judge the Goldstone report without having read the whole report. I explained how, from numerous admissions by and about the Goldstone mission and the UN, from reading its conclusions and many excerpts, from understanding its sources and the material that it copied, from noting that one of those sources, Human Right Watch, has recanted several of its accusations, from logical analysis, and from knowledge of the situation, I could judge the UN effort. Nevertheless, he keeps repeating his claim. That means he keeps turning into that blind alley, because all he cares about is having something to accuse one of, not to discuss. I think such people suffer from a deliberate inability to learn contrary notions. This deliberate inability to learn contrary notions prompts critics to comment about the general Muslim-Israel conflict, as if in answer to my specific points. That is either a failure of logic on their part, implicit admission that they do not know about those specifics, or a ploy for changing the topic. The general points they make I have refuted. Their bringing them up, again, makes no sense. I have tried to engage them in debate, but they ignore my specifics, change the topic, repeat what I have refuted, and inject more churlishness. It doesn't pay to bother with them. If I report a specific war crime by Hamas, the anti-Israel critics retort by asserting a general war crime effort by Israel. They remind me of when I condemned some move by the Soviet Union, and Communist "fellow travelers" replied, "What about Little Rock?" (A locus of school segregation.) Arkansas had segregation, but did that excuse Soviet purges? As for Israel, I had explained that it fought more honorably than all other armies, did not commit war crimes, kept civilian casualties low, but not being omniscient, did make some battlefield errors, bound to happen in war. The critics probably did not read my refutation of their general doctrine. They dabble, picking out very few samples of my 1,400 articles. That leaves them in a poor position to judge the whole opus. Nor do they want to be in such a position. They reject in general and in specifics whatever runs contrary to their ideology. Prejudiced in their review, they do not realize how little basis there is for their views. When I discuss the specific reasons that the Israeli presence in the Territories is legal and proper, they ignore my points and just assert what my points explain are not correct. They go on to tell me that since most of the world now agrees with them, I must be wrong. But the world did not come up with new arguments. It came up with new or more widespread prejudice and vested interests. Bandwagon propaganda, does not persuade an intelligent person. It reflects badly on its disseminator. Truth cannot be determined by vote. Arabs spread blood libel against Israel, as I report, but so far my readers have not joined in. However, neither have the critics expressed disapproval of those libels. Where is their moral fiber, they who claim to represent ethics? They have the same moral lapse as Goldstone, in accusing Israel (erroneously) of war crimes, but exhibiting no indignation for the obvious war crimes by Hamas, which fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and endangered their own civilians. Since their ethical bias or blindness is apparent, they forfeit credibility. Ethics, credibility, truth — they make much of it. However, they have made no comment about my demonstrating that Goldstone witnesses contradicted themselves, were proved to have lied, were sent by Hamas, and were not vetted. Likewise about my showing that the Palestinian Authority makes statements in Arabic indoctrinating its people in bigotry and war, while making more pleasing statements in English to Sec. Clinton. Like Clinton, the critics assert that Abbas recognizes Israel and wants peace, assertions that I disproved by quoting Abbas. The blood libels by Arab leaders forfeit credibility, but the critics ignore it. History, they simply pervert. During the wars I lived past, the news about Arab aggression and Arab flight was clear. As memory fades or witnesses die, the critics call it Israeli aggression and expulsion of Arabs. They revise the historical record to suit their prejudice. They coin misleading terminology that implicitly makes the Arab case: "Palestinian" nationality, "West Bank," "occupied," "settlement" within an existing and historically Jewish city. Israeli leftists and the New York Times use adjectives such as "extremist" to denigrate opponents. They constantly lament in behalf of the Palestinian Arabs, but ignore the oppression of those Arabs by their rulers. Their rulers run dictatorial or even totalitarian, regimes. That means murder, embezzlement, arrest of dissidents, lower status for women, sacrificing their own people a human shields, making war instead of peace, etc.. Critics' silence about that indicates lack of compassion for the people they claim to champion. If they do not care about the Palestinian Arabs, then they must be against Israel out of sordid motives. Enough, for now. ISRAELI MINI-CABINET APPROVES PARTIAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA Israel's Cabinet approved PM Netanyahu's proposal for a 10-month freeze in new building permits in Judea-Samaria, except for buildings needed to serve the existing population. The freeze reportedly would apply even to: "...building a fence around a yard, a balcony on the second floor of a home, an extension to the back of a house, or even a porch or pergola over the front steps — if it is carried out anywhere in Judea and Samaria." Jewish community leaders in the Territories complain that to win election, Netanyahu had promised to reverse the prior regimes' withdrawal policies. They consider this freeze a betrayal. They and others worry that the 10-month period would be extended. Some have noticed that he has caved in on other matters of principle. They suggest replacing his regime. Min. Benny Begin countered that Netanyahu has not offered a withdrawal, as did Ehud Barak, when he was prime Minister. Community leaders do not consider this freeze new. The Defense Minister has withheld approval of most new housing construction since taking office. His disapproval included public buildings such as classrooms and nurseries for toddlers. In many cases, construction basically was approved, but Defense Min. Barak withheld his final signature, apparently the last step. [Is he toying with people, again? The government earlier had allowed construction to proceed, but withheld final authorization for no apparent reason, and then indignantly rebuked "illegal" construction.] PM Netanyahu said he made the proposal to show that Israel is serious about wanting peace negotiations. The State Dept. praised the Netanyahu regime for going further than any prior Israeli regime, but would prefer he have gone all the way. Abbas called the proposal insufficient. He still refuses to negotiate. Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA, said that the freeze "only serves to encourage more pressure for Israeli concessions in the future (www.imra.org.il, 11/26). In earlier reports, I had noted that the Netanyahu regime admitted having imposed an informal freeze. Including even a fence in the freeze seems excessive. The last time nationalists brought down his regime, they ended up with one more appeasement-minded. Concern about the 10-month period being extended makes sense, because if negotiations are not concluded in that time, can you imagine Netanyahu ending the freeze that he had imposed in order to induce negotiations? There is no reason Abbas could not negotiate without these demands. They amount to blackmail. THE FREEZE IN PRACTICE "Makor Rishon correspondent Ariel Kahane reports in today's edition that last week Minister of Housing and Construction Ariel Atias (Shas) presented Jerusalem construction plans to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu including 130 units in Har Homa, 30 in Pisgat Ze'ev and 20 in Ramot and that Netanyahu allowed Atias only to issue the tender for the 20 in Ramot and instructed Atias not to issue other tenders. The instruction, According to Kahane, effectively voided the decision his mini-cabinet of 7 had made before to implement the construction plans in Pisgat Ze'ev." The government replied that it already had approved hundreds of applications in eastern Jerusalem. Min. Atlas explains that that approval was an earlier stage, but PM Netanyahu disapproved most of the first 180 in the next stage (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). Leaving several stages of approval up to total government discretion allows it to block later what earlier it seems to have approved. This enables the regime to appease critics while pretending to please supporters. It hides intent, for a while. (For more on construction in Jerusalem, go to
HALF-TRUTHS ON ARAB-ISRAEL NEGOTIATIONS "...the claims of each side amount to half-truths, as the other is the first to note," writes Ethan Bronner of the New York Times. [An old polemicist trick is to claim that one is moderate if one's stance is in between those of the two sides', who then are called extreme. Here Mr. Bronner illogically implies that when both sides accuse the other of half-truths, then both sides committed half-truths.] "In recent years, the international community has demanded that Israel stop building on Jewish communities where the Palestinian Arabs want a state, and that those Arabs "dismantle terrorist networks and end violent attacks on Israelis." [That is a nice-sounding equivalency, until one realizes that the "international community" is equating murder with building houses. That the Palestinian Arabs want a state somewhere does not give them authority to insist on it. Their wish is not Israel's command.] It might seem that both sides complied, "and peace talks would move forward." Israel announced a 10-month freeze on Jewish building in the Territories, and the Arabs "essentially" ceased violent attacks. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has been keeping order in its cities for almost a year. But that is misleading. The freeze is not total. Its exception for public service buildings includes "the kind of 'natural growth" banned by the dormant 'road map' for peace." The IDF points out that it took the nightly IDF raids into the P.A. cities to stop the terrorism. Typically, there are 15 raids a night. Israeli officials state that since the P.A. has no authority in Gaza, it cannot be said to have dismantled terrorist networks. Based on having kept order, the P.A. asks for more withdrawals of Israeli troops. An Israeli commander answers that to keep the P.A. from becoming another rocket launching site like Gaza, Israel must have troops on the ground there (11/27, A16). The half-truth that the P.A. stopped terrorism was promoted by the New York Times. The Times still promotes that notion, as by seldom reporting Israeli raids and the continuing terrorist attacks, such as the one in Kiryat Arba that I reported the other day. Then it reports that terrorism has been repressed by the P.A.. Israel's government and major media also contributed to that half-truth. Trying to encourage Arab anti-terrorism, and trying to put a good face on matters, they praised P.A. maintenance of order. By contrast, I reported the P.A. effort as against street crime and hardly against terrorism. I have reported the continuing P.A. indoctrination in jihad, threats to commit terrorism, and attacks, as well as P.A. failure to disarm the Fatah militia. Any efforts the P.A. undertook against the Hamas militia was self-preservation, not anti-terrorism. Therefore, even excluding Hamas from the discussion, the P.A. cannot be said to have dismantled terrorist militias. It actually recruited many terrorists into the P.A. police. Arming terrorists that way is not dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, it is subsidizing it. The Times ignores that point. The NY Times refers to the "international community." What is that? Another half-truth. The Security Council cannot handle most international security measures. Its members sabotage efforts to do so. But the UN can gang up on Israel. Does that organization of vested interests and log-rolling lobbies have moral authority? Not earned. By what rationale does it take up the Arab demand that only Jews should stop building in Judea-Samaria. Why do the Times and the President make that a parallel demand to ending terrorism? The U.S. does suggest that the P.A. could negotiate without a total freeze, but where is the world indignation against the P.A. for stalling negotiations unless its demand for one be accepted? Mr. Bronner made up the notion of PM Netanyahu's announcement of a building freeze being a misleading half-truth. Netanyahu did not claim it was total. He specified what it includes, what it excludes, and his reason for it. He was open about it. If anyone committed a half-truth, it was the NY Times for pretending that Israel was pretending. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE; ARAB
TERRORISM NEAR HEBRON; BARGHOUTI IS HOW POPULAR AMONG HIS PEOPLE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2009. |
|
ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE We live in the period of the industrial revolution. The current emphasis on services and computers has prompted some to call this era "post-industrial" or "the computer age." I think we also can call this the era of the "big lie technique." The "big lie technique" characterized Nazi propaganda. The bigger the lie, and the more often repeated, the more believed. The Nazis used that technique effectively against the Jewish people and others. So did the Soviet Communists. For me, those were contemporary events that I well remember. Inspired by a combination of Islamic, Nazi, and Communist tactics, many Arabs also employ the "big lie technique" against Israel, the Jewish people, and the U.S.. They inspire Western leftists to adopt the lies about Israel without questioning the whole campaign based on Jew-hating prejudice. Governments that appease the Arabs, or that, like the State Dept., an heir to Christian and especially missionary prejudice, promote their own anti-Israel bias. Now that the Internet has made anonymous, networked, and swift communication available to uneducated people and bigots, big lies get disseminated widely. Counter-reaction is weak. The major media and schools systems did not do their jobs of informing people and training them to think and question assumptions. They did not inculcate wholesome values. Colleges allowed youths' impulse for challenge and reform to become nihilistic and yet imagine they were idealistic. Not only did the academic world lose its integrity. So did publishers. There always were rogue books, but now, so many embrace the big lies, that it is difficult for people to know what the truth is. Many don't care. They stick with their ideology against observable evidence, just as did hard-core Communists. There is little societal challenge to the mass of libel encircling our planet, absorbing people's energy, and diverting their attention from real problems. ARAB TERRORISM NEAR HEBRON This is not a case of "settler violence" and of Hebron Jewry attacks on Arabs. A Palestinian Arab walked into Kiryat Arba, which is in the Israeli-controlled part of Judea and practically adjoins the Jewish sector of Hebron. He pulled out a knife and stabbed two Jews, strangers. A soldier stopped him by shooting. Noting that the area had been quiet recently, the Hebron Jewish community spokesman suggests that the action was not an individual action an authorized reaction to Israel's acquiescence to U.S. pressure to freeze Jewish construction in the Territories and to renew negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. The answer, according to the spokesman [David Wilder], is to reject U.S. pressure and to expand Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria (11/26). His suspicion is not a certainty. However, there has been a pattern of terrorism following Israeli concessions. There is sense for Israel to foreclose some terrorism, by absorbing more of the Territories and the vacant areas in between Jewish towns. BARGHOUTI IS HOW POPULAR AMONG HIS PEOPLE? Marwan Barghouti is thought to be among the convicted terrorists Israel may release, so Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post analyzed how popular he is. The analysis includes Fatah rumors about motives and popularity. They often are falsely conspiratorial and self-serving. I omitted the more speculative ones. Barghouti wants to get out and become president of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Polls show he would win. He represents the [aging] "young guard" whom Abbas has been keeping down. The young guard [says it] opposes corruption. Barghouti wants to reconcile with Hamas. The favorable polls may be mistaken. Popular? He headed Fatah's legislative ticket that lost to Hamas. The esteem for him may be just general solidarity with Israeli prisoners. Other young guard eminences may fear his competition. Skeptical Palestinian Arabs ask whether he has Israeli backing. "Since when does Israel allow a security prisoner to give media interviews or hold meetings with Israeli, Palestinian, European and American officials in his prison cell?" (www.imra.org.il, 11/26). Good question. Why are only a few right-wing Israelis asking that question? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A CROCODILE'S DESERT
Posted by David Wilder, November 27, 2009. |
|
Another hour and a half and it will be Shabbat. The Sabbath starts early this time of the year. I've been thinking back. A week ago today I was in New York, staying with friends in Queens, getting ready for our annual Hebron Fund dinner. Shabbat there was very pleasant; a quiet and holy atmosphere, nice people, and of course, great food. Saturday morning I spoke in a neighborhood synagogue. The people were very warm and the Rabbi's introduction almost left me with little to say. But, spokespeople, as it goes, always have something to say, and so I did. But the 'interesting' part of the prayer service, as far as I was concerned, wasn't my speech. Rather it was what the wise Rabbi mentioned to me after my 'aliyah,' making the blessings over a portion of the Torah reading. According to Jewish law, when a person has survived a 'dangerous event' he or she recites a special blessing of thanksgiving, called "HaGomel." Plane trips, being over a great distance, also require recitation of this blessing, upon arrival at one's destination, when receiving an 'aliyah.' So following the final blessing over the Torah portion, I dutifully repeated that particular blessing, thanking G-d for my safe arrival in New York. When I returned to my seat and shook hands with the Rabbi, smiling he said: "you, who live in Hebron, and walk the streets of Hebron every day — here in New York you have to give thanks to G-d for your safety!? That certainly is an interesting way to view our lives, and in truth, we don't even pay attention to that thought of 'walking the streets of Hebron' and the seeming 'dangers' involved. After all, that's our life. But.... Last week in New York, and yesterday, 'covering' a terrorist attack at the entrance to Kiryat Arba, at the gas station where I fill up every time my tank gets thirsty. An Arab stepped out of a taxi, holding a knife, and according to some reports, also an axe, starting screaming, not 'HaGomel,' rather Allah HuAkbar — and started slashing. Only true Divine miracle prevented anyone from being killed. That kind of event brings a person back to 'everyday reality' very quickly. But, thinking back is not only yesterday or last week. This Shabbat, exactly seven years ago, three terrorists attacked Jews outside the south gate of Kiryat Arba, leaving 12 dead, including 3 civilians from Kiryat Arba's emergency squad, and nine officers and soldiers, among them, Col. Dror Weinberg, commander of the Judea Brigade, the highest ranking officer killed during the "Oslo War," aka the 2nd intifada. Thinking about, not only those men we lost, but the bravery of those who stood and fought, and finally killed the terrorists, still sends chills down my spine. Several of those heroes are from Hebron, but the person I remember most was a Druze officer name Siach, who drove over two and a half hours from his home in the north of Israel to Hebron to take part in the mission. Arriving and hearing that the last terrorist was still hiding on the roof of a house, he climbed up by himself, all alone, and faced off with the terrorist, killing him before the Arab killed him. Courage and faith so strong; it's beyond my human comprehension. And yet, with the terror, past and present, we continue to live 'normal lives.' The dinner last week on Saturday night at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows was a tremendous success, and in some ways, even an answer to terror. How so? I don't just measure the success only in terms of dollars and cents, or number of people attending. Of course, both are important; that cannot be denied. And in these respects I think the event was also successful. However, at least this year, success had another aspect — that being, the very fact that dinner took place, where it took place. American and Israel left wing organizations, Jewish and Arab, worked very hard to have the event cancelled. They wrote letters to the NY Mets, owners of Citi Field, initiated media events and protests, demanding that the event not take place, at least not at the home of the Mets. Newspaper and internet accounts, in Israel and in New York, were publicized. To no avail. The Mets and the major league baseball commissioner refused to kowtow to these cowardly demands, and this is, in my opinion, part of the overwhelming success of the event. It would be nice to see others, especially here in Israel, learn from the Mets, and refuse to accede to these types of terror. Like maybe our own Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu?! Last night minister Limor Livnat stated in no uncertain terms that the Israeli government has fallen on 'an awful American administration' and that the Prime Minister is going through heavy hardships and is 'under a lot of pressure' from the Obama administration. So, what to do? To stand up, as did a soldier yesterday who shot the axe-wielding terrorist, and as did Siach 7 years ago and say "NO" — we will not accept this, and do something about it, or to cave in, to surrender, to declare a 'construction freeze' and again acquiesce to diplomatic terror? I know what the answer is, as did those 12 men seven years ago, who gave their lives for Am Yisrael, for the people of Israel. As did all the people who today filled up their tanks at that same gas station where yesterday an Arab wounded two, attempting to murder them. You cannot run away, you cannot hide your head in the sand, you cannot make believe that ignoring it will only make things better. As someone said to me today, it's like feeding the crocodile, hoping that if you feed him long enough he won't eat you. It doesn't work that way because in the end, you wind up being the crocodile's desert. Advice to Bibi: take note of Obama's big teeth and hearty appetite. Shabbat Shalom. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886. |
|
THE CRIME OF BEING A ZIONIST
Posted by Bryna Berch, November 27, 2009. |
|
This essay was written by Karl Pfeifer,
a Vienna-based journalist.
It appeared today in Haaretz
|
|
I am an 81-year-old survivor of the Holocaust. Strange things happened to me last week in Germany. A journalist, I had been invited by a student organization at Bielefeld University and College to give a lecture on "Racism and Anti-Semitism in Hungary." My host was the left-wing anti-fascist group Antifa AG at the Bielefeld campus, located in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. My lecture was scheduled to take place on November 19 at a youth center that serves as the home of a number of left-wing organizations. The event had been announced in late October, but two days before I was to appear, at a meeting of people who frequent the center, several raised an objection about my speaking there. They said they had received information that during Israel's War of Independence, when I served in the Palmach (the pre-state elite strike force of the Haganah), I had participated in a massacre in a Palestinian village. They went so far as to allege that I myself had actively participated in the killing. Those accusing me did not name the place where this alleged massacre was committed, or provide any other details, and even acknowledged that their information was incomplete. But when pushed for corroboration, they settled the matter by explaining that "Pfeifer is a Zionist." At the same time, in an apparent — and bizarre — attempt to appear even-handed, those in attendance resolved that they also would not be willing to host someone who had been a member of the militant Palestinian organization Black September in the 1970s. Of course, no one at the youth center asked me to respond to the accusations before they decided to rescind the invitation. Nor have any of them been willing to answer the questions of German journalists who learned about the incident regarding just why they excluded me. I only learned about what happened because it was reported to someone in Antifa by two of its members who had been present at the decisive meeting. Fortunately, my hosts were able to organize an alternate space with limited notice, and I gave my lecture in the end. My subject was Hungary, where a recent resurgence of racist acts and statements can be observed. This includes the murder of eight Roma (Gypsies) in racial attacks during the past two years, and the shocking anti-Jewish verbal attacks in the right-wing media there and on YouTube. As for me, I did indeed serve in the Palmach and the Israel Defense Forces from 1946 until 1950, after arriving in Mandatory Palestine in 1943. And although I left Israel in 1950, I am proud of my service as a soldier there, when we were defending ourselves against aggression and fighting for the right to have our own state. I did not participate in any massacres, but I know that improper acts were carried out by both sides in the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, as happens during wartime. But the comparison of the Palmach with Black September, which carried out murderous acts of terrorism against civilians in the name of the Palestinian struggle, is an outrageous and ignorant one. To accuse someone of having participated in a "massacre" — in this case, with no details and no proof — is an act of projection that is unfortunately not unusual in certain European circles. The best-known and by far the most widespread example of projection of guilt is the defamation of Israelis as the "Nazis of today." This is one of the most objectionable forms of anti-Semitism in the era after Auschwitz. As far as I can tell, my real crime apparently is being a "Zionist," which I can only understand as being guilty of being a Jew who defended himself and who favors the existence of a Jewish and democratic state. In Germany, I had the feeling that I was being judged by those arrogant anti-Semites not on the basis of what I have done or am doing, but for what I am. |
|
NOT YET A DONE DEAL
Posted by Daily Alert, November 27, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Daily Alert and was written by Amos
Harel. It appeared today in Haaretz
|
|
Arabic media outlets reported yesterday that the Gilad Shalit deal will be completed after Id al-Adha, the Muslim feast of the sacrifice, which ends on Monday. The Syrian press, however, reported that the head of Hamas' Damascus-based political bureau, Khaled Meshal, took an even harder line than the organization's senior officials in Gaza, as he has done at most of the critical junctures in the protracted negotiations. According to Syrian publications, with Gaza's leadership under pressure to present an achievement for its besieged population, Meshal is loath to forgo even a single, small potential concession for the sake of a Hamas victory in the internal struggle against Fatah. In the meantime, Shalit's family continued to meet with cabinet ministers and rabbis, exactly as in the previous round of talks in March. It's an embarrassing, not to say humiliating, spectacle. A veteran European intelligence official with a great deal of experience in captive-release deals recently spoke with an Israeli colleague. He said he found it hard to understand what Israel was up to. "Why don't you end this wretched affair already? Look at the blows you inflicted on Hamas and the siege you imposed on Gaza because of one kidnapped soldier. All you have done is build up the organization. Who would even have looked at Gaza if it had not continued to hold the soldier?" he asked. Israeli decision makers have great professional respect for the German mediators in the three deals negotiated in the past decade (the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum and the return of the bodies of the soldiers snatched from Har Dov in 2004; the 2008 return of the bodies of soldiers captured at the start of the Second Lebanon War in 2008; and the current talks for the return of Shalit, possibly this year). But the mediator's interests are not identical to Israel's. Despite the Germans' deep humanitarian commitment to resolving the Shalit issue, it's worth remembering that released Hamas prisoners are liable to strike here, not in Europe. It's Israel that has something to lose. But despite everything, a deal now appears to be closer than ever. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to end the problem once and for all; on the Palestinian side, 11 months after the drubbing it took in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas in Gaza needs a success that will go some way toward offsetting its failure then. If Netanyahu goes for the deal — which the Palestinians must approve — he will have the support of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi is playing up his commitment to bringing home Shalit, a combat soldier. In conversations with soldiers and officers in field units, they express support for a deal. But senior officers do not all agree: Two officers, from two different units, expressed anger regarding what they see as Israeli society's obsession with Shalit and concerned that the exchange will be a shot in the arm to the terror organizations. A few days ago a simple but effective clip objecting to the proposed deal began making the rounds on the Internet. It cuts between the recent video of Shalit issued by his captors with images of sites of terror attacks, and ends with smiling photos of their victims, many of them young. The photos are a painful reminder, not least because the Shin Bet security service is known to impute the murder of dozens of Israelis to terrorists who were released in the Tennenbaum deal. For a long time Israeli leaders debated between settling for a fundamentally humanitarian measure and trying to make the deal part of a strategic arrangement on the Gaza Strip border. On Saturday Hamas proclaimed a full cease-fire, vowing to use force to keep the smaller factions from firing rockets at Israel. This is unlikely to be a coincidence: Hamas undoubtedly expects a quid pro quo in the form of an end to Israel's siege of Gaza in addition to the release of the prisoners. In recent weeks the Obama administration has pressed Netanyahu to extend good-faith gestures to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, intended to compensate for the predicted blow to Fatah's popularity as a result of the deal. Netanyahu's declaration on Wednesday of a 10-month hiatus in settlement construction is not only a tardy response to Washington's requests. The U.S. administration will try to present it as an achievement for Abbas as well, despite the Palestinian Authority's disappointment with East Jerusalem's exclusion from the building freeze. Additional ideas were also raised in talks with the Americans — from transferring responsibility for security to the PA in more areas of the West Bank, to a massive release of Fatah prisoners as a gesture to Abbas. One possible scenario involves delaying by a few months the release of Marwan Barghouti, the emerging successor to Abbas, in order to separate it from the Shalit deal and thus also from a sense of obligation to Hamas. Off-the-shelf attacks The site where Shalit's abduction took place is clearly visible from the observation tower north of Kibbutz Kerem Shalom. Here, on the morning of June 25, 2006, a terrorist squad made its way via a tunnel from the Rafah area and crossed the border. They approached the Israeli forces deployed along the border fence, who were looking west, toward the Gaza Strip, from behind, surprising them. Two of the Palestinians charged the observation tower and were shot dead at its base. Others fired at an armored personnel carrier to the north and also attacked Shalit's Merkava tank. Under cover of the ensuing chaos, a few of the militants crossed back into Gaza with Shalit, who had been slightly injured in the incident. The Hamas cells operating in Rafah and in neighboring Khan Yunis are considered more fanatic, compartmentalized and dangerous than those in the center and the north of the Gaza Strip. Israeli intelligence coverage of the area is less than ideal. The working assumption of the intelligence community is that Hamas, and likewise the smaller Palestinian militant groups, are constantly digging tunnels toward the border. An analysis of previous terror attacks near the fence indicate that in some cases, there was no prior intelligence warning. The Palestinians have become more like Hezbollah in that they are moving from daily attacks to sophisticated, well-planned operations that are less frequent, but have the potential to be more lethal. These could include the incorporation of new tactics, such as firing antitank or antiaircraft missiles into Israeli territory from the tunnels. There is little doubt that the small factions — two of which were involved in Shalit's abduction, but have been been kept away from the negotiations and from enjoying a share in the political spoils by Hamas — will try to emulate the larger organization's success by trying to abduct more soldiers. These are "off-the-shelf attacks," which can be executed within a fairly short time and from close to the border. The big question is whether Hamas itself will seek to challenge Israel again after the swap, or will instead try to engineer a Palestinian "velvet revolution." That would involve exploiting the organization's expected surge in popularity in the wake of the prisoners' release to work against Fatah and toward presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010, in the hope of taking over the West Bank as well. Blood ties This week Colonel Eran Niv, 39, concluded two and a half intense years as commander of the Ephraim Brigade, whose sector includes Qalqilyah and Tul Karm, in the West Bank. "He is a rare example of an officer who can run with a knife in his teeth and think at the same time," says a company commander who served under him. The document summing up his tour of duty as brigade commander is studded with quotations from "Alice in Wonderland" and "Tom Sawyer" — not an everyday occurrence in IDF reports. Even though he came up through the chain of command, as a company and battalion commander in the Nahal paramilitary brigade, Niv, thanks to his technological training, also oversaw the integration of computerized systems in operational activity. He was considering switching from combat to technology when the Second Lebanon War began, spurring him to rush to the aid of his Nahal Brigade buddies at Saluki and Randuriya. "I realized that there was no other option: In a nation that continues to live by the sword, not everyone can do what he wants," Niv said. The most significant event in his military career was probably in November 2002, when terrorists killed 12 Israeli soldiers and security personnel from Kiryat Arba and Hebron, including Hebron Brigade commander Colonel Dror Weinberg. Three Islamic Jihad snipers shot them. Niv, then a battalion commander who was on leave in Tel Aviv, was called to the scene. He organized a team that attacked and killed the militants. In the months that followed he killed more terrorists in short-range firefights after they had killed settlers in the Hebron area. Typically, Niv relates that story in talks which he gives to soldiers in various army courses. His focus is on the importance of conceptual flexibility in this type of situation. Niv also speaks warmly about Hebron. "It's a place with which I have blood ties. I lost soldiers there and I fought shoulder-to-shoulder with settlers." How stable is PA rule in the West Bank? "I don't think anyone can really know," Niv responds. "What I can say is that in 2007 the cities here were in a state of neglect and the louts from Fatah collected protection money and harassed women on the street. Now the PA is demonstrating sovereignty here. A few days ago I visited an amusement park in Tul Karm after having been at an amusement park in Tel Aviv with my daughters on Shabbat. The same Chinese manufacturer sold the equipment to both places." Asked what he has learned from his service, he says: "That there is nothing new under the sun: Good intelligence, operational freedom of action and the separation fence are what prevent terrorism. And if the PA is helping us with this, so much the better." Niv also has a message about the importance of being earnest. "I was a company commander in Gaza after Oslo and I got burned there, like everyone. At that time we didn't know how to behave. Today we insist on every last detail in the agreements with the PA being carried out. There is no rolling of eyes and no backslapping. I am not their pal, but I work with them. Honoring agreements is a far better basis for success than eating hummus together." 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 |
|
BUILD THE LAND OF ISRAEL FUND
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by Yehudit Katzover and Nadia Matar. |
|
The announcement of the building freeze in Judea and Samaria is proof that Netanyahu, to our shame, is following in the path of Ariel Sharon — betraying the will of the Jewish majority that elected a right-wing government, and betraying Eretz Israel. There is only a single goal to the freeze: to persuade the Arabs to participate in negotiations to advance the establishment of the Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, and thereby relinquish Eretz Israel. There are those among us who say, "These are only words," "This is just tactics with the United States," "Don't worry, the Arabs won't agree to any plan." We cannot make light of words. Netanyahu already failed when he said "two states," which means surrendering Eretz Israel, just like when he said "freeze," which means "construction in Eretz Israel is illegal." Words have power, and they strongly penetrate. If our stance since the Six Day War had been consistent and we had used the suitable words: "This is our land" and had acted accordingly and immediately annexed these portions of the homeland, we would dwell securely in it. Now we must respond powerfully. If we continue with routine life, we will fall victim to the other planned decrees that apparently aim to eliminate the entire Jewish settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. in order to establish a Palestinian state here. As is well-known, this would constitute an existential threat to all the small State of Israel. As long as we thought that the State of Israel is a democratic country, we could make do with demonstrations in order to try and influence the government. For a long time, Israel has not been democratic. The leftist policy rules it, despite the voters' desire for nationalism and Zionism. Now we must channel all our energy and strength to the cancellation of the decree, by construction, construction, and more construction. We must build throughout Judea and Samaria, within the settlements, in private houses, and outside the settlements, on the surrounding hills. The call of the hour is therefore to establish a fund for the construction of Eretz Israel, in which millions of dollars will be invested in order to enable continued construction throughout Judea and Samaria. We are convinced that if the left found donors in Israel and abroad who are willing to contribute enormous sums for their slanderous, anti-Israel propaganda activity, that surely there are more donors, friends and lovers of Israel, who will be ready to contribute to the struggle to build the land and materialize the Zionist dream of returning the Jewish people to its land. All the information for the "Construction of Eretz Israel" project is ready. We are in contact with Jewish contractors who are capable of building a 48 square meter house within five days, at a cost of NIS 100,000, or a 70 square meter structure for NIS 200,000. Many young couples are willing to live in such simple structures, on the hills and/or in the settlements. All that is missing is a flow of budgets. If we are successful in raising large sums, resulting in the construction of dozens of new structures throughout Judea and Samaria, this will constitute a Zionist response to the Prime Minister's collapse. They might succeed in destroying one or two structures — we will have to immediately rebuild them, and realize that the building was not for nothing, since the construction of the structure that was later destroyed raised the flag of the struggle and kindled the fervor to continue to build. A week ago, two houses, each costing NIS 250,000, were destroyed in Negohot. Now, five families are waiting to build their homes on the same hill in Negohot. In Mevo Dotan a sheep pen worth NIS 200,000 was destroyed — that very night they began to build a new sheep pen, within the ruins, of much smaller dimensions. If the Build the Land of Israel Fund had already existed, we could have rebuilt the pen in its previous size, and even added housing units for young couples who are standing in line to populate the hills of Judea and Samaria. With stubbornness and devotion for each clod of earth in Eretz Israel we will merit possessing it. In this month of Kislev, let us draw strength from the Maccabees, who heroically and fearlessly violated the decrees of the empire. With G-d's help, we will raise from Israel's friends in the country and abroad the necessary budgets, and we will set forth on a construction drive all over Judea and Samaria. In place of a freeze — construction. In place of halting — breaking through. In place of fallen spirits — we will raise the people's spirit. With G-d's help, this is within our power. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
FINALLY, ISRAEL GETS IT!
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 27, 2009. |
|
Joseph Farah rips into those who condone 'blatant ethnic cleansing' of Jews. |
|
For more than five years, I have been conspicuously alone in pointing out the racist, anti-Jewish nature of policies that require the evacuation of Israelis from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and, more lately, the halts on building and repairing homes and businesses owned by Jews in Jerusalem. Finally, someone in Israel has figured this out and called the policies advocated by Barack Obama and the international elite what they are. "Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews, Muslims and Christians or between eastern and western Jerusalem," said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. "The demand to halt construction by religion is not legal in the United States or in any other free place in the world. I do not presume that any government would demand to freeze construction in the United States based on race, religion or gender, and the attempt to demand it from Jerusalem is a double standard and inconceivable." Barkat was responding to Obama's remarks on Fox News Channel about the approval of 900 new apartments in the southern Jerusalem community of Gilo as "settlement activity," suggesting, irrationally and irresponsibly, that it justified Palestinian violence. The Palestinian Authority quickly adopted Obama's line to rationalize future terrorist attacks. However, even the most appeasing Israelis — people like Shimon Peres — see Gilo, with its existing population of 30,000 Jews right in the heart of the Israeli capital, as undisputedly Israeli territory, land that will never be negotiated away. It's clear now Obama, like the Muslim world, doesn't believe any Israeli territory is beyond dispute. This is what I have been saying and writing since 2004: No more
ethnic cleansing — not in the Middle East or anywhere else in the
world. — see When the Palestinian Authority demanded that all Jews leave Gaza in anticipation of declaring it to be part of a future Palestinian state, the world did not notice the implications. Why would Jews not be welcome living in a Palestinian state? Because the Palestinian leadership is racist. Why would blatant ethnic cleansing of this sort be embraced by the world when ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world is roundly denounced? Why is there an exception made for Jews? Why is it OK to remove Jews from their homes and businesses in the Middle East? Why is it acceptable to forbid Jews from building and repairing homes and businesses on the basis of their religion? How can this be tolerated, let alone condoned and championed as progressive policy by people like Obama? I made the same point in 2005 — see
What would you say if I told you the United States is backing a plan to uproot forcibly people from their homes because they are Muslim? You would probably be incredulous, I said. You would probably be shocked, I said. You would probably be outraged, I said. And you would be right. Well, rest assured there was no plan backed by the United States to uproot forcibly peaceful Muslims from their homes anywhere in the world. There was, however, a plan to do just that to several thousand peaceful Jews, many of whom have lived for a generation in thriving communities — showcases of prosperity and freedom for their neighbors. This anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing plan was known as the "disengagement" plan in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. There is only one reason these people were displaced — because they are Jews in a land where Jews are not welcome. And the world condoned it. Earlier this year, I pointed it out, again at
In May, Obama announced he would be taking what he and his administration referred to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy." I explained what that meant. "It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank," I wrote. "I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel — let alone their own country."
I returned to this theme in September after what I called "Obama's
Judenrein speech." See:
"The Nazis had a word for what Barack Obama declared in the United Nations General Assembly last week," I wrote. "When a city or a district or a nation was 'clean of Jews,' it was pronounced 'Judenrein.' The goal of the Nazis was, of course, for all of Europe to be cleansed of Jews — then the whole world." Was I being harsh? Not if you understand the nature of Obama's demand for an end to "Israeli settlements" in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem — and, now apparently, the entire city. Since Obama took office in January, the U.S. government has greatly increased pressure on Israel to halt any and all of the following:
Why would the U.S. government want to stop Jews from building homes and businesses in lands that have been under Israel's control for the last 42 years and a part of Israel's history for the last 3,000 years? Because the U.S. government has predetermined that these lands are going to be part of a future Palestinian state — one that will be conspicuously Jew-free. In other words, Barack Obama is in favor of an ethnic-cleansing operation — one that will eventually require the forcible removal of all Jews, no matter how long they have lived in these areas, no matter what they paid for their properties, no matter what. I'm gratified to see an Israeli awakening to what has been the plan from the beginning. Jews in the Middle East are starting to get the picture — if a little late. 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. |
|
DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD
Posted by Zalmi Unsdorfer, November 27, 2009. |
|
Dear Lord Rothschild, I mean no personal disrespect to you but feel impelled to write and express my outrage at the sullying of the illustrious Rothschild name and lineage by your son's association with the Gadaffi family. As a Jew and a committed Zionist I have always been aware and immensely proud of the achievements of the Rothschild dynasty and its contribution to my people and its state. But to see the next generation openly socialising with such rabidly anti-Semitic and murderous despots truly sickens me. For our people, no amount of commercial profit or dividend can possibly justify such associations. By what right does young Nat presume to trample and trash a reputation built up over centuries of professional excellence and communal endowment? It truly saddens me to the core. I hope you share the same sentiment ... and perhaps enough shame to do something about it. Contact Zalmi Unsdorfer at http://zalmi.blogspot.com/ |
|
ISRAELI COMMUNISTS AND ANARCHISTS AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by Dan Barkey, a writer and a poet. |
|
Israeli and Jewish Patriotism, Israeli Anarchist and Communists, and Brest-Litovsk — a condensed anti-Israeli academia Fascist Left tirade. Yes, there is such a thing as patriotism, yes, there is such a thing as Israeli and Jewish Patriotism, and there is such a thing as patriotism without Oppressive Nationalistic Despotism. All this in Israel of today. All this as witnessed in its all-inclusive participatory democracy, which accepts parliament members from among its avowed enemies, as witnessed by its basic democratic freedoms of speech, thought and gathering, and witnessed as well in its high living standards enjoyed by all of its minorities together with its main ethnic group, the Jewish majority, for which the country had been erected. And a country to envy it is already, in spite of its short modern history and of its beleaguered state of affairs. Not for nothing you see hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in its midst, even from Muslim countries from far and near, and not for nothing you don't see hundreds of thousands of legal emigrants from among its Arab minority to their sister countries, which still live in dust and squalor. Certainly not to the Palestinian Authority, and absolutely not to the Gazan Hamastan. But for a few but noisy to an extreme, highly indoctrinated 200 plus persons in Israel that claim the unsavory appellation of Anarchists, and but for a few thousands of hardened Jewish Communists and another few thousands of Arab Extreme National-Communists, which can be compared only to the Hitlerian National-Socialists of Nazi Germany in their depth of hatred for the Jews that provide them with such envied amenities of modern life as described above, all Israelis are patriots, and all jump to attention when "tsav 8" lands in their hands, calling them to army service as reservists in times of need. Add to this their international collaborators screaming at the top of their lungs their hatred for Israel, who are Palestinians in their majority and a handful of self-hating West Coast US Jews, and you have a collection of insanely blind to truth and decency extreme camp that is dead set to wipe Israel from atlas books, for more than that they cannot do. You'll have to trust me on all that I say here about Anarchism and Communism, otherwise you'll have to read volumes of chatterbox babble, of rant and empty vent, full of irresponsible naiveté about the inherent human good nature to be trusted in a lawless, ungoverned world, full of hatred for anything that is civilized, beautiful, good and considerate, decent and honorable by basic, commonsensical, intuitive human norms, in the case of the Anarchists, and full of a determined will to hate with a passion all that is not of the proletariat class and of a proved determined will to annihilate such individuals, in the case of the Communists. Let us start, with a determined and vigorous move, to unveil the shroud of illogical contradiction encasing the Anarchist, Israeli and International, world view, regarding the unsolvable, life and death, Jewish-Muslim/Arab, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just the other day I perused some anarchistic literature. Now, I'm confused. Which is not my usual state of mind, I attest to myself with modesty. Why peddling for a Palestinian state, when all they are against is STATE, all and any State? Why clamoring against the alleged theft of Palestinian property by the returning Jews, when all they are against is, you guessed right, property? Didn't Prudhon, Bakunin, Nechayev and the Russian Prince Kropotkin et al, the anarchist infamous fathers, maintained that ALL property is theft? You read right, they hold it that all property is theft. If to follow the modern Israeli Anarchists, helped by their no less violent international collaborators, if Palestinian property is to be sanctified, then will not The Land of Israel, claimed by its lawful owner, the Jewish Nation, be an identical case of sanctified property? Why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? On the other hand, if all property, including Jewish, is theft, shouldn't we include Palestinian property in it? Equality for all, I say, goose and gander included. If the anarchists Kobi Snitz, and Uri Gordon, an Israeli Jew Muslim
convert and one of the most avowed anti-Israeli anarchist activists if
there were any among them, both academicians preaching their hatred
here and abroad, are able to say with a straight face that their
anti-West Bank Separation Wall demonstrations are non-violent, whereas
policemen are seriously wounded by stones hurled at them in these
demonstrations, then you understand with whom you deal. And I mean
STONES, not gravel, ok? More like boulders. In the US, and probably
not only, stones are considered a lethal weapon. But what are for
them, the local and foreign anarchists, 1,130 Israeli lives,
slaughtered, murdered barbarously and untimely by the Palestinian
terrorists BEFORE the Wall? Nothing, if to judge from their
pooh-poohing dismissal of the Defense Wall logic. What do they care
that this appalling number in itself and its grim meaning was reduced
to 30 in 2006? Not that 30 murdered lives count to naught, but less
dead are just that, less deaths, and this is good, very good, and no
one will dare tell me how to defend myself after years of attacks on
my body and property, separation or not, proportionately or not.
You'll have to read Gordon's article "Right of Reply: Anarchy in the
Holy Land!"
In all of this, he and the other anarchists walk in the footsteps of their mentors, the above mentioned fathers of Anarchy, the wild offspring of Rousseau's and Weishaupt's philosophies of the fateful 18th century, both radical monster parents of anti-civilization, anti-State, anti-family and anti-property detailed ideology (and, yes, I stand firmly behind what I say), the bastard child of Socialism initiated by these two; they walk in the footsteps of the above mentioned fathers of Anarchy, who were followers with murderous fury in their eyes of Robespierre and Marat of the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution the First, and of the other two, no less violent, French Revolutions. Now I ask, if the STATE as such is to be forfeited, why start with the Jewish one? Why not start with the Palestinian, which is nonexistent anyway — and will forever be so, because they show themselves incapable for it to a pathetic extreme, so let us not erect one in order to eliminate it later on the wake of a fulfilled anarchic world. And no pitiful, made-up explanations from Gordon's mouth will do away with his self-contradictory illogic. Let such men of academia not poison our children's minds with their naively misconstrued, fanatically inhuman philosophies. They, Gordon and Snitz, won't tell you, but they will implement, if it were in their power, the fanatic murderous philosophies of same Rousseau's and Weishaupt's militant Socialism. What this criminal ideology brought ultimately on its subjugated population where it was implemented, will be monstrously clear immediately below. After being done with them Anarchists, let us tack to the bureaucratic, governing, Statist and militant form of Socialism, the ultra-violent one, the Communist form. On this, Prof. Anat Biletski, the B'Tselem organization's ideological life and soul and the main influence in it, attesting to herself, says: "I see myself both as a leftist — a communist, a Marxist — and as a humanist." Let me make it clear. Not for nothing does she say "I see myself both as a leftist ... and as a humanist.": If being a Marxist would imply being a humanist, and if being a humanist would imply being a Marxist, she would have no need whatsoever to say so. But, for all I know, and soon enough you will know this too, the two terms, "Marxist" and "humanist" are mutually exclusive. This is a maxim on which I stand equally firm. No achievement of Communism anywhere in its realm can be justified by the systematic, ideological, institutional murder that ensued in its places of rule worldwide, because: Between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the 20th century were caused directly, and justified, by its one-class rule, the proletariat class-based ideology. This class-genocide was rivaled only by the Nazi race-genocide, and even then, the numbers are infamously on the Communist side, this inhuman class-based conflict ideology death factory. The cobbled streets of Paris of the three French Revolutions were covered in blood, Russia in particular, and its satellite subjugated Eastern Europe colonies, and the other countries following it, were equally drenched in blood and sufferings, extreme sufferings, among which Cambodia is The ultimate fearful example of the militant Socialist extreme hatred for the human race civilization: During his four years in power, Pol Pot, the leader of the Cambodian communist movement, known as the Khmer Rouge ["Red (as in 'red' of the Communist flag) Cambodian", the name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Cambodia], imposed a social engineering version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero", in which the intelligentsia per-se was to be exterminated. The combined effects of slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions, the systematic murder of members of various groups, the complete destruction of individual rights, forced labor, disease, and starvation in Cambodia's "killing fields", the transformation of a developing country into a xenophobic agrarian society, and other horrors that can be ascribed to the cruelty or ineptitude of the totalitarian dictator Pol Pot, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people, approximately 21% of the Cambodian population, a fifth of it!! (Wikipedia, and other sources). All these widespread crimes were done in the name of a fanatic, blind attempt to re-civilize the world on the ruins of the existing civilization, on the ruins of basic human decency, on the ruins of culture, family and peaceful government however flawed it is or can be. All this frightful "human" systematic, ideologist philosophies, both Anarchist and Communist, are based on a certain analysis of the human praxis, in the words of Marx, based in its turn on the philosophies of Rousseau and Weishaupt as their ultimate source. Those two are The Fountainhead of an extremely rationalized attempt to analyze the human situation, in the wake of which certain conclusions were drawn, which, to be turned into action, demanded an equally extreme kind of (revolutionary) action, one which justified any and all means to be taken in order to implement the said conclusions. For it is found written black on paper in countless books and pamphlets and expressed countless times by the leaders and proponents of these two camps of the Extreme Left for more than two hundred years, starting with the the First French Revolution in 1789, and continuing to this day in Cuba and North Korea, that the revolution justifies all and any means toward its full implementation. Machiavelli mentioned this dictum in his book, "The Prince". They, adopted it verbatim, lying and deceiving, killing and imprisoning, wrapped it in blood and buried in human suffering wherever and whenever it was tried. No, I don't have the slightest respect or consideration for the Israeli Anarchists and Communists. Certainly not for the Arab members of these camps, who are of the most nationalistic brand and who use the militant Socialist ideology for their ulterior ends, to deprive The Jewish Nation of its lawful property, The Land of Israel. As Lenin betrayed and sold Russia to Germany in the WWI in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the opportunity and money that they gave him to return to Russia and start his longed for revolution, something which he admitted in his trial at the time, before his coming to power, and which took Russia out of the war, a prize for the Germans and a blow to the Allies, so the Extreme, Fascist Left in Israel is willing to sell their motherland for their lunatic ideology, no matter what the price will be. The Fascist Left Anarchist and Communist exponents in the academia, who pose the gravest threat to the Israeli society because it is they who teach and influence our children, are to be expulsed forever from any and all academia posts that they hold in Israel and hopefully abroad too. May the higher education committee in Israel see this before it's too late, and may the donors see it too, before they open their wallets. Amen! Contact Israel Academia Monitor by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com |
|
FREEZE OF JEWISH CONSTRUCTION IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA: PEACE OR APPEASEMENT ENHANCER?
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 26, 2009. |
|
Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria is based on a series of erroneous assumptions: 1. A Freeze will not soften — but will intensify — President Obama's criticism of "settlements" in particular and Israeli policy in general. For instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14, 2009 Two-State-Solution-speech triggered exacerbated pressure by Obama. Moreover, Netanyahu's willingness to exchange hundreds of Palestinian terrorists for Gilad Shalit was followed by US pressure to release more terrorists. 2. A Freeze will not moderate — but will wet the appetite of — the PLO (Abu Mazen) or Hamas (Haniye'); it will radicalize their demands and fuel their terrorism. Former Prime Minister Barak's sweeping concessions, offered to Arafat and Abu Mazen in October 2000, were greeted by the PLO-engineered Second Intifada'. Furthermore, Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented offer of concessions (including the return of some 1948 refugees) was rebuffed by Abu Mazen. 3. A Freeze re-entrenches the misperception of Jewish presence in Judea & Samaria as a/the obstacle to peace. It diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Abu Mazen-engineered hate education — the manufacturing line of terrorists — and Arab rejection of the existence — and not just the size — of the Jewish State. 4. A Freeze and the adherence to Presidential dictate will not transform the White House position on Iran-related matters. Besides, a Freeze and the adherence to Presidential dictate do not constitute a prerequisite to maintaining constructive strategic relations with the USA (e.g. supply of critical military systems and crucial strategic cooperation). In fact, a Freeze and a serial submission to Presidential pressure — just like any other form of retreat — erode Israel's strategic posture in Washington and in the Middle East. Such an attitude ignores the role and power of Congress — especially when it comes to the Jewish State — at the dire expense of Israel's national security. Is Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria an/the obstacle to peace? 1. In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas, and induced more smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel. 2. President Obama defines Jewish presence in Judea & Samaria as a root cause of Arab hostility toward the Israel. However, Jewish communities were first established in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War of 1967, the 1956 and 1948 wars, the 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, the 1964 establishment of the PLO, the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc. 3. President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?! 4. Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?! 5. Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria would he tolerate Jewish opposition to Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within pre-1967 Israel. Doesn't such a reality highlight the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?! 6. Obama pressures Israel to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Arab construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Doesn't the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome of negotiation?! 7. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan. The most recent internationally-recognized sovereign over Judea and Samaria was the League of Nations-authorized 1922 British Mandate, which defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish history. Article 6 of the Mandate indicates the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School and former Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Security Council Resolution 242, asserted that 242 entitled Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Oslo Accord and its derivatives do not prohibit "settlements." Moreover, Israel has constrained construction to state-owned — and not private — land, avoiding expulsion of Arabs landowners. Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is not a peace-enhancer; it is an appeasement-enhancer.
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 is #230
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: A CLOSER LOOK
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 26, 2009. |
|
I wrote last night not long after the announcement had been made by Netanyahu that there would be a 10 month freeze on building in communities in Judea and Samaria. Now it is time to take a closer look at some of the details of what is happening, and possible implications. The original announcement made it sound as if there would simply be a freeze on issuing new tenders for building, and that no new permits for starting building projects would be signed. The number that is being used is 3,000 — 3,000 housing units already in process or about to start that presumably would continue, not affected by the freeze. But, in point of fact, the situation is more complicated than this. If construction has already started on a site — if there are bulldozers digging the foundation, or masons pouring concrete, or whatever — the work will be allowed to continue. But if work has been contracted and permits signed, but no actual physical work has begun, then it seems the process will be put on hold. I am a bit vague as to where in the process of getting started the freeze would occur. That is, for example, if workmen have been hired and have gone out to the site, but the foundation hasn't been started and all they've done is unload materials — will they be allowed to continue? (I've heard nothing in this regard, but it seems to me that this creates the potential for leaving in limbo families who were depending on a new home being constructed and believed everything was in place.) ~~~~~~~~~~ What is more — and this is certainly something that was obvious to anyone considering repercussions, and a source of much concern — there have been statements regarding the fact that if "productive" negotiations were going on, the freeze would not stop at the end of 10 months, but would continue for the duration of those negotiations. So, what would constitute "productive" negotiations and who would determine this? ~~~~~~~~~~ The only member of the Security Cabinet who actually voted against the motion was Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu). Landau left Sharon's cabinet rather than support the expulsion from Gush Katif. The man has retained his integrity, and we should remember this. The two Shas ministers — Interior Minister Eli Yeshai and Housing Minister Ariel Atias — absented themselves. The other 11 ministers voted for this proposal. That means that the two nationalists, supporters of building in Judea and Samaria, whom I alluded to last night — Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon — voted for it. Which leaves the door open to many questions. Begin made light of what had just been approved, saying all that will stop is the issuing of new permits. "During these 10 months thousands of housing units and public buildings will be built in the West Bank to allow [people] to lead normal lives, and once the 10 months are over the government of Israel, just as it has declared, will resume construction in the West Bank in accordance with the policy of past Israeli regimes." And indeed, that is what Netanyahu did declare last night: "As soon as the suspension period concludes, my government will resume the West Bank construction policy of previous governments." But that's only what will happen if the PA doesn't come to the table. There's a good chance it won't, and the prime minister may be counting on this. But it's not quite as simple they say, and this way is fraught with dangers. Netanyahu claims he is doing this to bring the PA into negotiations. Does he imagine, by any stretch of the imagination, that if they did come to the table, they'd remain there if we started issuing new building permits after a 10-month halt? It was Uzi Landau who was realistic about this, saying that it's obvious that at the end of 10 months Obama will seek an extension. He's right, and this might be the case even if the PA hasn't come to the table. (In typical Obama mode, he might want to give them another chance.) Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon said this action was taken to "avoid a confrontation with our allies," but "the goal is to preserve our interests." He maintained that it was the right thing to do. ~~~~~~~~~~ So now we ask: What the hell is going on? What is it that we don't know? Binyamin Netanyahu, whatever his faults, is not Ehud Olmert. Or Tzipi Livni. He does not have a genuine longing in his heart to give away our country. No one should think this of him. And I will defend him against anyone who does. What Netanyahu has, is a reputation for caving under American pressure. And he developed this reputation, it must be noted, in a situation that was less pressured than the present. Right now he is confronting an enormous amount, with regard to the demands of Obama and company, coupled with the horrendous campaign of Israeli delegitimization that is taking place, and which has led to Goldstone and more. So, is this what we're looking at? A caving to the Americans and an effort to avoid international criticism? If so, this is a serious error. Ya'alon's comment about avoiding confrontation with our allies makes it seem so. So does Lieberman's statement: "We've been more than fair with the Palestinian Authority, both in our intentions to resume negotiations and in actions on the ground, including the removal of roadblocks.... Because we received support from the US on Goldstone, and Obama's government is committed to vetoing it in the Security Council, we have an obligation to compromise an essential right of ours? Don't like the sound of this, at all. This is not the way to secure legitimization for our nation, but would achieve the opposite — as we diminish ourselves. Now, more than ever, is the time for us to present a strong and secure face to the world. Now we must be firm in our rights. ~~~~~~~~~~ And yet, there's a "but" here. I alluded to it last night and several times before. When Netanyahu walked away from his secret meeting with Obama, he said that in time we would understand why it had to be secret. I do not believe that the secrecy was simply with regard to getting a promise on Goldstone in return for a settlement freeze. They didn't need an hour alone without aides to discuss that. There's more... whatever the "more" is. At the time, there were hints and rumors regarding some discussion that took place about Iran. I still don't know if those rumors and hints were true. Ra'anan Gissin, journalist and former Sharon associate, for example, wrote a commentary in which he said that discussions about Iran should be kept away from public attention. And his was only one of several comments. The fact remains that while I do not know with any certainty what the situation is, I feel a responsibility to mention this. I suggest that, even as we protest and feel angry (and appropriately so), we must keep in mind that there may be more than meets the eye. At the end of the day, we might learn something that helps us to understand that Netanyahu had reasons for acting as he did that were genuine expressions of his concern for the nation. We might see a quid pro quo that made some sense. Might. Post editor David Horovitz suggests that Iran is involved in this
because Obama believes he cannot rally the Arabs against Iran without
progress on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. For me, this is shtuyote
— nonsense, although indeed Obama did make such a linkage many months
ago. Surely Netanyahu is aware that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states
are terrified of Iran in their own right and frankly eager to see
action against it. This would not be a good reason to freeze building
in our communities. Not in my book. I don't believe the Arab states
even care about their fellow Arabs here. (See Michael Freund on this
very subject:
But an American readiness to assist indirectly if we decide to attack would be a good reason. As might a serious effort to promote and levy tough, meaningful sanctions against Iran. Remember that as Netanyahu went to Washington, Obama, for all his public bravado, was feeling extraordinarily frustrated by Iran, which had just spit in his outstretched hand. ~~~~~~~~~~ And, before we leave the subject of Iran and Israel, let me share this: Very recently, for the first time in years, both Russia and China, which have been stumbling blocks to action against Iran, said they would support a toughly-worded statement critical of Iran. A statement won't make anything happen, but it was good news because it signaled a shift on the part of these two nations. Now we learn that the US promoted the shift, at least on the part of China. At the beginning of the month, before Obama visited China, two White House officials, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, went to Beijing and told leaders that, for Israel, Iran is an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries." That is: Israel may bomb Iran, and no one would be able to prevent it. But this could cause problems in this part of the world that would adversely affect you. So, the more you're on board with stopping Iran, the less likely this is to happen. I thought this fascinating. And if the US can do this with China, could they not with the Gulf states? Makes more sense than trying to "lure" them by promising peace negotiations for the PA, no? ~~~~~~~~~~ On another front, the negotiations on Shalit have for the moment been stopped by Hamas. They are accusing us of blocking the trade by refusing to release certain terrorists. (Terrorists, of course, is my word and not theirs.) There's a lot of talk about how this trade would strengthen Hamas in the street, and thus further weaken Abbas and Fatah. Hamas has, astutely, asked that some of those released be Fatah people, so it can make the claim that it acts on behalf of all Palestinian Arabs and that it brought Fatah people out of prison when Fatah couldn't. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please, see this piece by Daniel Pipes that discusses the threat to Western society poses by Islamists who infiltrate. It's a more serious problem than terrorists and it merits serious attention.
~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" Israel is the world's leader in developing responses to and promoting research on Alzheimer's. For example: [] Research at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva may lead to the development of a vaccine that reduces neural damage and brain inflammation. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SHOCKER: NAVY SEALS FACE ASSAULT CHARGES — FOR CAPTURING MOST-WANTED TERRORIST
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 26, 2009. |
|
The following is a Fox News report from yesterday. |
|
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial. Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it. Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers. Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault. Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement. Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation. Neal Puckett, an attorney representing McCabe, told Fox News the SEALs are being charged for allegedly giving the detainee a "punch in the gut." "I don't know how they're going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom," Puckett said. "But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they're going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia." The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged. FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad. The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee. "I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health." Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January. United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued. The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time." The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq. The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph. Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September. The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.
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
|
|
TERROR ATTACK AT GAS STATION IN KIRYAT ARBA
Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, November 26, 2009. |
|
At about 3:30 this afternoon, an Arab stepped out of a taxi next to the gas station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba. Walking through the gate, he pulled out a knife and stabbed two people near the gas pumps. An Israeli soldier at the site immediately shot the terrorist, wounding him very seriously. The two Israelis injured, a man and woman, were evacuated by ambulance to Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem. Their conditions were reported to be, thank G-d, only slightly wounded. A Hebron spokesman issued the following statement: This terror attack is clearly the Arab response to Israel's continued acquiesence to American pressure, both to stop all building in Judea and Samaria, and to renew 'piece negotiations' with Abu Mazen and the PTA — the palestinian terror authority. This area has been quiet for a long time; certainly this terrorist did not act on his own, planning and perpetrating a terror attack just outside Hebron. If Israel continues to concede to Arab-American demands, this is only a small taste of things to come. See video here. 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. |
|
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE RUNS INTERFERENCE FOR ANTI-ISRAEL OBAMA
Posted by Don Feder, November 26, 2009. |
|
Is there any doubt that the ADL has become an adjunct of the DNC? The Anti-Defamation League pushes a leftist agenda in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry. The ADL and the establishment left have a Vulcan mind-meld. The left thinks a wave of anti-Obama hysteria is sweeping the land, driven by ignorance and prejudice. So does the ADL. The left believes Islam is a benign force, and frets that terrorist acts like the Fort Hood murders will negatively impact American Muslims. The ADL couldn't agree more. The left abhors the Tea Parties and protests at town hall meetings, as does the ADL. The left views talk radio a vampire considers a stake smeared with garlic and immersed in holy water. Holy glatt-kosher cow...so does the ADL. The ADL's latest contribution to agitprop is its report "Rage Grows
in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," Among other instances of conspiracy-mongering and "demonizing" Saint Barack, the ADL cites the Tea Parties. Tea Party activists "express their anger at the government," the ADL observes in the hushed tones of revelation. Imagine that: Americans who are angry at their government. Such a thing is unheard of in the annals of U.S. history. Also, the ADL informs us, many at the Tea Parties express views that "fall outside the mainstream." What, are they in favor of same-sex marriage, nationalized health care, and gun confiscation? Do they view the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as prohibiting saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes in a legislative chamber? No, silly. In the ADL's alternate reality, only conservatives harbor views that fall outside the mainstream. Thus do the 21% of Americans who call themselves liberal categorize the 40% who identify with conservatism. To confirm its judgment, the ADL discloses that "Angry protesters have frequently made claims ranging from proclaiming Obama's 'socialist' intentions to making explicit Nazi comparisons to suggesting that the president is defying or even subverting the Constitution." Socialist intentions — like taking over the U.S. auto industry and trying to federalize health care so bureaucrats will make life-and-death decisions about who gets what medical services? Subverting the Constitution — as in appointing a plethora of policy-making czars who aren't accountable to Congress? The self-styled extremist-watchers claim that "Various conservative and far-right organizations encouraged people to attend the town hall meetings," where "protesters expressed rage at elected officials." Also "anti-Obama anger was the focus of many town hall meetings." The Anti-Anti-Obama Anger League? But the real target of the ADL's ire is none other than the left's chief bête noir: talk radio. Makes sense. They've yet to figure out a way to apply the Fairness Doctrine to political rallies. In August, the ADL's grand inquisitor, National Director Abraham H. Foxman, was incensed (his default mode) when Rush Limbaugh compared Obama's health care logo to the Nazi emblem of an eagle with wings spread on a Swastika in a circle. But they do look alike. Obama's is a caduceus with wings spread perched atop a circle bearing his campaign symbol (the wavy-lined road to nowhere). I doubt the similarity was intentional. More likely, it reflects the fact that the White House is staffed with historical ignoramuses, like the president himself. Foxman fumed that Limbaugh's comparison was "outrageous, deeply offensive, and inappropriate." The "inappropriate" was thrown in for good measure, just to show that Abe is really serious. The ADL's disdain for Limbaugh is nothing next to its revulsion of FOX host Glenn Beck, whom the report dubs the "fear-monger-in-chief." Beck deals in conspiracy theories, the publication charges. If that weren't enough, he's said "that President Obama is a dangerous man." Has he no shame? We pause to note that in a recent interview, Dr. Richard Land, a prominent figure in the Southern Baptist Convention who's always nuanced in his remarks, said the president's economic policies are "very dangerous" and his foreign policy is causing "severe damage." "Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing President Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration," the report whines. "Beck has even gone so far as to make comparisons between Hitler and Obama and to promote the idea that the president is dangerous." I too find this comparison inappropriate. At least Hitler got the Olympics for Berlin. During the Bush years, did the ADL object to the left demonizing the president (as in "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader" and "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi)? Did it warn against conspiracy theories from the other side (example: the "9/11 truthers," who believe the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job engineered as an excuse for a war with Iraq)? Did it kvetch about anti-war rallies — run by the Marxists at International ANSWER — whipping up anti-government rage? That would be no, no, and no. The Anti-Defamation League is the love-slave of the establishment left. What MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post, and Bill Maher find deeply offensive, the ADL finds deeply offensive. Consider its antipathy to Christian political activism. When the late Jerry Falwell (a stalwart friend of Israel) put out bumper stickers which proclaimed "I vote Christian," Foxman was ready with a rebuttal. The slogan is "directly at odds with the American ideal (as enunciated by the ACLU) and should be rejected," Foxman explained. "Understanding the danger of combining religion and politics, our founding fathers wisely created a political system based on individual merit and religious inclusiveness," the ADL honcho insisted — which, of course, is why James Madison (father of the Bill of Rights) said that "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." That was not what Falwell wanted. The former Moral Majority leader explained that he meant conservative Christians should vote their values "which are pro-life and pro-family" — and also happen to be the values of Judaism (hence, the Judeo-Christian tradition). In 2005, Foxman warned that evangelicals wanted to "Christianize all aspects of American life." "Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!" So, what are we talking about here — forced conversions, compulsory church attendance, mandatory caroling throughout the year? Abe believes the essence of a "Christian America" is a non-denominational prayer at the beginning of the school day, a ban on abortion, public celebration of Christmas (including crèches), and pastors offering public prayers in Jesus' name. But we had all of that in 1961 — when John F. Kennedy was president. Would returning to the status quo of the Kennedy-era Christianize America? Exquisite is the irony of the ADL's latest caper: The guys it's bashing (Limbaugh, Beck, et al.) are unabashedly pro-Israel. The dude Foxman and company are running interference for — you know, the one with the Muslim middle name — makes Jimmy Carter look like a Hadassah lady. The president wants engagement and seeks "common ground" with the Nazi jihadists who run Iran. Tehran continues to fund Hezbollah and Hamas, denies the Holocaust (but threatens to launch its own by "wiping Israel off the map"), and claims an unqualified right to nuclear weapons. Perhaps Obama can enlighten us on the common ground here. While previous administrations have grumbled about Israeli "settlements" in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, Obama is in deadly earnest. In the spring, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the president "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth exceptions.'" This includes East Jerusalem (occupied by Jewish settlers for millennia). The "common ground" here is Israel dismantles the "settlements" in Judea and Samaria, and gets to keep the settlements in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Obama also intends to see the creation of a Palestinian state in two years, regardless of anything the Palestinians do or don't do. By demonizing the president's detractors, the Anti-Defamation League is a danger to the survival of the Jewish state.
This article appeared in American Thinker
Don Feder was an opinion writer for the Boston Herald and a syndicated columnist. He is currently a political/media consultant. |
|
IDF BOMBS HAMAS ARMS FACTORY; ISRAELI EDUCATION UN-JEWISH; TURKEY:
CRISIS WITH ISRAEL ENDED; UNILATERAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2009. |
|
After rockets struck Israel, the IDF bombed a Hamas weapons factory. The IDF said it would not tolerate terrorist attacks on Israel (www.imra.org.il, 11/24). 
The IDF won't? Then why did it wait for an attack on Israel to bomb the arms factory? While it waited, how many weapons did the factory produce, for future attacks? A factory might produce the very rockets that Israel retaliated against. Why not protect Israeli civilians for the IDF to bomb all the arms factories it knows of, when it discovers them, and prevent some attacks? Sporadic IDF retaliation does not teach Hamas to find another industry besides war. ISRAELI EDUCATION CALLED UN-JEWISH Dr. Yitzhak Geiger of the Institute for Zionist Strategies studied the Israeli public school curriculum. He found that it emphasis equal civic society at the expense of the Jewish nation-state, for which the country was founded. Knesset Member Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) identifies the problem as a leftist approach. One book describes the Oslo Accords as "another step toward peace among the nations." Another book asserts that "a nation-state model increases tensions among the country's citizens." [Oslo did not bring peace but war.] A new curriculum is scheduled to be introduced in three months (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). Its approach was not stated. There would be little problem if the Arabs were tolerant and non-violent. Instead, they sympathize with the hostile Arabs surrounding the country and periodically waging war on it. The Arabs inside and outside the country tried to expel and/or exterminate the Jews. The Arabs still vie for the country, house-by-house. For the Jewish people to preserve their sovereignty and lives, they need education about the continuing struggle and their national rights. The Palestine Mandate distinguished between Jewish national and Arab civil rights. Anticipating Jewish sovereignty from the edge of Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean, it allotted political rights to the Jewish people and religious and civil rights to the Arabs. Israel allots political rights to the Arabs, but faces the difficulty of maintaining the country as a Jewish state offering equal rights to Arab citizens except the right of return. Even there, Israel has poor control over immigration, and lets many Arabs in; others sneak in. Israel may be carrying democracy too far to survive, but not far enough for the Jews, considering that the parliament is based on parties and not districts, government control over the broadcast media, leftist control over the courts and prosecutors, and police who beat up religious nationalist Jews. ISRAEL STILL NEGOTIATING WITH U.S. FOR F-35 Israel still is negotiating for the U.S. jet F-35. Such a plane could give Israel a deterrent against invasion or long-range attack, because it cannot be detected by radar. The U.S. still refuses to let Israel insert its own systems into the plane. Then when the U.S. sells models to the Arabs, Israel would lack a deterrent (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). When Israel lacks a deterrent, it more likely would be attacked. A war is born. TURKEY: CRISIS WITH ISRAEL ENDED Turkey's Foreign Minister denied that the crisis with Israel was severe and asserted that it ended. An Israeli Cabinet Member said that Turkey could help mediate with Arab countries. Turkey suggests renewing its mediation between Israel and Syria (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). Is the impasse ended? They spoke in diplomatic platitudes. Being Islamist, the government of Turkey cannot be an impartial mediator. ISRAEL DECLARES UNILATERAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA PM Netanyahu announced a building freeze in the Territories. How is a unilateral move justified? Why not freeze building by both sides, if any, or get some other concession by the Arabs? Doesn't such a freeze by Israel, alone, lend color to the Palestinian Arab claim that Jews have no right to live in the Territories, although there never was any legitimate "Palestinian" Arab authority over the Territories? How ethical was the Obama administration to press Israel to make the concession, when it linked this issue [without any logical, factual connection] to the Iran nuclear weapons issue (11/25 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) on which Israel's survival is at stake? I think that Netanyahu cold-bloodedlly is getting ready to cede the Territories. ISRAEL DECLARES UNILATERAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA PM Netanyahu announced a building freeze in the Territories. How is a unilateral move justified? Why not freeze building by both sides, if any, or get some other concession by the Arabs? Doesn't such a freeze by Israel, alone, lend color to the Palestinian Arab claim that Jews have no right to live in the Territories, although there never was any legitimate "Palestinian" Arab authority over the Territories? How ethical was the Obama administration to press Israel to make the concession, when it linked this issue [without any logical, factual connection] to the Iran nuclear weapons issue (11/25 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) on which Israel's survival is at stake? I think that Netanyahu cold-bloodedlly is getting ready to cede the Territories. ARAB SEXUAL BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST ISRAEL 
Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV "that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians." "ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "This is simply the latest example of another Palestinian blood libel against Israel and the Jewish people. Tragically, because it is said to Arabs, in Arabic, and not to Westerners in English, these hateful, vile and monstrous assaults on the name of the Jewish people receive precious little attention, especially where it matters most — among leaders of Western democracies, including the United States. NAZI INFLUENCE ON ARAB WORLD From 1939-45, the Third Reich broadcast Nazi propaganda to many areas, including the Mideast, where its influence on the Arabs has been debated since 9/11. Scholars find that Nazi style antisemitism grafted onto the Islamic variety. "In a 2007 book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press), the German political scientist Matthias Kuentzel details how Nazi ideology influenced Islamist ideologues like Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as the Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini. More recent examples abound. The founding charter of Hamas... recapitulates conspiracy theories about Jews that were popular in Europe in the 20th century. Al Qaeda's war against 'the Zionist-Crusader Alliance' and the anti-Zionist rants of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran also display a blend of anti-Semitic themes rooted in Nazi and fascist, as well as Islamist, traditions." Iraqi and Palestinian Arab leaders assisted the Nazi radio effort. The broadcasts warned the Arab nationality that if the Allies won, the Jewish people would dominate it. The programs encouraged the Arabs to murder Jews. A warning was issued that in anticipation of having to evacuate from Egypt, Britain had issued pistols to Jews and European residents so they could slay Arabs. A lie, of course, as was the claim that the Jews appropriated the Arabs' wealth, and plan to violate Arab women. "Two German historians, Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, recently uncovered evidence that German intelligence agents were reporting back to Berlin that if Rommel succeeded in reaching Cairo and Palestine, the Axis powers could count on support from some elements in the Egyptian officer corps as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Mallmann and Cüppers also show that an SS division was preparing to fly to Egypt to extend the Final Solution to the Middle East. The British and Australian defeat of Rommel at the Battle of El 'Alamein prevented that from happening." With the fall of Nazism, Banna said he hoped that Grand Mufti Husseini would "continue the struggle" the Nazis had started. Qutb asserted that Hitler was sent on a divine mission to punish the Jews. He justified the Holocaust that Abbas denies. Those were the mentors of Hamas. Hamas Charter blames Jews for the French and Russian Revolutions, WWI and WWII, and the UN, to further Jewish world domination (Jeffrey Herf in www.imra.org.il, 11/24). What domination? ARAB-ISRAEL PRISONER TRADE — UPDATE 
Some of the most revealing insights into officials and reporters came out in an update to the Israel-Arab prisoner trade. Germany was attempting to broker the trade. Its Foreign Minister Westerwelle said, "I can simply express the hope that the talks will lead to a good and human solution." One of the Arabs whom Israel may release is Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for terrorist murder. Tens of thousands of Arabs have spent time in Israeli prisons, in the past 40 years (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 11/25, A14). Hamas has asked for 1,000 convicted Arab terrorists to be released. At the 40% rate of recidivism, 400 would resume terrorism. They probably would murder and maim at least 50 Israelis. Thus the trade means that Israel would end the suffering of one person but facilitate suffering and death for 50. By what measure is that humane or a solution? Does Germany believe that is either? Doesn't Germany know that Hamas works only to advance its oppressive cause, which makes problems not to resolve problems? The reporter mentioned Barghouti's sentences. It did not mention his likely involvement in much more terrorism, considering his former position. He also was Arafat's man in charge of launching the second Intifada, which he did not succeed in doing until his supposedly moderate regime pretended that Ariel Sharon's quiet visit to the Temple Mount was an affront to Muslims. As the Palestinian Authority prepares a third Intifada, rather than negotiate peace, Barghouti is likely to lead it. How many will he get to murder, then? Why doesn't the reporter or the editor put 2 and 2 together, on this? If, as the reporter keeps stating, Barghouti is popular among his people, doesn't it reveal that people to be eager for terrorism against Israelis? Considering that tens of thousands served time in Israeli prisons for terrorism, what does all that indicate about them? Not moderate! In connection with this proposed release, let us review the other releases. Did they bring about the goodwill that some of them were said to be done for? No. Did they "bolster" Abbas' power to make peace? No. The requests for concessions to Abbas to "bolster" him keep coming, like a continuous gravy train. He refuses to negotiate and threatens war. Prior releases were marked by recidivism, more Arab demands, ill will toward Israel, and a boost in the Arabs' war morale. When their morale rises, they are less likely to make the reforms in their mores needed to make peace with other faiths.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE EIGHT DAYS OF COWARDICE
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 26, 2009. |
|
1. The miraculous eight days of Hanukka, 5770: On the first day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's have a settlement freeze. On the second day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's agree the savages can have their own state. On the third day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's agree to judicial activism. On the fourth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's let the Court kill prison privatization. On the fifth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget reform of water policy. On the sixth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget about splitting the Attorney General from Legal Advisor to the government. because such a split upsets the Left. On the seventh day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget about doing anything about the violent "anarchists" who attack Israeli police and soldiers. On the eighth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's just release all the terrorists we have to buy back a kidnapped soldier. 2. Well, Richard Goldstone has emerged as an Israel-bashing anti-Semite, willing to sell his soul to the UN in order to find favor with his leftist friends. Well, not only is Goldstone a liar willing to toady up to his anti-Semitic masters. It turns out he also has an interesting track record of groveling to the apartheid authorities back when he was a judge in South Africa. Read on:
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Richard Goldstone, the United Nations investigator whose controversial report recently accused Israel of war crimes, once sentenced a 13-year-old boy to prison for protesting South African apartheid. The case was one of several of Goldstone's questionable and highly criticized rulings during some of apartheid South Africa's most violent years. Goldstone served as a judge on South Africa's Transvaal Supreme Court from 1980 until he was appointed judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1989 — all during South Africa's apartheid regime. In a blog piece at the Huffington Post, researcher Ashley Rindsberg references a case in which Goldstone ruled against the 1986 appeal of a 13-year-old boy who had been sentenced to jail for disrupting school as a protest against apartheid and increasingly draconian "emergency laws" used to squelch opposition to the government. The New York Times reported Goldstone provided no immediate comment on his decision to uphold the sentence of the lower court. Rindsberg also pointed out that Goldstone ruled against two appellants who had been convicted for possession of a cassette tape that contained a recording of an interview with Oliver Tambo, who, along with Nelson Mandela, was a founding member of the African National Congress's Youth League. The ANC has been South Africa's ruling party since the establishment of nonracial democracy in 1994. Goldstone ruled that by possessing the tape, the two young men had violated South Africa's Internal Security Act No. 74 of 1982 — a piece of legislation that some human rights scholars have called a crucial weapon in the regime's "arsenal of terrorism legislation." Goldstone commented in that case that Tambo's opening words on the recording indicated "beyond a reasonable doubt that the cassette in question was published or disseminated under the direction or guidance or on behalf of the African National Congress." According to Goldstone's Supreme Court ruling on the case, the tapes also included audio of Tambo encouraging the people of South Africa to resist the apartheid regime, as well as the leader's call to "let us change our own country into the kind of society we want it to be." Rindsberg noted Goldstone's ruling against the 13-year-old boy transpired amidst a wave of national protests and school disruptions by South Africa's black youth against apartheid. Authorities at the time responded with mass detention of almost 2,000 children who participated in the protests or who were suspected of doing so. Goldstone was slammed by South African human rights organizations for his 1986 ruling against the boy. He later told the New York Times that South Africa's emergency laws left him "no way out." Goldstone recently penned a U.N. report that claimed both Hamas and Israel were guilty of war crimes during the Jewish state's defensive war in Gaza last December and January. Goldstone's report claimed Israel deliberately targeted civilians during the Gaza conflict, which started after Hamas refused to extend a cease-fire. The terrorist group instead launched a rocket offensive against Israeli population centers. The U.N. report equated Israel, which worked to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, to Hamas, which utilized civilians as human shields and fired rockets at Jewish cities from Palestinian hospitals and apartment buildings. During the Gaza war, Israel sent hundreds of thousands of text messages and placed tens of thousands of calls warning local Palestinians of incoming attacks against Hamas' military infrastructure in Gaza. As WND previously reported, Goldstone's investigation may have relied on false witnesses and Palestinian misinformation. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
DO ARAB STATES REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS?
Posted by Michael Freund, November 26, 2009. |
|
For all their talk of standing by the Palestinians, the Arab regimes sure have a strange way of showing it. Despite reaping an oil-driven windfall last year of unprecedented proportions, few Arab states seem willing to dig very deep into their own pockets to back up their concern with cash. Indeed, the hollowness of their pro-Palestinian pronouncements was unambiguously on display last week in Amman, at a meeting of the Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, better known by its acronym of UNRWA. Among the central topics discussed at the gathering was the growing financial crisis confronting the organization, which relies on voluntary contributions from governments to fund its activities on behalf of Palestinian refugees. In her remarks, Karen Abu Zayd, UNRWA's commissioner-general, bemoaned the group's financial state, describing it as "my most worrying preoccupation." She told those assembled that the agency is facing a deficit of $84 million this year, and that it projects a budget shortfall of $140m. in 2010. "UNRWA's weak financial situation," Abu Zayd said, "hinders our ability to discharge our responsibilities to the standards Palestinian refugees deserve." FOR THE past several years, it seems, UNRWA has been in increasingly dire straits. Indeed, on Tuesday of last week, the group's 16,000 employees in Judea, Samaria and Gaza held a one-day strike to demand better pay. Why, you might be wondering, have the UN agency's troubles been mounting of late? After all, fuel prices surged last year, with oil peaking in July 2008 at a high of $150 a barrel, so the coffers of Arab treasuries throughout the region were hardly lacking for funds with which to aid their Palestinian brethren. I wondered too, so I did some research and discovered a few surprising facts about the colossal gap between Arab rhetoric and Palestinian reality. Consider the following: In 2008, 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA's general fund were from the West, with the EU contributing over $116m., and the US more than $94m. Others, such as Sweden and the UK, each gave over $35m. Just one Arab country — Kuwait — appeared among UNRWA's top 20 benefactors. The Kuwaitis came in last on the list, having coughed up just $2.5m. Given that Kuwait's oil revenues last year surged by 44 percent to nearly $78 billion, you would think that if they really, truly cared about the Palestinians, this would have been reflected in the size of their donation to UNRWA. Nonetheless, when compared to the other five Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — the Kuwaitis come out looking generous. In 2008, the combined revenues of the GCC states from oil production amounted to a whopping $575b. Yet their joint contribution to UNRWA's regular budget was a little more than $3.6m., signifying less than one one-thousandth of a percent of their total petroleum income! Bahrain gave a miserly $50,000, Oman forked over just $25,000, while Saudi Arabia coughed up zero. I've been to Hadassah dinners where more money was raised in an hour than the Arab states seem willing to part with in an entire year. In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%. As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs. Now don't get me wrong — I am not shedding any tears over UNRWA's difficulties. The organization has long been a vehicle for perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem as a lever for pressuring Israel, and it has not shied away from working closely with Hamas in Gaza, or serving as a vehicle for anti-Israel and anti-Western indoctrination. But UNRWA's woes lay bare the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Arab states. They lambaste Israel at every opportunity over the condition of the Palestinians, even as they themselves do very little to alleviate the problem. Sure, some Arab countries have kicked in funds to various UNRWA emergency appeals, while others provide aid to Palestinians via other channels. But the numbers above lead one to wonder: do the Arab states really care about the Palestinians? If UNRWA's ledger is any guide, the answer is a clear and resounding "no."
Michael Freund served as deputy director of communications &
policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office under
Benjamin Netanyahu from 1996 to 1999. He is founder and chairman
of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which reaches out and assists
"lost Jews" seeking to return to the Jewish people.
|
|
THIS IS OUR LAND
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 26, 2009. |
|
And Lavan answered and he said to Jacob, the daughters are my daughters and the children are my children and the flocks are my flocks and all that you see is mine. And now, let us make a covenant. If you will afflict my daughters and if you will take wives in addition to my daughters, no man is with us, see G-d is witness between me and you. (From this week's Torah portion, Vayetzeh, Genesis 31: 43-44, 50) It's strange. Time and again, Jacob catches Lavan in his lies, but Lavan persists in playing the role of the victim — and not of the perpetrator. "The daughters are my daughters?" Jacob worked for them — above and beyond the time upon which they had originally agreed. Furthermore, he continued working for Rachel even after Lavan tricked him into marrying Leah. "The flocks are my flocks?" Here, too, Jacob kept up his side of the bargain, while it was Lavan who dishonestly changed the rules. Where does Lavan get the chutzpah to lie without compunction? What makes him so confident? How can it be that after Lavan makes a treaty with Jacob and bids him farewell, he makes new conditions; "If you will afflict my daughters," as if Jacob was some sort of lowlife from the Charan marketplace? It seems that Lavan is playing on the last vestiges of Jacob's dependence on him. While it is true that Jacob honestly earned his family and possessions, the platform upon which they were earned belonged to Lavan. Jacob has not yet completely freed himself of the "womb" in which his family and wealth developed. The evil Lavan immediately identifies Jacob's weak point. Today, the Arabs in the Land of Israel will settle for nothing less than the entire Land. All of our groveling and attempts to "compromise" have not helped. They abduct a soldier and conduct negotiations for his release as if they were the lords of the Land. Where does their chutzpah come from? Like Lavan, they have identified our weak point; the point at which we feel dependant upon them. Israel's leaders also believe that the Land of Israel really belongs to the Arabs, that their struggle against us is just and that they kill us because we have stolen their land. In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the daughters are the Arabs' daughters and the flocks are their flocks. Our weakness allows them to portray themselves as victims and not as perpetrators. Leadership that is incapable of relying on our covenant with G-d and declaring that this is our Land will come out on the short end of every negotiation. 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
|
|
MUSLIMS WANT CHANGE?
Posted by Paul Lademain, November 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Karin Laub and is entitled "Muslims want tangible change on Mideast from Obama." First, observe how the Arabs blow smoke: The talk about their fury, as if we Americans have none toward them! We despise those who promote the bestial war machine called "Sharia" that cloaks itself in blood-soaked cloth.
Muslims want change? So do we! We are the American taxpayers whose purses have been plundered for to send billions to the Islamics who are organized into myriad warring forces. Americans have been forced to do this for decades supposedly for humanitarian purposes, but instead, our billions have been siphoned into secret bank accounts, hoarded to pay for elitist's pleasures or more often, used to fund hundreds of Islamic gangs of disaffected arabs expelled from Egypt and the surrounding oil states who are being paid a remittance to say they are "palestinians." There has been decades of dishonesty associated with Arab expenditures of America's hard-earned funds and Americans want change from the Muslims. Tangible change. Not bloody rhetoric and hate-filled yammering about killing this or that group who refuse to be made into Muslims. But real change: Such as earning your own living in your own lands on the Arabian Peninsula instead of barging into countries where you don't belong. Israel being but one of those countries. We want all the land between the ocean and the sea to be restored to Israel. This is the ONLY honest path toward peace. We want Obama to CUT OFF ALL AID to Arab countries. Stop bowing to Arabist extortion. We want our funds to rebuild America. Let the Saudis and the UAE fund Mubarak "for a change." Let Dubai stop building gaudy and useless structures and spend their trillions on relocating the Arabs trapped in Abdullah-of-Jordan's concentration camps. There's hundreds of millions of unoccupied acres waiting for them to settle on within the Arabian Peninsula. After all, we Americans made the Saudis and the UAE wealthier than God because we pay for their sludge, so these rich bigots can well afford to pick up the tab! As for the Arab states, especially new states like Saudi Arabia, they can begin purchasing our best stuff with cash — and pay the full price, instead of asking for loans through US taxpayer-funded OPIC. Obama must change this arrangement. We want American funds to be invested in America, not siphoned into secret bank accounts controlled by Islamic NGOs and Arab "royals". No more billions to Jordan. Jordan's "king" and his father created the concentration camps holding the Arabs who want to become "Palestinians." They can do this in Jordan on Jordanian soil! We Americans want to know what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish Palestinians. Where did they go after the Arabs divested them of their lands and drove them out of their centuries-old homes in the arab states now surrounding Israel? What about the Jews who lived and flourished in Medina? What about THEIR "right of return"? How much of the lands occupied by the ersatz "palestinians" are to be "frozen for peace"? How many of these Arab are illegal settlers? Has Nettie forgotten about this issue? Is he afraid to confront Hillary and her boss-man about the rights of Jewish refugees? We want the Islamics to return to where they came from. They have their own states. They got them in 1948 when Israel's lands were taken from the Jews and handed over to the Arab Muslims. If the Arabs aren't satisfied with what they got, then the lands should be removed from their ungrateful grasp and restored to their rightful owners: the Jews and the Hebrew Peoples. Yes, we want change. Big time. And we want it NOW! Viva Israel!
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net
|
|
J STREET'S PRO-ISRAEL BONA FIDES IN DOUBT; TERRORISTS, INDIA, AND
PAKISTAN; IDF INCONSISTENT ON CALLS TO DISOBEY ORDERS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 25, 2009. |
|
J STREET'S CLAIM TO BE PRO-ISRAEL IS INCREASINGLY DOUBTED. The House of Representatives took up a resolution urging the Administration not to approve the Goldstein Report. J. Street strongly opposed the resolution, and had momentum from its conference and lobbying. J Street co-founder Mort Halperin, an aide to (the anti-Israel) George Soros, ghost-wrote what Judge Goldstein sent to Congress in defense of his report. J Street claims that its P.A.C. donated more to Congressional candidates than any pro-Israel P.A.C.. The resolution passed 344:36, plus 22 voting "present" and 30 abstaining. Most of the chief beneficiaries of J Street donations did not vote against the resolution. Disillusionment with J Street may have set in. Many members quit the conference host committee. Other than Jeremy Ben-Ami, its top leadership is anonymous. Who makes its decisions? J Street is obliged to reveal donors to its PAC, but the names of its other donors are withheld. Circumstances have revealed that they include Saudi-connected individuals, National Iranian American Council directors, and Arab-American leaders. They generally defame Israel, defend Hamas, and assist Saudi Arabia. To buttress its claim of being pro-Israel, J Street likened its policies to that of Israel's party, Kadima. When Kadima leaders heard that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran, they turned cold toward it. Some J Street delegates proposed combining Israel with the Palestinian Authority. That would end Jewish sovereignty [and probably their lives]. (Lenny Ben-David, www.imra.org.il, 11/23.) The donations to Congress amounted to about half a million dollars. Does not sound like much, compared to the big lobbies. "BLOOD AND RAGE," A HISTORY OF TERRORISM Keith Pablishek reviewed Michael Burleigh's Blood and Rage. I gleaned this: Terrorists seek chaos, to start their takeover. "As endless studies of terrorist grievances reveal, they are mostly insane without being clinically psychotic." Grievances are ridiculous. Most people want to be left alone. Islamists are different from other terrorists. IRA men wanted to get away. Many Islamists want to die for the cause. Thugs like to join terrorists, to inflict violence or to escape boredom. Intellectuals often support their violence. Many in the Communist movement did (Commentary, 9/2009). Islamists state baseless grievances for propaganda. The widespread antisemitism and other ignorance and media timidity enables them to get away with it. Note how useless and unintelligent intellectuals can be. TERRORISTS, INDIA, AND PAKISTAN 
Some military and security groups in Pakistan still favor the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization as a proxy force against Indian Kashmir and as a bulwark against India. Pakistan is reluctant to take on Lashkar at the same time it is fighting the Taliban. Lashkar has gained some popularity by dispensing charity. Pakistanis do not believe that it staged the attack on Mumbai. Pakistan's government does, arresting some Lashkar people, and banning its charity (Matthew Rosenberg, Wall St. J., 11/24, A 16). The U.S. has banned charities that act as terrorist fronts. A terrorist organization can have a charity that does not act as its front, just dispenses charity. But that gains it popular support against anti-terrorism. Therefore, the standard should be to ban all wings of terrorist organizations. EU- AND NEW ISRAEL FUND FINANCED NGOS IN ISRAEL "Israeli courts have become a central arena for engaging contentious social and political issues, with major advantages for groups that have the resources to devote to this activity. Extensive support from European governments and private foundations gives political and opposition NGOs the advantage" over NGOs depending on popular Israeli support. These NGOs exert an alien influence against Israeli government. The NGOs discussed in the full article "...are highly active and visible participants in both the international and national debates on issues such as the status and future of Jerusalem, the disputed territories in the West Bank, and the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). These NGOs issue high-profile statements and reports, generate media publicity, organize demonstrations, speak to student groups and army units, and use the courts to advance their political agendas." "In the international arena, the same NGOs submit statements to UN frameworks such as the Human Rights Council, run major media campaigns, and spearhead lawsuits in various countries." Because of their Israeli addresses, these appendages of foreign interests enjoy credibility (NGO Monitor in www.imra.org.il, 11/23). ISRAELI RELEASE OF ARAB PRISONERS 
A former head of Israeli internal security commented about the proposed prisoner exchange that although a real risk existed, "the past has shown that some of the prisoners do not return to terror and some portion are integrated in various operative positions" (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 11/24, A3) probably meaning in Palestinian Authority military positions. A massive, Arab prisoner release could bolster Hamas' claim that abduction and other and recalcitrance about it work (Charles Levinson, Wall St. J., 11/24, A14). The former security chief put it too delicately to be clear. Released terrorists have a recidivism rate of about 40%. Suppose we accept the bruited figure of 1,000 convicted terrorists to be released. That means about 400 will try again. If only 5% of them succeed, they will kill perhaps 30 Israelis. One Israeli would be released now, and 30 get killed later — that is PM Netanyahu's real trade. The barbarians probably would conclude that terrorism is vindicated. That, too, means more Israelis killed. The Israel killed:release ration could rise to 50:1. Again, the security chief misleads people with the term, "operative positions." Released terrorists integrated into Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces are in a position to commit terrorism, as P.A. troops have, before. Imagine the kind of morality they bring to the P.A. military! PLO ACCUSES ISRAEL OF BLOCKING AMBULANCES FOR ARABS IN JERUSALEM WAFA, the PLO news agency reports that Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights demanded of Israel's Deputy Min. of Health and the Police Chief of Jerusalem that they stop requiring police escorts for ambulances entering Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, even in emergency. "Ms. Reut Katz of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel stressed that 'the police escort of ambulances to transport patients coupled with their presence alongside medical staff during the treatment process also constitutes a flagrant violation of the privacy rights and medical confidentiality of the patient." It may be a violation of medical ethics and international prohibition of cruel and degrading treatment. [No international law was cited.] Ambulances are instructed to wait in adjacent Jewish neighborhoods for the escort. If families try to transport patients to hospitals on their own, they risk aggravating the illness. The ambulances do proceed directly to Jewish enclaves in Arab neighborhoods, a seeming inconsistency that bespeaks discrimination. That is the only consideration in the Israeli rule (www.imra.org.il, 11/23). If we have learned anything from events and not preconceptions over the years, Israel is humane and the Palestinian Arabs are inhumane. Fatah just confirmed its policy of armed struggle, while it defers ostensible peace negotiations until Israel makes further concessions. PLO Arabs went into an Israeli nursery and shot toddlers; the Israeli security forces often abort missions when they know a child is in the building. Israel lets enemy Palestinian Arabs into its hospitals and free, but the PLO, Jordan, and Egypt have kept Israeli medics away from Israelis, who were left to bleed to death. There must be more to this ambulance story. I checked with my source, to confirm my recollection of the real background. Dr. Aaron Lerner explained that the ambulances aren't allowed into Arab areas without police escort to protect them from likely assault. That puts a different light on the story. Even though the ambulance would be entering to save the lives or health of Arab neighbors, fellow Arabs attack those medical saviors unless deterred by police. Now we see which people is callous about the lives of Arabs, who may not make it to the hospital if the ambulance attendants themselves are incapacitated. Those purported humanitarian organizations, that claim to be outraged by alleged Israeli discrimination, are frauds. And the Palestinian Authority, which complains against Israel is trying to reap public relations benefits at the expense of its own people. What a people, those Palestinian Arab "innocent civilians!" Will any anti-Zionists, who purport to care about those Arabs, condemn the Palestinian Authority and the "humanitarian" groups for harming them? (To see that Adalah is the prejudiced group, go to
BARGHOUTI USURPS PRIVILEGE IN ISRAELI PRISON 
Marwan Barghouti and his men, before capture (A.P./Nasser Nasser) Convicted lifer, Marwan Barghouti, has usurped the privilege of giving press interviews in behalf of his ideology, contrary to prison rules. Some nationalist Members of Knesset demanded that prison officials
stop Barghouti and punish him for his violation
While anti-Zionists call Israel overbearing, I find the government failing to safeguard Israeli interests. The government's ideology conflicts with those national interests. It seems as if he is being coddled in anticipation of a deal. If you are a Palestinan Arab who murders Israelis, punishment is not too severe. The article reiterates the supposition that Barghouti is popular among his people. I recall a poll that showed he is not. ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW FROM LEBANESE HALF OF BORDER VILLAGE The international boundary between Israel and Lebanon runs through the middle of the village of Ghajar. The UN cease-fire resolution calls for Israeli forces to stop operating in Lebanon. Accordingly, the government of Israel plans to withdraw from the village's northern half. UNIFIL is prepared to patrol the Lebanese half of that village, but only to prevent fighting. It would not search houses for arms caches. Yet it states that Israeli law would continue to be enforced in the northern half. Who would enforce Israeli law there? Not the departed IDF. Hizbullah? (www.imra.org.il, 11/23.) A Druze official in Israel's government finds it crazy to make the same mistake there, as Israel did in the general withdrawal from Lebanon in favor of UNIFIL, which lets Hizbullah build up for war. Apparently, Israel has to honor the UN resolution and Lebanon does not. But Israel is accused of violating the UN resolution. A friend of mine, formerly with the UN, accused Israel of violating UN resolution 242, in not withdrawing to the 1967 armistice line, that he carelessly called a border. I pointed out that 242 does not at all demand that extensive a withdrawal, and Israel is not in violation, because the withdrawal is to be in the context of a comprehensive peace, which Abbas refuses to negotiate. He admitted that is so. Then why accuse Israel? IDF INCONSISTENT ON CALLS TO DISOBEY ORDERS 
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE ISRAEL MILITARY
Posted by Ari Bussel, November 25, 2009. |
|
A right of passage in Israel, when one turns 18, is being drafted into the military. Men serve three years and women normally serve half that long. Officers (men or women) are signed for an additional year, for the privilege of attending the Officers' Training School. Some (men and women) then remain in service as a vocation and are entitled to early retirement at the age of 40, at which time they typically embark on a second career. This was the way the system used to work. After completing the matriculation exams, a young person, fresh out of high school, would undergo exams and screening, go through boot camp, and start the most influential period of one's life. These soldiers and their commanders are entrusted with the safety and security of the Jewish Homeland. They carry out the policies of the Israeli government. Whatever the composition of the ruling coalition, the military is there to execute its decisions, with the goal of defending the Jewish State. Once, if a person did not serve as everyone else, he would be ostracized from society. The chances of getting a job dissipated, life was unbearable. The exceptions were the ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews who do not serve — men study at Yeshivot (religious seminaries) and women are to be married at a very early age and raise children. In the Jewish state, this exemption became an entitlement, causing a rift between the secular and religious sectors, the former enraged by the lack of equal burden under the law. Over the past 20 years, things have changed. First, there was a massive immigration from the former Soviet Union, followed by immigration from Ethiopia. With an ever-increasing number of enlistees among the new immigrants, the military could afford to become more "selective." That proved to be a mistake. It happened at the same time that another worrying trend emerged: a new fashion not to serve. Various teen idols avoided service; a phenomenon that gained more and more acceptance, until matters reached a critical level that could no longer be ignored. Last year, the military began fighting this phenomenon and named it a top priority. Second, a segment of the religious sector had the courage to stand against the tide and declare that serving in the Jewish army of the Jewish state is a privilege and a duty. First God, then Country: not mutually exclusive rather both a reflection of the same belief in the God of the Hebrews and His promise to His people. In the military, all meals are kosher, time is given for the daily prayers, the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays are all strictly observed and — most importantly — if not I for myself (and my countrymen), who is? This segment of modern orthodoxy, usually described by the type of yarmulkas worn by the men ("Knitted Yarmulka"), has become dominant. A very high percentage (some say a majority) of all elite units comes from this segment of society. The "Knitted Yarmulkas" replaced the members of the Kibbutzim of yesteryears, becoming what Israelis call "the salt of the land," its essence, prime and best examples. With the new generation of draftees this week, motivation to serve in the most elite combat units is at an all-time high. Many compete for every available spot. Morale is high. Just three years ago, the military failed in the Second War in Lebanon. The blow was so rough that to this very day, comparisons are being made to that bitter failure, to the mistakes and faults that led to Israel's loss of deterrence. One of the lessons learned was soldiers should not be carrying cell phones. The cost in human life was grave and soldiers can, actually, be on the front line without reporting home every few minutes. Another lesson was officers at all levels should not be interviewing on local and international media — silence is immensely important. The Israel Defense Forces ("IDF") follow a clear hierarchy. There is one face and voice, although multiple languages may be used. Another "discovery" was that there must be a censor whose guidance and supervision lead to saving lives instead of disseminating classified information. Seemingly, "Military 101" had to be re-learned. There were other problems: Logistics fell behind those forces at the very front, causing shortages previously unforeseen. Equipment taken out from warehouses was either not functioning properly or in less than desirable condition. Many reserve units did not train or were trained to fight a different scenario (urban vs. open warfare, for instance). Complaining aside, these were short-term obstacles that could be overcome. Israel is very good at improvising, and she learns and improves — especially when the toll is heavily felt. Since the issues that surfaced three years ago were symptomatic of an inner, much deeper problem, we must tie them into the rampant avoidance of service and ask if the IDF has lost its lure? The answer, one finds, is that the IDF continues to offer the following unique propositions: a) The IDF is a melting pot — it is an army of all the people, those from rich and poor homes, religious and secular backgrounds, different shades of skin color, smart and slow, disabled and healthy, courageous and hesitant. Service pushes all through a mixer, treating them equally, placing the same demands and entrusting the same great responsibilities regardless of creed, ethnicity, or other labels or affiliations; b) The IDF is a singular pivotal point in a young person's life. Mandatory military service in the IDF creates a thinking, responsible citizen who has paid dues to society and is ready to assume a different role as an adult. In the United States, a youngster attends four years of college following high school graduation. Compare the person with a Bachelor's degree with the person who finished military service, and you will find the latter more reliable, more responsible, with more practical abilities to face life; c) The IDF is an army of all of Israel. By necessity and design, it is ISRAEL. Each family of this tiny country surrounded by enemies has a son, a daughter, a father or grandfather, a brother or uncle, a niece or a granddaughter who serves, thus creating an extended network; d) The IDF is an army that is responsible for every one of his members. People often wonder why did Israel release hundreds of terrorists to get back body parts of two soldiers (for which she went to the Second War in Lebanon), or why is she discussing the possible release of a thousand more terrorists for one twenty some year old Gilad Shalit held in captivity in Gaza. Shalit's captors have not allowed access to the International Red Cross even once for close to four years. For Jewish people, saving the life of one amounts to saving the whole world. For an Israeli, there is an unspoken promise that every parent can sleep quietly knowing the son or daughter will always come back from the front, that Israel will ensure this happens. Indeed, every child in Israel knows the name of Gilad Shalit, the symbol of all that is wrong with Israel's enemies and the aspiration of Israel for peace, normalcy and sanity; e) The IDF is the embodiment of Jewish thought and wisdom, of honor and sense of humanity. The cleanliness of virtue, the pristine innocence of deeds, the ability to tell your soldiers "follow me" and lead, the knowledge that no soldier is left behind at the battlefield and the code of honor which is part of the IDF's DNA are the founding blocks of the Israeli military. The strength of these pillars is evident in the respect the IDF enjoys both by fellow professionals from around the world and from those who are at its mercy. They, more than anyone else, know that if the roles were reversed, murder for the pure enjoyment and exemplary effects (causing sheer fear and subjugation), killings without even a thought for human life, raping and maiming for the utter satisfaction and complete disrespect to other human beings would be rampant; f) The IDF is Israel's future, for it enables Israel to focus on innovation and creativity, to flourish and thrive, to grow and succeed in the harshest of environments (climate, lack of resources, human enemies, etc.). By providing the deterrence and safety net, the IDF allows citizens not in active service to live their daily lives in the most unlikely and currently unfriendly of places — their eternal homeland. The IDF is the cement, the building blocks, the embodiment of past, present and future of Israel. As President Obama continues his deliberations about the future of our young men and women in Afghanistan, I am reminded of the following observation: As long as the burden is not felt and shared by all Americans, as long as we neither understand nor appreciate the sacrifices of our young men and women, they should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every fallen soldier, a precious life extinguished, is wasted if most Americans assign little if any price for the sacrifice made. Americans on the front lines overseas are willing to give their lives to uphold all that we take for granted so that others, their fellow Americans, can continue their daily lives. A day will come and by necessity we will return to these hostile far away lands, but then the burden will be shared more equally by all, not only by some. Israeli society provides an inspiring example how to turn a terrible necessity — one of having to protect oneself for one's continued existence — into a benefit to the society at large, educating, preparing the individual for a meaningful life and letting one know that with rights come obligations. May our young men and women come back home soon, may Israel continue to be strong, as it is the last fort standing and protecting the West. May there come a day that Micah's prophecy becomes reality: "and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (4:3) In the series "Postcards from Israel," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel's on the ground, Zager's counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related — the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts — and so is this "point — counter-point" presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BAD NEWS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 25, 2009. |
|
It's almost Thanksgiving in the US. I attended a shiur (a religious lesson) this morning, and a forum tonight, and I was going to pass on posting for a bit. (It's almost midnight as I write.) But I cannot. I must send out this message, with more to follow. Prime Minister Netanyahu tonight formally announced what has been rumored: A 10-month freeze on building in the communities of Judea and Samaria. Those construction projects already in the works (some 3,000 units) will continue, and, at least in theory, construction for public buildings — schools, etc. — will be permitted even during the 10 months. Jerusalem is not included in the freeze. The Security Cabinet approved the move this afternoon. Not good. In fact, very bad. A concession that weakens us and should not have been made. We have a right to be in Judea and Samaria. Period. ~~~~~~~~~~ In announcing this, Netanyahu made a big deal about the fact that it will bring us closer to "peace" — that it is good for Israel and shows the world that we're sincere about "peace." Garbage. On Monday, incredibly, he made a statement saying that he believed he was "uniquely positioned" to bring the public to support an "historic agreement with the Palestinians." Does he have a messiah complex? To play the game astutely, to protect us from unnecessary international pressure and hostile actions is one thing. To imagine he can actually achieve a solid and meaningful "peace agreement" with the Palestinian Arabs is something else. (This is completely aside from whether he should attempt to do so, whether he can or not.) Anyone who knows anything of substance about the current situation within the PA knows full well that they cannot sign off on a final agreement for a "two-state solution" because they don't have a state and are not in a position to produce a state. If we pull out of Judea and Samaria (G-d forbid!) Hamas will move in sooner or later, and there will be a host of other problems even before Hamas arrives. (I will be returning to the whole issue of why even attempting to negotiate for a state makes no sense.) It cannot be that Netanyahu doesn't know this. So what is he babbling about? Why is he promoting it with the public as something that is good for Israel? Weakening us cannot be good for us. ~~~~~~~~~~ One news source indicated that Netanyahu agreed upon this in his recent — secret — meeting with Obama. Right after the meeting, Netanyahu had said that, in time, we'd see why it had to be a secret, and I've been wondering about that. But this is not the "why." There's more. There had to be. Is there something Obama held over his head? What? This represents a double concession — to the Palestinian Arabs, and to the Obama government. I cited Barry Rubin the other day, who said we could learn from what has been going on that concessions aren't appreciated, they only bring a demand for more concessions. And here were are: US Envoy Mitchell, speaking in the US, said that, well, this Netanyahu commitment doesn't really conform with the administration's full position — which is that the settlements have to go — but it's a good step, more than any prime minister has done until now. During the forum I attended tonight (which I will return to), Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, stated that the Obama administration never refers to Security Council resolution 242, which says we are not required to pull back to the Green Line. Obama simply talks about "the West Bank" as "Palestinian." When you're dealing with people such as this — who want to deprive us fully of our rights — you don't give part way. This simply encourages them to demand the whole package. You stand strong and tell them, No way! Is Netanyahu proud that he's done what no other prime minister has done? ~~~~~~~~~~ Take a look at IMRA (http://imra.org). Director Aaron Lerner has posted a series of Archive pieces that trace the recent history of the issue of a settlement freeze. Note this please: In April, when the Czech prime minister visited, Netanyahu told him he didn't want to be pressured: "I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing settlement], I don't think there's a problem." He said Judea and Samaria were "disputed" territory and their disposition would be decided by negotiations. Slowly this position has eroded. ~~~~~~~~~~ And let's look, just briefly, at the PA attitude. Just yesterday, PA president Mahmoud Abbas said Obama has done nothing for peace. He was waiting for the American president to pressure Israel. And — Heaven help us! — the day after Abbas said this, Netanyahu makes a large concession. Is this timing coincidence, or a sick joke? Or a really really miserable attempt to make Obama happy? Interviewed by an Argentinean magazine, Abbas was asked what he would concede for peace. Abbas answered that his people has "already made concessions." Like what, for instance? Said Abbas, the current Israeli gov't was not seeking peace. This too makes the timing of Netanyahu's announcement terrible. Like eager puppets, we have to show the PA how much we'll do and how sincere we are, right after they indicate they expect us to give but don't intend to concede anything themselves?? Oi, and oi. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesha (Yesha = Yehuda, Shomron, Gaza) Council chair Danny Dayan noted tonight that Netanyahu's big theme has always been "reciprocity." We don't give unilaterally, he has insisted. We must get in return. So now he has betrayed that principle. With regard to this, even though a freeze still would not be acceptable, it would have been considerably more palatable or reasonable (or done with more national dignity) if Netanyahu has demanded a return action. The whole point of this is to "encourage" the PA to come to the table. But they won't. They've already said so, because Jerusalem is not included in the freeze and their demands continue at a maximalist level. They don't want to negotiate, in any event. How would they even manage if they got that "state"? What if Netanyahu had said, IF the PA will come to the table, then I'll do the freeze? That would have shown "flexibility" and "sincerity" on our part, but would have put the onus squarely where it belongs, and would have left us with no freeze once they refused to come to the table. Now, it appears exceedingly likely that we'll remain frozen even if they don't come to the table. The big concern here is that it should not last for more than 10 months — that it should not establish a precedent that just goes on. There are those who see this as a sure sign that it's meant by Netanyahu to be the beginning of the end, a signal that he will allow us to be pushed out of most or all of Judea and Samaria. ~~~~~~~~~~ If there's any good news tonight it's that a lot of people on the right are enraged. I do think there's more sensitivity to the dangers of such a move than there was before the expulsion from Gaza. People have been burned, and the nation is wary. Dayan of the Yesha Council also said this tonight: "The Netanyahu government was elected based on its promise to promote settlement activity in the West Bank, but immediately after it was established this government began to constrain the settlement enterprise. The cabinet ministers are obligated to prevent this." And there's a question here, as to whether, indeed, it will still be brought before the full Cabinet. Likud MK Danny Danon made excellent points when he said: "We were elected to bolster the settlement enterprise, not freeze construction. The freeze constitutes a statement that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, while up until this point Likud has backed the concept that the settlers guarantee Israel's security." Continued Danon: "We will demand that Netanyahu bring the issue to a Likud faction and Central Committee vote, to make certain that the Sharon trauma [Gaza withdrawal] does not repeat itself." Information and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein (also Likud) said, "I will not lend my hand to this process that will ultimately endanger the security of Israel and won't bring us even a tiny bit closer to peace." Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, straight-talking and tough, was none too pleased either. So Netanyahu will find it tough going within his own party. (I'm mindful of the fact that, within the inner circle, we have no word from and no indication of the positions of Moshe Ya'alon and Benny Begin. When the gov't was formed, their presence provided reassurance that Netanyahu would be kept straight. Do they know something we don't know? Are they screaming behind closed doors? Or are they holding on to the status quo?) ~~~~~~~~~~ There are calls for Netanyahu to resign (fat chance), and those who would now attempt to bring the gov't down. My problem with bringing the gov't down is that the alternative — Livni and Kadima — would certainly be no better and might be worse. I don't see it as a viable solution. What we must remember is that this is, broadly, a right-leaning coalition. Faction chair Zevulun Orlev of HaBayit Hayehudi — a member of the coalition — said his party would seek alternative political means of cracking the freeze. And he is calling on other parties in the coalition — Yisrael Beitenu and Shas — to unite to work against this. ~~~~~~~~~~ My friends, when there was ambiguity and it wasn't clear what Netanyahu was up to, I said forthrightly that I wouldn't criticize and that I was not in a position to judge all of the parameters of an extraordinarily difficult situation. (Facing off against Obama IS extraordinarily difficult, and, with everything, I always keep Iran, and the need for US cooperation on this, in my mind.) I felt that he might be "playing the game," taking risks, but with reason, and astutely. I promised I'd scream if I saw reason to do so. Tonight I see reason. Please, let Prime Minister Netanyahu know what YOU think of what he's just done:
~~~~~~~~~~ In the US: Happy Thanksgiving! Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
RADICALIZATION PROCESS OR THE REAL MUSLIM
Posted by Michael Devolin, November 25, 2009. |
|
I've always regarded the academically projected idea of "Islamophobia" as being an infringement upon the democratic freedom to think and weigh evidence against the perceived threat of Islamic terrorism. If the presence of Muslims in my community makes me feel anxious, that is the fault of Islam and not the fault of my existence in a Western democracy like Canada. In Canada it is still my freedom to feel anxious about certain religious, especially if such anxiety, in light of all I've read both in books and newspapers, warns against the violent manifestations of Islam as embodied in the persons of those whose lasts utterances before they murdered innocents helter skelter were addressed to the god known as Allah. Being an expert on Islam is not yet a prerequisite to being a Canadian citizen; being dedicated to my country's security and the safety of my community is not yet a crime in this country. It is the fault of Islam and the Muslim "radical" that many Canadians like me (although they are fearful of saying so publicly) view all Muslims as being suspect. In my view, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' description of the "radicalization process" is simply more of the same tedious apologia long ago worn out by others before him also in possession of laudable education but likewise without an intellect. When a Jew chooses to become more observant, as did Rabbi Kahane (obm), he/she moves to Israel and eats Kosher; when a Christian decides to become more religious, he/she quits smoking or quits drinking or maybe attends Mass more often. When a Muslim decides to become more religious, he/she decides to kill anyone whom for x amount of days, months, or years prior the tenets of his interpretation of the Koran defined as being "blasphemous" and an affront to the god and religion they now swear to serve resolutely, namely Allah and Islam. The terms "adopting a legalistic interpretation," "manifesting a low tolerance for perceived theological deviance, and attempting to impose one's religious views on others" could be used to describe Billy Graham's life story. These terms are descriptive only, and weightless. The religious adherence Mr. Gartenstein-Ross delineates also dictates, of necessity, the observance of the most moderate religious types, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim. What differentiates the "Islamist" (who, according to the Koran, is a "faithful" Muslim) is his/her angry hatred of all non-Muslims, but especially Western non-Muslims, and even more so all Jews. What Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has failed to address (along with many others) is the frightening reality that even in the mind of the comfortably moderate and well educated Muslim, the tenets of Islam regarding his/her measure of adherence to the Koran can at any time preponderate beyond all Western-oriented judicious monitions against the "Islamist" concept of jihad. This same noesis inspired Major Nidal Hasan into a shooting spree in Ft. Hood in the same way it inspired the doctor in Aberdeen Scotland to drive his SUV into an airport lounge. Islam is the cause of terrorism. The radicalization process is merely the conduit through which the former "moderate Muslim" arrives at the Islamist level of Islam. No matter the odious acts of terror Osama bin Laden has committed against the West, the West has yet to acknowledge that bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is the more accurate. Were all Muslims required to be "experts on Islam" in order to perceive the true meaning of the words of the Prophet Mohammed, then Islam is untrue to the Prophet's promise of perspicuity for the simple-minded. But if not, then Islam has certainly succeeded as a religion intrinsically, although not as a salubrious affect for those whose beliefs lay elsewhere. Michael Devolin,
Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net |
|
THE MIDEAST QUAGMIRE
Posted by Daily Alert, November 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Asaf Romirowsky, who is an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. |
|
AFTER President Obama's June 4 Cairo speech on U.S.-Muslim concerns, including the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his own speech at Bar Ilan University stipulating that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said a "basic condition for the termination of the conflict is honest and public recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as the Jewish people's nation . . . we need the Palestinian leadership to get up and say, 'We've had enough of this conflict.' " Netanyahu's statement helps explain why the most recent Obama-initiated peace process has seemed to go nowhere. It is notable for the fact that it forces Palestinians to take a good look in the mirror and decide how they'd like to proceed. Historically, Palestinian society never saw Israel's existence as a "right." The only right in the Palestinian narrative is their own connection to the land, although they do see Israel as a temporary military fact. But there will come a day, the narrative goes, when they will be able to defeat the Israelis. The notion of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state existing alongside Israel was never part of the Palestinian worldview, and they have also always rejected the notion of a single binational state. If from the late '80s into the Oslo years it was politically correct to call for a two-state solution, two sides living side by side, many Palestinians now openly call for a one-state solution, a de facto final solution for the state of Israel. Just look at what Rashid Khalidi, ex-PLO spokesman, now professor at Columbia, writes in his book "The Iron Cage": "among some observers . . . a realization has been growing for years that is increasingly unlikely. This realization has taken shape irrespective of the merits or demerits . . . of the two-state solution, in spite of the long-standing desire of majorities of Palestinians and Israelis for their own state, and notwithstanding the (often grudging and hedged) acceptance by each people of a state for the others." In fact, on the Palestinian street, where things really count, the preference is for a one-state solution — Israel is nowhere to be found. A closer look at the idea of the two-state model as proposed by Palestinian spokesmen reveals that it is actually a camouflage. It lets the Palestinians be perceived as compromising when, in reality, they don't have to. The pro-Palestinian faction loves to quote U.N. resolution 242. It's become the foundation for the land-for-peace formula drafted after the Six Day War, and a superficial reading seemingly places the Palestinian peace-brokers in a position of strength. If Israel valued peace, it would return land. If Arabs wanted land, they would give peace. But there is dishonesty within 242: On one hand, it talks about the exchange of land for peace with Israel, meaning there's room to negotiate. But although we (naively) believe it also calls for recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, that is not the case. And paying lip service to the two-state idea in reality makes it easier to blame Israel and the U.S. for preventing the creation of a Palestinian state, all while putting off facing up to the responsibilities of governing a state and being accountable for your actions. Washington, D.C., and Jerusalem should start looking at other options as the Obama administration tries to reignite "peace talks" that have no viable end result. The two-state solution in its current formula is actually just a placebo for those who'd like to believe that peace will come when there are two states living side by side. Absent real acceptance of Israel by the Arabs, this isn't likely to occur — and the probability of Hamas-run Gaza being included in any resolution is slim to none.
FOR PRAGMATIC reasons, Palestinians may not admit a return to the one-state policy, particularly since American aid and support flows from a peace process based on a two-state solution, but the signs are everywhere. We need to face the fact that peace and security are not going come from the "two-state solution," and without understanding that, there can't be a real discussion of what peace and security in the region really looks like. 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 |
|
ARAB LEOPARD UNABLE TO CHANGE SPOTS; KADIMA ADVANCING BACKWARD; THE MIDDLE EAST MATRIX!
Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 25, 2009. |
|
Arab Leopard Unable to Change his Spots. Syrian president Bashar Assad like the leopard has not changed his spots. After Washington opened the door wide to reconciliation, lavishing goodwill gestures and a procession of emissaries over several months, Assad has abruptly slammed it shut. On Wednesday, Aug. 12, he announced he was off to Tehran next week to congratulate his good friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election as president and further cement their ties. He left behind him a trail of dashed hopes in Washington. (It seems that regardless of how rude and embarrassing any behaviour toward the US is, any slap in the face from a Muslim or Arab country is happily tolerated by the current administration and it is underplayed or even not reported at all by the international press!) Cooperation of anti-Israel Coalition. The Lebanese Air Force will receive 10 U.S. made Puma helicopters, a gift from United Arab Emirates. In addition, Lebanon will receive 10 Russian-made MiG 29 planes. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Only after the Americans, including their president, end their politically correct or hypocritical blindness and stop saying: "I don't know why he did it" (re: Fort Hood rampage by major Nidal Malik Hasan) will they be able to face up to and win the war which is being waged by Islam against humanity! Kadima — Always Advancing Backward. Kadima Knesset Member Meir Sheetrit, who was Interior Minister in the Olmert government, came out swinging against the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He argued that the new construction in Gilo will play into the hands of Hamas and boost popularity for the terrorist organization. (Enemies of Israel never been considerate toward Jews. Must Israel care for the opinions of our enemies?) Arab Export to Israel. Israeli border police of the Galilee region have seized 15 kilograms/33 pounds of heroine smuggled into Israel by an Israeli-Arab from the village of Yarcha. Injustice System Infested by Self-hating Left. The public-professional committee charged with presenting candidates for the next attorney general finished its work on Thursday evening and informed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Ya'akov Ne'eman that there is no clear candidate. (Well stuffed by Labor and Kadima's ideological supporters the committee is unable and unwilling to approve the Zionist-minded candidate!) The government has exposed its discrimination against Jewish patriots during the anti-expulsion protests five years ago by pardoning motorcyclists who clogged Tel Aviv and caused a mammoth rush-hour traffic jam in a demonstration against higher insurance rates last week. Repugnant Traitors Sabotage Israel's Sovereignty. President Shimon Peres (former Labor leader) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak (current Labor leader) are formulating yet another peace plan. It begins with the formation of a demilitarized Palestinian Authority state in half of Judea and Samaria (Jewish land), and ends within two years with a PA state of double that size. (Voters of Israel must purge Israel's political system of these self-hating bastards.) Quote of the Week: "The demand not to build in Gilo seems strange and even bizarre since it has been inhabited for 30 years... It's not east Jerusalem — Arabs have never lived in Gilo and its houses weren't built on private Arab land." — former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval — It is more than just strange. It is a symptomatic attack on Israel's s sovereign rights by the US and other international anti-Semitic bigots! Jordanian King to US Jews: Support PA State. Jordan's King Abdullah II turned to Jewish leaders from the United States this week in hopes of convincing them to help pressure Israel to accept the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan. (I would like to see him and his lovely looking wife, Queen Rania, supporting and propagating among Arabs the Sinai Option: The only road to Permanent Peace!) New Embassies Must be Opened in Jerusalem Only! Estonia is opening its embassy in Israel on Wednesday. Estonia has followed every other country in the world in declining to locate its embassy in Jerusalem. The international (hypocritical) community has refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all parts of the capital. Where is the UN's Condemnation of this Over Reaction? A substantial Saudi armored infantry force and tank column crossed the border into Yemen, on Thursday Nov. 5, to do battle with Iran-backed Houthi rebels the day after they killed a Saudi border guard. Saudi air force F-15 and Tornado jets have been bombing Yemeni rebel positions near the border. (The killing of just one border guard provoked such over reaction. After Katyusha rocket attacks Israel had more reasons for attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza after 8 years of terror and over 12,000 rocket attacks. Have the United Nations General Assembly held an emergency meeting and condemned Saudi Arabia's aggression?) Hypocricy of the Headlines. Israel told to accept global consensus on establishing Palestinian state — Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdallah, Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs, Oman — Shouldn't the Muslim countries accept the global consensus on the end of international Islamic terror first? Self-hating Bastards Must Pay. Police officer David Atiya has been ordered by the Jerusalem Magistrates Court to pay NIS 60,000 out of his own pocket for butting David Ladwin in the head with his helmet during demonstrations in February 2006 against the demolition of nine buildings in the Samarian Jewish community of Amona. PA's Child Slavery which is not condemned by UN. According to a report published by the Palestinian Organization for Democracy and Law, hundreds of children are working 12 hours a day in the tunnels used for smuggling between Gaza and Egypt. Some are being given amphetamines to maintain the work rhythm. The report states that 117 Palestinians have been killed in the tunnels in the past two years, including 32 children working in the tunnels. No Freedom of Speech for Jewish Patriots in Israel. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is alright for Israel Radio and the Second Authority for Television and Radio to reject ads that refer to the forced removal of Jews from their homes during the retreat from Gaza in 2005 as an expulsion. ( Some 8,500 Jews were forcibly expelled from their homes and over ten communities were destroyed during the 'disengagement' of 2005.) The Middle East Matrix!
What if everything you think you know to be true is a lie, and everything you see is just an illusion? Sounds like a promo for The Matrix, but this is the reality of life in the Middle East. The rules that apply to other countries strangely change when applied to Israel. Israel becomes subject to "international law" based upon a legal foundation of facts that don't exist; Israel has leaders, but the leaders would rather suffer the existence of abusive friendships than fight back and protect their children. The United States is leading the crusade against Israel. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are not only demanding Israel freeze all "settlement construction", including natural growth, but that Jewish rights be curbed in Jerusalem. Obama is also calling Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria an "occupation." Yes, Israel does have rights under international law, and the Arab propaganda accusation of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine is another falsehood that needs to end. Israel's government has never stood up for Jewish land rights. Can it be that they don't even know what those rights are? It's frustrating to see Israeli leaders refuse to challenge the false accusations. The fact is that international law does have a lot to say about Israel's rights in Judea, Samaria and beyond. Israel's leaders, President Obama, and the entire world body should look to international law before declaring that Israel should freeze construction, or even worse, surrender portions of the Jewish National Homeland. ...The Mandate for Palestine was for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish People. No other beneficiary is named in the Mandate. Non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were guaranteed the civil and religious rights due to any minority living in a democracy. These rights do not include the right to autonomy. If they did, then every religious group would have the right to an autonomous state. The British never intended on leaving Palestine for the Jews. Despite their obligations under the Mandate, British actions prevented Palestine from becoming Jewish. ...Bringing the Jewish People's rights before the legal system, where propaganda will lose to factual evidence, will end the illusion of illegal occupation and firmly establish the Jewish Nation's legal rights to all of Israel. Once the propaganda is proven to be a lie, then perhaps, just like in The Matrix, the Jewish People will also be able to stop the bullets of anti-Zionism in mid-air. (In order to end lies, You may start distributing this information now — The Mandate — Legalised Robbery!) The Bottom Line: The Mandate for Palestine was for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish People. The Mandate (Article 5) stipulated that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." This means that under international law, no one can force the Jewish State to cede any land that is legally recognized as belonging to the Jewish homeland. This renders the 1947 UN Partition Plan an illegal resolution. Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
HAMAS SITE ENCOURAGES EUROPE ATTACKS
Posted by Sacha Stawski, November 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Benjamin Weinthal, Jerusalem Post
correspondent in Berlin, and it appeared today in the Jerusalem
Post
|
|
The educational content of the Hamas children's Web site Al-Fateh (The Conqueror) is not a form of pedagogy, but an "indoctrination to suicide bombing," said David Oman, the director of communications for the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) on Tuesday at a press conference at the Regent Hotel. Gert Weisskirchen, a former Social Democratic Party MP and chairman of the OSCE on combating anti-Semitism between 2004-2008, introduced the IMPACT-SE study, and said that "there is a chance to prevent the indoctrination of children and youngsters in Germany and all over Europe." The study "Al-Fateh — The Hamas Web Magazine for Children: Indoctrination to Jihad, Annihilation and Self-Destruction" took place from September 2002 to April of this year. Oman cited the "friends of Al-Fateh" entry of the young German-Palestinian child Muhammad Warad as growing evidence of the spread of radical, anti-Western Hamas ideology. The Hamas Web site, according to the IMPACT-SE study, serves to demonize Israel through the use of anti-Semitic cartoons and tries to strip the country of its right to exist. The promotion of violence is a standard theme of Al-Fateh. A telling example, said Oman, is the glorification of female suicide bomber Zeynab Abu Salam, who murdered two Jerusalem police officers in 2004. Al-Fateh claims to receive millions of visitors, according to Oman. He said the Al-Fateh server, which has been tracked to Russia and Malaysia, frequently relocates its operation to prevent closure. The United Kingdom is listed as the site's current host. The educational material on the site contravenes "all of the International Educational Standards based on UNESCO Resolutions," noted the study. Moreover, the authors of the study wrote that the site violates the International Convention on the Rights of the Child affirming that "every child has the inherent right to life," by inciting children to commit suicide bombings. The pro-violence ideology of Hamas will have "implications for the West and Israel," said Oman. "What will happen in 10 or 15 years from these children after their exposure to this type of hate?" asked Oman. The Iranian-Hamas connection appears on Al-Fateh. The study highlighted the role of the founder of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, in stoking hatred against the West and Israel. "The Web site often uses stories of shahids [martyrs] or their last wills and testaments to convey the message of violent jihad till victory or death — a message found in the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini," wrote the authors. "Child abuse" was the term Oman invoked to describe the effect of Hamas's educational site on adolescents and children. Sacha Stawski is with Honestly Concerned Organization. |
|
IS ISRAEL BUILDING A BRIDGE FOR ARABS TO CROSS & ATTACK
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 24, 2009. |
|
There is a lesson for Israel to be learned in the movie: The Bridge on the River Kwai starring Alec Guinness. Remember how the top ranking British officer captured by the Japanese, along with British soldiers, helped engineer and build a bridge across the River Kwai enabling their Japanese captors to ship men and war materiel via train to advance their war machine. Out of ego and hubris the British officer used British engineering and the labor of his men to build that bridge. Although he was advised by junior officers that he was aiding the enemy, he continued on, so engrossed with the project that, only at the end when special forces were going to die blowing up his bridge did he realize what he had done. We have watched in horror as various Israeli Prime Ministers became so consumed with appeasing the Americans, Europeans and various Arab and Muslim countries with a failed peace process, that they lost all sense of who the enemy was and that their goal was to destroy the nation of Israel. Regrettably, the political leaders of Israel were similarly shallow thinkers, consumed with assisting the Muslim Arab Palestinians to take the Land from Jewish settlers, further enabling Terrorists to attack and kill Jewish citizens they swore to protect. Unfortunately, either through hubris or stupidity, they could not understand the machinations of the larger countries serving their own national interests — such as America, France, England, Russia, China — the U.N. But, they are totally vacant about the safety or survival of Israel. Nor could they grasp the unalterable depth of irreversible Islamic hatred for the Jewish people. Nor could they possibly understand the psychology of a primitive people who could never admit to themselves that they were stuck in a 7th to 12th Century time warp while their greedy, short-sighted Muslim Arab leaders kept themselves rich and their people impoverished. The problem for Israel is that most of her elected leadership have acted like merely political hacks hungry for power and money. They had no vision and were not problem solvers. They didn't see that Israel has the inherent right to exist as a Jewish, sovereign state and that there should be no surrender of Land to sue for peace. Israel should only offer "Peace for Peace" — no more. That includes NOT unleashing thousands of captured, tried, convicted and jailed Terrorists who either wanted to kill Jews (or already had) so they could kill more Jews. Granted, Israel is a minuscule nation, surrounded by large hostile Muslim and Arab nations, driven by pagan, religiously-inspired haters of all "infidels" (non-believers) but, with the good fortune to sit on oil — black gold. Shimon Peres posed as an advanced thinker when, in fact, he was merely an unimaginative political hack who valued world opinion much higher then he should — and at great expense to Israel's security and sovereignty. Yitzhak Rabin was always a hopeless case, coming out of a Communist household, run by his strong-willed mother who was dubbed Rosa, the Red. Rabin was addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Ehud Barak was 'assembled' bit-by-bit into fantasy figure as a 'thinker' by the Labor Left party. Regrettably, he rarely proved the public relations effort to make him seem like an intellectual — let alone a champion for all of Israel. Ehud Olmert was a complete loss, except he was trained as a lawyer who used those skills to eventually make money out of illegal deals — according to the 5 or 6 indictments the authorities have against him — yet to be tried. Our greatest disappointment was Arik Sharon, who was a real visionary and a fighter. His failures as a politician were staggering. He really knew the Arab/Muslim mind which made him a great general. As a politician he became no better than Rabin, Peres, Barak or Olmert by not recognizing that, regardless of agreements, the Muslim world would never give up trying to eliminate the Jewish State. All of the above — like the British officer building the bridge for the Japanese — became consumed with their place in history and abandoned whatever good sense they may have had about the Muslim Arabs. Somehow, they ignored well-recorded history of the Muslims who were indoctrinated by their own Koran to be conquerors, living like parasites on their victims' loot. Israel's leaders thought, by sheer Jewish logic (more like Chelm), they could achieve peace through pacification, appeasement and agreements that the Arab Muslims signed in the sand never intending to keep — as taught by Mohammed in his Hadith. For this the Jews surrendered all that is precious to them in the Land of Israel. Once esteemed Israeli leaders began the useless task of fashioning peace plans, all other knowledge and wisdom was pushed aside, particularly at the urging of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department and various U.S. Presidents deeply involved in the commerce of oil. So, our erstwhile leaders became like the British officer assisting his Japanese captors to build a bridge which would eventually bring more Japanese troops to kill or capture more British soldiers. In this reality, today it is Netanyahu (at Obama's urging) who is building that "very narrow bridge" of another State of Palestine within Israel's ancestral homeland in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and all those parts (north, east and south) of Jerusalem that were occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. We will see hostile Muslim Arabs flowing across that "very narrow bridge" unless it is blown up as in the film. A few Jewish leaders could not be so easily misled. David Ben Gurion had the vision but, he too became more interested in fighting religiously observant Jews than fighting the Muslim Arabs. PM Menachem Begin was a courageous leader who believed in the destiny of a Jewish State but, sadly he was misled by an American President (Jimmy Carter) and by Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, the promises which Sadat never kept. Sadly, Begin was blinded to a reality he avoided seeing by his own desire for peace. PM Yitzhak Shamir, did understand the Arab Muslims and their one track mind set to eliminate the Jewish State. He dug in his heels and refused to negotiate away Israel's Land. Today we have PM Binyamin Netanyahu who is trying to ride several horses at the same time. Bibi wants to appease a one-term President, Barack Hussein Obama who, having been raised a Muslim, viscerally does not like the Jewish State and wishes to build another Terrorist Muslim Arab state in Judea and Samaria — connected to Gaza so their second State of Palestine can be "contiguous" with Jerusalem as their capital. Obama has over and over proclaimed himself to be a Muslim — in
words and deeds, denials notwithstanding. You can see him do it on
Bibi has a large ego and wishes to be recognized as the "Peace Maker" who should also receive a Nobel Peace Prize as did Peres, Arafat, Rabin and Obama. He walks a "narrow bridge" to keep Likud supporters of the Right sufficiently behind him so he will not again be voted out of office. The people do not trust him to not cut deals behind closed doors with the Americans and the Europeans. He will build 900 homes for Jews in Jerusalem — but, then he cut another deal to build 5,000 homes (in future planning) for the Arabs in Jerusalem — which expands an already hostile Fifth Column within Israel. Bibi will say that Jerusalem is to remain united but, then he'll be pushed to negotiate borders and a place in or near Jerusalem as the designated capital of another State of Palestine. Bibi will make promises to the settlers of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights but, he will think he is forced to cut separate deals with Obama to establish what will inevitably be another Terrorist Palestinian State in Judea/Samaria — linked to Gaza because Sharon, Olmert and Weisglass forced the evacuation of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from 21 communities in Gush Katif/Gaza and 4 communities in Northern Samaria, destroying their homes, farms, businesses, industries — even their cemeteries. Netanyahu believes his behind can sit on several horses at the same time and, with clever speeches, can get away with it. But, what country will have him after he builds his very "narrow bridge" for the enemies of Israel. Will he be able to walk the streets of Israel after he betrays the people and the nation. If he does this, missiles will rain down from the new "settlements" of Arab Muslim Terrorists in Judea and Samaria, decimating Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Prior Israeli leaders started this bridge to assist our enemies and PM Netanyahu may be trying his hand at completing the job — despite that he knows the Muslim Arabs will inevitably cross that "very narrow bridge" to try and destroy Israel, in keeping with the Muslim world's ultimate goal of creating a Global Caliphate under Sharia (strict) Muslim law. Perhaps Bibi and the Leftists can star in a new Jewish version of the Bridge on the River Kwai. 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 |
|
UNIQUE IN ITS UNIVERSALITY, INTENSITY, LONGEVITY AND IRRATIONALITY, WHAT IS THE ROOT OF ANTI-SEMITISM?
Posted by Susana K-M, November 24, 2009. |
|
This was written by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, who holds a degree
in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin, and rabbinic
ordination from the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. He is the senior editor
of Aish.com and the director of JewishPathways.com. He is also
regarded as an expert on media bias relating to the Middle East
conflict, and was the founding editor of HonestReporting.com. Rabbi
Simmons lives with his wife and children in the Modi''in region of
Israel. This article is archived at
|
|
History provides far too many examples of man's inhumanity to man: social injustice, religious oppression, cultural clashes, ideological wars, class hatred, and most every other form of racism and intolerance. One particular form, however, stands out amongst all others: Anti-Semitism. Unique in its universality, intensity, longevity and irrationality, anti-Semitism is a historical phenomenon which falls outside of normal sociological bounds. In 1987, President Chaim Herzog of Israel commissioned a colloquium on anti-Semitism. Professor Michael Curtis of Rutgers University spoke there about the irrationality of anti-Semitism: "The uniqueness of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that no other people in the world has ever been charged simultaneously with alienation from society and with cosmopolitanism, with being capitalistic exploiters and also revolutionary communist advocators. The Jews were accused of having an imperious mentality, at the same time they're a people of the book. They're accused of being militant aggressors, at the same time as being cowardly pacifists. With being a chosen people, and also having an inferior human nature. With both arrogance and timidity. With both extreme individualism and community adherence. With being guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus and at the same time held to account for the invention of Christianity." As historian Martin Gilbert observes in the Jewish History Atlas: "As my research into Jewish history progressed, I was surprised, depressed, and to some extent overwhelmed by the perpetual and irrational violence which pursued the Jews in every country and to almost every corner of the globe. If, therefore, persecution, expulsion, torture, humiliation, and mass murder haunt these pages, it is because they also haunt the Jewish story." Which leaves us with one question: What is the root of anti-Semitism? "Jews Are Rich, Powerful and Control The World" Many claim that anti-Semitism is a reaction to Jewish political and economic power. Consider the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book invented by the Russian secret police, purporting to be the discussions of Jewish elders plotting to take over the world. It was — next to the Bible — the best-selling book in the world during the 1920s. In the United States, Henry Ford sponsored its publication. It has since been printed in numerous languages internationally, and presently has widespread distribution in Japan. But could Jewish wealth and power really be the cause of anti-Semitism? The Jews of Poland and Russia (17th-20th centuries) were poor and powerless. Yet they were still persecuted. Cossacks didn't check bank accounts before initiating pogroms. When the Nazis liquidated the Warsaw Ghetto, the Jews lived there under incredibly impoverished conditions. The reality is that poor Jews have been just as hated as rich Jews. As Jews were being slaughtered en masse, the claim that Jews control governments becomes painfully absurd. Furthermore, if it is true that Jews control the governments, then why didn't even one country accept Jewish refugees struggling to escape Europe during the Holocaust? Surely with all their wealth and political power, at least one government would have allowed the Jews in! When government after government buried its head in the sand as Jews were being slaughtered en masse, the claim that Jews control governments becomes painfully absurd. Jewish "success" may make an anti-Semite gnash his teeth, but that's clearly not the root cause of anti-Semitism. "Jews Claim to be the Chosen People" The University of California at Berkeley conducted a survey, asking a group of non-Jewish Americans whether they believed a series of negative statements about Jews. By far the number one belief (held by 59%) was that Jews consider themselves as God's chosen people. It is true that Jews have always claimed to be different. Throughout history, Jews have kept to themselves, didn't socialize with non-Jews, and had a completely different ethical, cultural and social system — including different dress, laws, and language. To top it all off, Jewish allegiance was never primarily to the countries in which they lived. The Jew always dreamt of going back to Zion. They were the ultimate outsiders. If anti-Semites hate Jews because they claim to be chosen, then what happens when Jews dropped their claim of chosenness? When the Enlightenment came to Europe, many Jews said "Now's our chance!" They shed their foreign dress, shaved their beards, enrolled in universities — and intermarried. In Germany and Austria, Jews for the first time said: "We're no longer chosen. We're going to become like you. Our home is here. Berlin is our Jerusalem." After centuries of hatred, the Jews anticipated a warm welcome from their gentile neighbors. Where do we see the most vicious outpouring of anti-Semitism? Precisely in Germany and Austria — at the time and place that Jews dropped the claim of chosenness! If chosenness is, in fact, the real explanation for anti-Semitism, then many of peoples should be hated for similar claims of chosenness. Americans have the concept of Manifest Destiny — i.e. that it was the divine will of God to annex territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The name China means "center of the universe." The name Japan means "the sun only shines for them." But nobody hates them for this! Other reasons have been suggested for anti-Semitism, but they also are lacking. Some say Jew-hatred stems from being different, or being outsiders, but as we have seen even when Jews been as German as the Germans, anti-Semitism has not lessened (usually the opposite). Others say Jews were a convenient scapegoat — but hatred must exist as a precondition to be chosen a scapegoat (i.e. no one ever chose midgets as the scapegoat for a country's problems). Others suggest that anti-Semitism exists because of Deicide: Jews killed their God. But historians show that anti-Semitism existed much before Christianity, and has appeared in countless non-Christian countries. We can see then that all the stated 'reasons' are not reasons at all, but rather are excuses for anti-Semitism. What is the real reason? The Attempt to De-Judaize Anti-Semitism In her diary, on April 11, 1944, Anne Frank wrote: "Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now? It is God who has made us as we are, but it will be G-d, too, who will raise us up again. Who knows, it might even be our religion from which the world and all peoples learn good, and for that reason and that reason only do we now suffer. We can never become just Netherlanders, or just English or representatives of any country for that matter. We will always remain Jews." Anne Frank said, in effect, that Jews have something special to contribute to the world — and because of that they have been persecuted. But by and large, the world would rather de-Judaize anti-Semitism. When The Diary of Anne Frank was adapted into a Broadway play, we hear her explanation of anti-Semitism quite differently: "Why are Jews hated?" she asks, "Well, one day it's one group, and the next day another..." In other words, the reasons for anti-Semitism have absolutely nothing to do with being Jewish. The Jews went through a Holocaust, the most systematic attempt to murder a people in the history of all humanity — and it was not for Jewish reasons. Dumb luck. We were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hitler's Reason for Anti-Semitism There was one individual, however, who stated clearly that hatred of Jews is because there's something unique about the Jews: Adolf Hitler. His driving ambition was to turn the world away from monotheism and bring it back to paganism. He stood for the superiority of the Aryan race: "Might makes right... survival of the fittest... eliminate the infirmed and handicapped." There was only one obstacle standing in Hitler's way: The Jews. Hitler knew it was the Jews who introduced the ideas of love your neighbor, helping the poor and the sick, and all men are created equal. Hitler hated the message of the Jews because it totally contradicted what he wanted the world to become. As Hitler said: "Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear." and "The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish like circumcision." Hitler's anti-Semitism was not a means to an end. It was his goal. Long after the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 had effectively dismantled the Jewish community of Germany, Hitler was still not satisfied. In 1942, at the Wansee Conference, Hitler launched the "Final Solution" of genocide. Hitler's anti-Semitism was not a means to an end. It was his goal. Then, with the Nazi invasion of Hungary in 1944, top German military officers determined that railway lines must be prioritized to transport vital troops and equipment to the battlefront. The Wehrmacht urged Hitler to provide this infusion of desperately-needed supplies. Ignoring their warnings, Hitler instead gave orders to allocate the precious rail-lines to deport hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews en masse to the extermination camps. Historians acknowledge this decision as a key factor in further debilitating the German war effort. Hitler, it seems, regarded the killing of Jews even more important than winning World War Two. He said: "If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives, without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school; it's in his soul." The Torah View of Anti-Semitism The Torah itself teaches that anti-Semitism will exist and that Jews will be hated for precisely the reasons echoed in Hitler's words. The Talmud (Shabbat 69) declares: "Why was the Torah given on a mountain called Sinai? Because the great "sinah," the great hatred of the Jew, emanates from Sinai." (Sinah, the Hebrew word for hatred, is pronounced almost identically to Sinai.) Before the Torah was given, people built their lives on a subjective concept of right and wrong. At Sinai the Jewish People were told that there is one God for all humanity who makes moral demands on human beings. You can't just live as you please; there is a higher authority you are accountable to. That's why the Russians were threatened by a handful of Jews who wanted to study Hebrew. The Jews were given the responsibility to represent that morality and be a light unto the nations. So, despite the fact that they were never more than a tiny fraction of the world's population, Jewish ideas became the basis for the civilized world. And with that, they became a lightening rod for those opposed to the moral message. That's why the Russians, although they were a huge superpower in the 1970s, were threatened by a handful of Jews who wanted to study Hebrew. Why would people hate the Jewish message? Consider the words of Aldous Huxley, in his book, Confessions of an Atheist: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." For the one who rejects morality and conscience, the only way to get of rid of the message... is to destroy the messenger. Why Be Jewish? The solution to anti-Semitism is the flip-side of the cause. Jewish values are the cause of anti-Semitism, and Jewish values are the solution. Only by studying Torah — and teaching it to others — can we ever hope to bring the world to a point where evil is eradicated. When human beings embrace the moral doctrine that Judaism brought to the world from Sinai — that there is a God who demands ethical behavior from every human being — then there will be no holocausts. And that is the exquisite irony of Jewish history. The world cannot get the message unless the messengers learn it and teach it. The world desperately needs the Jewish message. Now go and study. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. |
|
ARE THERE QUESTIONS PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO ASK FAYAD?
Posted by David Bedein and Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2009. |
|
In his column of November 20, "Salam Fayyad builds Palestine,"
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions. Since these American elected officials let that opportunity pass, perhaps it was the journalistic responsibility of Mr. Horovitz to explore these matters, to offer a more balanced picture. Instead, he alluded to "staunch supporters of Israel nodding their agreement," conveying the notion that, except for some technical problems, all is well. Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked would have included: Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel. The charter of Fatah — the predominant element in the PLO and the PA — to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term "Palestine" to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that "Liberating Palestine is a national obligation," and that "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method" for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace "armed resistance" to liberate Palestine. Cessation of incitement via changes in PA-produced textbooks. The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT http://www.impact-se.org ) has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts...
It is disingenuous for Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?. Cessation of PA pursuit of Hamas as a coalition partner. The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an "elephant in the room" that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the US and the entire Quartet as a terrorist entity. Yet in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a "unity government" — negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord — that saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?. Renunciation of the "right of return." The "right of return," promoted for 60 years by UNRWA and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? UNHCR, the UN High Commission for Refugees — which oversees all refugees except Palestinians — operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a (rage-inducing) state of limbo. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the "right of return." Isn't it time to ask Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate? Lastly, Mr. Horovitz writes that "most of the international community completely supports [PA] demands for a 100% Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank," noting that "Netanyahu...is intent on driving a harder bargain." The reader is left with the impression that Netanyahu is obstinately resisting what the world expects. Left unsaid is that the Israeli electorate is most definitely not in favor of complete withdrawal, and that the prime minister simply reflects the will of the nation in this regard. What is more, Mr. Horovitz neglects to say that neither does international law support this: UN Security Resolution 242, which does not demand full Israeli withdrawal, acknowledges Israel's need for secure borders. 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 Arlene Kushner is senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact her at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
RECENT BLOWS TO IRAN ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR SANCTIONS
Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, November 24, 2009. |
|
The Iranian Government's instruments of financial leverage and soft power have taken a hit in the month of November. On November 4, analyst Avi Jorisch revealed in the Wall Street Journal that Iran appears to be using a United Nations office headquartered in Tehran to skirt U.S. sanctions. Jorisch writes that Iran appears to be using the Asian Clearing Union "to route over $13 billion overseas in 2008 and over $5.6 billion so far in 2009 to pay for many of its goods and services." Presumably, the White House, the U.S. Treasury, and international anti-money laundering agencies have since chased down this lead. A week later, on November 12, the federal government seized assets belonging to the Alavi Foundation and the Assa Corporation, including a Manhattan skyscraper and four mosques, citing alleged links to the Iranian government. An amended civil complaint alleges that the Alavi Foundation provided services to the Iranian government and transferred money to Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned financial entity. The next day, on November 13, 2009, Eli Lake of the Washington Times revealed that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) may be operating as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and lobbying disclosure laws. Now, the New York Post appears to have delivered another blow to the aforementioned Alavi Foundation. Apparently, it has gifted "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to the Middle Eastern and Persian studies programs at Columbia and Rutgers universities, in an attempt to influence their programs. For example, the Alavi Foundation reportedly donated $100,000 to Columbia after the university agreed to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007. Iran may have lost a few battles this month, but the mullahs are still winning the war. Tehran continues to march toward its goal of attaining a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the Iranians recently rejected a deal brokered by the United Nations whereby Tehran would have shipped about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to Russia and France to be processed for a research reactor. The deal might have delayed Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb by about a year. In the end, the recent blows to Iranian infrastructure in the United States are no substitute for imposing crippling sanctions, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Congress and some of America's allies are ready to impose these measures. The White House, however, continues to delay.
Before joining the Jewish Policy Center, Jonathan Schanzer was a counterterrorism
analyst for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S.
Department of the Treasury. He is the
author of the new book Hamas vs Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine
(Palgrave Macmillan).
This appeared today in Frum Forum
|
|
MAJOR HASAN'S BREAKING POINT; TRYING TERRORISTS IN NY;
ISRAELI VICTIMS OF TERRORISM VERSUS NETANYAHU; MILITIAS REJECT HAMAS CEASEFIRE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 24, 2009. |
|
MASSACRE MAJOR HASAN'S BREAKING POINT New America Foundation's Robert Wright assesses the breaking point that propelled Major Hasan into the Ft. Hood massacre. Mr. Wright's thesis is not new, but he puts new arguments into it. He asserts that under modern conditions, our wars may be radicalizing Muslims into becoming terrorists, even in our own country. He questions whether terrorists need foreign countries, when they can use the Internet to radicalize our own Muslims. With Internet and its video, powerful emotional messages reach across the seas. The videos contain images of Americans killing videos. This strains less emotionally strong individual Muslims to their breaking point. Radical imams encourage such individuals to take action. Becoming the butt of suspicion at work, further alienates Muslims. The fact that very few U.S. Muslims have taken such action convinces Wright that Islam is not inherently a belligerent religion. Wright makes a distinction that conservatives just wanted to kill terrorists, whereas liberals wanted to kill terrorism. (NY Times, 11/22, Opinion). The assessment contains creative thinking, unfortunately rendered less plausible by Mr. Wright's succumbing to the temptation to rub his thesis into conservatives. One wonders whether his case on terrorism is driven by a desire to triumph over conservatives. It was President Bush who called ours a "war on terrorism." Few well-known people suggested that we devise a strategy against the ideology, although I recall some conservative commentators doing so. I think Wright's ideological partisanship is misguided, in what must be a unified and non-partisanship national effort to fashion a workable strategy. There have been American Muslim attempts at terrorism, but not many. Their limited number does not prove much about Islam. Muslim numbers here have not attained the critical mass that emboldens violent types. Suppose their numbers grew? The question Wright should ask is why does terrorism infect Muslims more than people of other faiths? Why are they liable to become radicalized? Why do they identify with radical Muslim organizations, rather than scorn their terrorism? Can something be done about radical abuse of Internet, as a criminal or war matter, without taking away our own freedom? A sound strategy requires asking and answering. How tempting Wright's thesis must be for those who would like a simple way to abandon wars against terrorists! It would be even more tempting if he advanced an alternative. Does our immigration policy protect or imperil us, in this regard? Wright declares that terrorists don't need bases in host or failed states, to harm us. It seems to me that the resources that such havens allow terrorist organizations to amass enable them to plan major operations like 9/11. Each country they take over not only fastens their type of dictatorship upon millions of people, but enables them to gather more national resources against the remaining countries. Wright does not seem to have asked, what if we don't stop state-by-state take-over. Whether the U.S. still has the resources to mount such wars is a question, too. We need a strategy that does not require the old style mass-invasion. Another question is why we have tolerated radical regimes, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which finance radical mosques and terrorist organizations. The mosques and madrassas that they subsidize graduate potential terrorists as fast as we kill them, and those states provide the necessary arms. Wright did not comment upon whether such mosques and madrassas are rising in the United States. TRYING TERRORISTS IN NY CIVILIAN COURT David Beamer, father of a 9/11 victim, was invited to hear Attorney-General Holder's Senate testimony on why he decided to try the 9/11 terrorists in a New York civilian court. According to Mr. Beamer, the Senate Judiciary Committee comprised partisan-oriented Democrats and issue-oriented Republicans. Attorney-General Holder said he chose civilian trials in order to, as Beamer put it, "restore the integrity of our judicial system." Another of his reasons is that the number of civilian victims exceeded the number of military victims. [So?] Holder assured the Committee that the trials would be short. New Yorkers' safety would take priority. He has sufficient evidence so that no classified evidence would be revealed. Democrats on the Committee praised Holder and the prospect of open trials enhancing our reputation abroad, even though we would be enhancing defendants' rights beyond the requirements of war. Beamer didn't realize that our government's priority to please foreigners. Sen. Schumer (D., NY) asked the trials' cost. Civilian trials cost much more. The ones in question would cost an estimated $75 million. The Senator did not object. The Democrats mostly asked questions about other issues. GOP Committee members asked pertinent questions, such as how he could be so sure of conviction and of being able to withhold all classified information. How does he know what judges will rule? If terrorists captured abroad are to be tried in criminal courts, will they have to be read Miranda rights? Would that include the right to remain silent? Would they gain immigration rights and be able to plead for political asylum to stay here? Holder stammered that he didn't know. Why didn't he have answers? Does he know what he is doing? Why didn't he discuss with the President, as he admitted he did not, his critical decision affecting constitutional rights, battle procedure, and civilian security? (Wall St. J., 11/21, A15.) Why didn't the President discuss it with him? P.S.: The five 9/11 defendants "...will plead not guilty, so that they can air their criticism of U.S. foreign policy." They would not deny what they did, but would explain why they did it. Critics of the decision to try them before a civilian court had warned that they would try to turn the trial into one on U.S. policy. The government expects the judge to prevent that (Wall St. J., 11/23, A9). ISRAELI VICTIMS OF TERRORISM VERSUS NETANYAHU If Israeli PM Netanyahu releases 1,000 terrorists in exchange for one Israeli, parents of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism threaten to depose him. In this struggle, the personal interest of many bereaved parents, who evoke a national interest, are ranged against the parents of the one Israeli captive and the Prime Minister of a country that was unable to find other means to free him. In the bereaved parents' own words, "From the minute that the Bibi government abandons us and our children to the mercy of more than 1,000 murderers who will be set free; from the moment that the Bibi government betrays the memory of our murdered children; from the moment we see that all principles and all precedents have been shattered and that Bibi who vowed to fight terror betrays his principles and breaks his promises — we will work to topple the Bibi government." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/22). Aside from the injustice, which contravenes Jewish law, experience shows that the proposed exchange would lead to more Israeli victims than the release of one would spare. The exchange would give terrorism a triumph over Israeli security personnel who risked their lives to capture the 1,000, only to see the 1,000 freed. HUMAN SHIELD IN AFGHANISTAN 
Taliban gunmen in Afghanistan coerced or cajoled [the source's headline differs from its text on this] a 13-year-old boy to plant a roadside bomb. It exploded when he moved it, killing him (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). Why use a boy and not plant the bomb themselves? He would seem less suspicious. They used him as a human shield. One hears little indignation against terrorists' barbarous intent, but much against the accidents of war by the U.S. or Israel, which try to minimize civilian casualties, while the terrorists try to maximize civilian casualties, including their own civilians. What conscience has "the international community?" UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONDEMNS IRANIAN REPRESSION The UN Human Rights Commission condemned Iran for "'serious, ongoing and recurring' human rights violations, including violence against protesters after the disputed June presidential election." The negative votes and abstentions combined, however, exceeded the positive votes (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). 
IRAN CONFIDENT IT CAN DEFEND ITSELF FROM RAIDERS An Iranian air force commander boasted that Iran can defend itself against a potential Israeli raid. He would shoot down most Israeli planes, and his ground-to-ground missiles would destroy the survivors' bases before they could land. Although Iran is complaining that Russia has failed to deliver a powerful anti-aircraft defense system as scheduled, Iran's Defense Minister said that Iran can manufacture its own (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). The U.S. and Israel waited for negotiation and sanctions to work. Now it may be too late for a military option. [Did our President plan that?" Considering Iran's military facilities, a simple raid would not do. I doubt Israel is up to making a somewhat sustained attack, first on Iranian offensive and defensive facilities. Therefore, the retaliation by Iran could be severe. Let's see a 5-page report on how Iran got so self-sufficient in arms manufacture. MILITIAS REJECT HAMAS CEASEFIRE 
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and Fatah deny being bound by the ceasefire Hamas announced (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). This is another example of the Arabs and Iranians announcing deals that the West likes, but factions, even the originator, reject the deal. One U.S. daily noted that the IDF made a retaliatory raid in Gaza despite the Hamas-declared ceasefire. The Arabs do some of the best fighting during their ceasefires. ANARCHIST CAUGHT DEFAMING IDF Every week, anarchists and Arabs riot against Israeli troops guarding the security fence. [And the IDF thinks the danger is just from the other side?] One of the rioters suffered an injured eye. He sued the IDF, claiming that he was struck by a rubber bullet, and that the IDF had intended to murder him. [In my U.S. Army training, I was taught that a blank cartridge, if fired point blank, can be fatal, otherwise not. I remember Pvt. Ackerman wearing a head bandage from a blank, fired from very close. Rubber bullets are worse, but very rarely deadly, as they are intended not to be.] Plaintiff's' credibility sank as the number of versions of his story rose. The court found that he was out of range of the rubber bullets. The IDF could not have struck him with one. But he had the eye injury. Turns out, he was struck by a rock thrown by one of the Arabs in his crowd [committing what that nice moderate, Abbas, calls "non-violent" protest, www.imra.org.il, 11/22). The judge fined him about $12,000 in court costs. The judge swam against the current of judicial favoritism for the Left. My source would like the judge to have ruled that even if the injury had been caused by a rubber bullet, the IDF would not be liable for damages inflicted in their duty and self-defense (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22). This case exemplifies the defamation of the IDF and of Israel in general. The defamers have the temerity to sue. No matter how often their tales are exposed as tissues of lies, anti-Zionists accept them. Some must accept them because their ideology predisposes them, they don't know how to check such things, and reason is not their forte. Others probably accept them as convenient ammunition, right or wrong in these individual cases. SETTLER CURSING OF ISRAELI TROOPS CRIMINALIZED The IDF commander for Judea-Samaria ordered the criminal arrest of "settlers" who curse Israeli troops. Few do. [I do not approve of cursing the troops. The general attitude of Jews in the Territories is gratitude for any protection that the Army gives them, though the commanders begrudge it. Civilian hospitality is so prevalent and natural to people whose own children are in the Army, that commanders have ordered their troops not to fraternize with settlers, lest the troops refuse to carry out political orders against the residents. So blatantly unethical and illegal are these orders, that more and more troops refuse to obey.] Many Jewish anarchists, the pro-terrorism International Solidarity Movement, and their Arab followers [and the Israeli women's group that protests against checkpoints] do curse the troops. Worse, they vandalize the fence and attack the troops guarding it almost every week. The government rarely arrests them. Generally, Israel has one standard of justice for the Right, and another for the Left (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22). PUBLICIZING ISRAELIS' ADDRESSES Someone once publicized the address of an Israeli Arab judge. Police interpreted that act as an invitation to murder the Arab judge. [Yes, the publicist was not suggesting that people bring the judge flowers.] Likewise, the University of Haifa sponsors an Internet group called "Alpha List," that promulgates antisemitism. The group disseminated a list of home addresses of Israeli Army officers. That is worse than cussing officers, it is even more clearly an exhortation to murder (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22). Apparently, police did nothing about it. The Left, and that obviously by now includes the Netanyahu regime, has a mental illness in condemning minor irritations against its troops by the Right, but allowing dangerous attacks against its troops by the Left, by pro-terrorist foreigners, and by an enemy population. The less the government defends against leftist, foreign, and Arab attacks, the more bold the attackers can be. The TV program, "Law and Order," explored the case of an American fascist group, that claimed to want liberty, disseminating addresses of police officers or undercover cops, who then were murdered. The group was found guilt of conspiracy to murder.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
DESTROYING A FARM IN SAMARIA. TODAY WAS A VERY SAD DAY IN ISRAEL
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, November 23, 2009. |
|
If you have been to Israel and visited farms like this one you will understand what an outrageous and pointless act the military did in Israel today. It IS about the farm, the family, the youth who go to work on the farm (often youth in trouble in the city, and the effect is incredible) and the rights of Israelis to live in Israel. It is about the fact that the military ignored the legal process, it is about some politicians enacting their own political agendas at the expense of specific (expendable) citizens and so many more issues. But this time it is about something else as well. Read this article, and don't miss what is being said: the military came to destroy and they invited the local Arabs to do the destruction. Can you imagine the army standing around preventing crying children and their shocked mother from protecting their home while the father is away serving in the reserves, and protecting who? Protecting Arabs who were invited to have a great time dismantling a Jewish home. Can you imagine the precedent this sets? This is so perverse it makes my head spin. Meanwhile the media in Israel is making a fuss about some soldiers, at their swearing in, who put it clearly on the table that they would not take part in this kind of action. This is so twisted it is becoming unrecognizable. There is no conclusion that I could draw that adequately describes the horrific nature of what went on today and the future ramifications of it. This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva. |
|
The Botzer family, whose farm was demolished Monday morning by the military, described for Arutz Sheva Radio the loss they have suffered, saying it is far more than financial. The Botzer farm, located adjacent to Mevo Dotan in the Shomron (Samaria) region, was destroyed Monday morning as part of the government crackdown on what have been defined as "unauthorized outposts" in lands liberated by Israel prior to the Six Day War. David and Shaina Botzer told Arutz Sheva that their farm is actually on state land within the municipal territory of Mevo Dotan, although west of the town's current residential area. "My husband is a Navy commando and while he was planning to go to do his reserve duty, they came and dismantled his life's work. This was an animal pen worth tens of thousands of shekels. There were 50 heads of sheep there as part of an educational agricultural project that involves the area youth," Shaina said. The animal pen itself was subject to a demolition order, she said, but the order was in appeal before the proper authorities. In addition to the animal pen, the security forces also destroyed a stable that was not subject to the existing demolition order, Botzer added. 'Like a stab in the back' "The Navy commando unit is in my husband's blood," Shaina told Arutz Sheva. "The unit is part of him and now it is hard for him to go to reserve duty. He feels like he was stabbed in the back." Shaina was further surprised to see that the workers brought in to carry out the physical destruction of their property were Arabs from a neighboring village. "I am stunned. It is a total shock when Arabs come and dismantle a Jewish farm when so many of their homes in the village below [our farm] are illegal," she explained. When the workers were taking down the pen, they tried to chase away the sheep, but the animals tried with all their might to remain in the enclosure. "Even after the pen was dismantled [the sheep] ran back to the area where it had stood, but they came upon a pile of rubble," Shaina Botzer said. "It is so symbolic that they tried to return home." The Shomron Liaison Office informed Israel National News on Monday that the Botzer ranch is "an educational farm which is located in a very difficult and strategic area and is an inspiration to the region's development." "We will continue and support the efforts of the Botzer family and those who help them secure a Jewish presence in the Northern Shomron," the Liaison Office said. "We are now launching an emergency campaign to raise funds to rebuild the building that was destroyed." "We are essentially protecting state land here," Shaina Botzer said, "and they took everything of ours apart. With G-d's help, we will start over again." Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
SEN.INHOF: ISRAELI TECH CREDITED WITH PROTECTING U.S. TROOPS, COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Posted by Chuck Brooks, November 23, 2009. |
|
This is a news item that appeared in Geostrategy
|
|
WASHINGTON — A senior senator said the Defense Department has contracted for Israeli technology that was protecting U.S. ground units in campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The senator said the Israeli technology was more effective than anything else deployed by the U.S. military. "If you look at some of the things that we have, they have been credited with saving more lives from RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] in Iraq than anything else," Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, said. "This is Israeli technology that you are sharing with us." In an address to the Jerusalem Conference on Nov. 3, Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cited the Litening air pod, Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle and armored tiles for U.S. combat vehicles. He said the tiles, developed by Israel's state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, were saving the lives of American troops. Rafael also produces Litening, a combat navigation air pod that has been installed on virtually every U.S. fighter-aircraft. Northrop Grumman has been the prime contractor of the Litening program in the United States. The Hunter was produced by the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries. Northrop has also been working with the U.S. Army in developing and maintaining the Hunter. Inhofe's identification of Litening and Hunter as Israeli systems contrasted with that of Northrop and the U.S. military. The two platforms have not been publicly linked to Israeli companies. Rafael has been supplying armored tiles for the U.S.-origin Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The project has been led by General Dynamics for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another major Israeli project was the armoring of the M-ATV combat vehicle for the U.S. Army. Israel's Plasan Sasa has been the prime subcontractor in a multi-billion-dollar deal to armor more than 5,000 M-ATVs for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Inhofe told the conference that many Americans were under the misconception that the Israeli-U.S. defense relationship was based on American arms sales. He said the relationship was mutual, and that U.S. arms sales to Israel were in Washington's interests. "When we send C-130s and Apaches to Israel, we are not doing it for Israel, we are doing it for us," Inhofe said.
Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com
|
|
EUROPEANS RUDE TO ISRAELI CHAMPIONS; RADICAL MUSLIMS IN MANHATTAN;
DEMOGRAPHIC TREND IN ISRAEL; CIA RECRUITING U.S. ARABS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2009. |
|
EUROPEANS RUDE TO ISRAELI CHAMPIONS European sports officials have been rude to Israel's champion fencing team. The custom at sports events is to play the winners' national anthems when awarding them medals. First in Sweden and then in Austria, when the Israeli winners already were on the platform, the sports officials told them they had no recording of the Israeli national anthem. At first the Austrians claimed they had the old Israeli national anthem. When the Israelis explained that Israel has the same anthem as from the outset, the Austrians admitted not having it. Both times, the athletes sang the anthem, themselves. Now they carry its recording, to avoid that problem (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/20). Europeans may disapprove of Israeli military conduct. It is inexcusable rudeness, to take out their disapproval on Israeli athletes. HOW IS U.S. DIPLOMACY IN CHINA, MUSLIM & LATIN WORLD? President Obama visited China on a diplomatic mission. The government there kept Obama mostly out of the public view, and dissidents locked up out of Obama's view. It ignored Obama's pleas on human rights. It made clear that it is powerful enough to pick its own path. Obama's message was hobbled by his domestic problems. [For every public-spirited reform, some interest group is opposed.] Obama demanded that China not keep its currency artificially low, too low for the U.S. to export much to China. Chinese officials countered with a demand that the U.S. not keep its currency artificially low and falling in value, thereby depreciating China's huge holdings in dollar-denominated Treasury issues and encouraging excessive borrowing likely to produce another bubble-and-burst (Jonathan Weisman, Andrew Browne, Jason Dean, Wall St. J., 11/19,A10). Obama's campaign suggested that he would reconcile with other countries, because he would offer friendship and is charismatic. As I predicted, his charisma would be veiled and his friendship would founder on ideological and economic differences. And so it has. Obama often has sided with, or not sided against, dictators or would-be dictators. In this regard, he goes further than did his predecessor. ISRAEL RESISTS PALESTINIAN & ISRAELI ARAB LINK TO IRAN Israel has barred certain Israeli and Palestinian Arabs from leaving the country, including on pilgrimage to Mecca, lest they forge links with Iran. One such Israeli Arab was a former mayor of Umm-el-Fahm, sentenced to jail for transferring funds to Hamas charity fronts, and who belongs of the Islamic Movement that works to bring down Israel. For similar reasons, Israel would not include certain convicted
terrorists in a prisoner exchange (
GAZA CHARITY OFFERS BOUNTY FOR ISRAELI SOLDIERS The Waad charity from Gaza is headed by Hamas' Interior Minister. Waad offers $1.4 million to any Arab citizen of Israel who kidnaps an Israeli soldier. This is the first time that money was offered for that (Wall St. J., 11/19, A16). The constant Radical Muslim abuse of charities for warfare and criminality is just one of several underhanded ways of Radical Muslims. The world's media and the Left has not caught on to that. It still makes Israel and the U.S. scapegoats for false allegations by Radical Muslims. RADICAL MUSLIMS IN MANHATTAN Outside the mosque at 96th St. and Lexington Ave. in Manhattan, one can hear support for violence against the U.S.. [Not when I walked past.] That is legally protected speech — no clear and present danger of violence. That legal concept may not be appropriate for Radical Islam. Ordinary Muslims latch on to radical Muslim web sites, which radicalize them. Some American-born Muslims then travel abroad for training in terrorism. Some of Somali extraction joined Somali terrorists. Major Hassan committed Islamist terrorism at Ft. Hood. Perhaps our judiciary should consider a different legal concept for an ideology that readily tempts U.S. Muslims to violence. The Radical Muslims are at war with us (Daniel Henninger, Wall St. J., 11/19, Op.-Ed.) WHY DID F.B.I. IGNORE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS? "Sen. Joe Lieberman (I.Conn.) chairman of the Senate homeland security panel ...wants to find out why a joint FBI and Pentagon program to locate domestic terrorists in the military focused only on what supremacists or other right-wing extremists, rather than..." broadening their range of vision (Yochi J. Dreazen, Cam Simpson, Wall St. J., 11/20, A4). Politically correct? Old-fashioned? HIZBULLAH ISSUES NEW MANIFESTO Hizbullah has issued a new manifesto. The new document proposes to establish an Islamic regime and punish the Christian Phalangists (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). DEMOGRAPHIC TREND IN ISRAEL Israel is urged by erstwhile friends to cede territory, to avoid being overwhelmed demographically. The demographic situation, however, has reversed itself. Much of the alarm occurred over Palestinian Authority (P.A.) population statistics that turned out to be erroneous. The P.A. claimed 2.5 million residents, but has only1.55 million. Emigration helped reduce its population. The percentage of Jewish births in Israel has increased from 69% in 1995 to 75%. One of the reasons is that Russian immigrants and "yuppies" switched to typical Israeli rates. The Arab birth rate in Israel and Judea-Samaria has plummeted. "The significant decline in Arab fertility rate reflects a significantly improved standard of living, resulting from successful integration into Israel's infrastructures of health, education, employment, commerce, politics, media, sports, culture and the arts. The Arab-Jewish fertility gap was reduced from six births per woman in 1969 to 0.7 in 2008." Initially, Israeli medical care reduced the Arab death rate but not the birth rate. That is typical at the start of modernization. Birth rates have fallen in all Muslim countries except Yemen and Afghanistan. They are urbanizing, an important factor (www.imra.org.il, 11/20). Secular Jewish rates had been so low, that the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox were expected to replace that portion of Jewry. CIA RECRUITING U.S. ARABS The CIA has produced a soft sell TV commercial emphasizing that American Arabs may retain their culture and also perform a duty for their new country here by joining the CIA. Initial responses from the target audience were positive (www.imra.org.il, 11/20). When Israelis fluent in Arabic offered to help translate boxes of captured Arabic documents, the CIA rejected the offer. It was suspicious of Israelis. FATAH PREPARES THIRD INTIFADA AGAINST ISRAELIS 
Fatah's stated intent to implement its Conference's decision to launch a third Intifada against Israelis. It claims to be doing this because there are no negotiations. The uprising is to be patterned after the demonstrations at the security barrier, but to spread to Jewish communities. Fatah claims those demonstrations are non-violent. Actually, they involve throwing stones and soldiers and even fire-bombs, injuring some people. That is an odd form of non-violence! (www.imra.org.il, 11/20). They call the security barrier an apartheid wall, though it is neither all a wall nor apartheid. It is like many other walls, to keep out barbarians. China had one, the Romans had one in Britain, Saudi Arabia is building one, and so on. While planning this illegal war, Fatah also protests against Israel on spurious claims of violation of the very international law that the war shows Fatah does not believe in.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL IS WORLD'S TOP PATENT PRODUCER
Posted by Cpocerl, November 23, 2009. |
Little Israel is the top patent producer, as reported in Ynet
Israel's economic miracle contrasts sharply with the miserable performance of the "Muslim world," which America's first Muslim-born President (according to Islamic law) has sought to elevate to the level of a transnational superpower through his odious outreach and appeasement policies. Except for Arab and Iranian oil, Muslim countries produce nothing of value to modern civilization. |
|
Taub Center for Social Policy Studies presents study which suggests number of patents approved to Israeli inventors by US Patent Office in 2003 higher than by any other G-7 nation. Manufacturing productivity, however, rapidly plummeting The United States Patent and Trademark Office has approved more patents to Israeli inventors than to any other nation of the G-7 countries — the seven largest and most influential economies in the Western world, according to a study conducted by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies. According to the study, in 1990 the US has approved 6% less patents to Israeli inventors than to the average number of inventors in the G-7 countries (subject to country size). In 2003, however the number of Israeli patents approved was 69% higher than that of inventors in the G-7 countries. The study stated that 20 out of 200 world countries have had one of their scientists win a Nobel Prize over the last decade — whereas in Israel five scientists have won the prestigious award over the same time period. It appears there are only four other countries that have noted a higher number of Nobel Prize laureates than Israel. The study further suggested that Israeli economists are ranked first in the world, subject to country size, in the number of quotes published by leading financial magazines between 1970 and 2000. The number of quotes by Israeli economists is seven times higher than that of British economists. Manufacturing productivity drops The study also examined the level of manufacturing productivity. Alas, while Israel has managed to increase its creation productivity, prolificacy in manufacture has plummeted. Whereas in 1990, Israel's manufacturing productivity stood at 7% below the average in G-7 nations, by 2003 it dropped to 69% below the average. "Instead of closing the gap with leading Western nations, as Israel has done until the mid 1970's, the State is increasingly withdrawing over the last three decades," Taub Center manager Prof. Dan Ben David said. "In 1973 the standard of living in the US was 39% higher than that of Israel's. Today the American standard of living is already 61% higher." Ben David noted that something has happened to Israel along the way. "While parts of the Israeli population ascended to the top of human knowledge, others have been neglected and left behind." Ben David also stated that in the past the State's human and physical resources were at the top of national priority, a reality that has changed in recent decades. The professor further noted that despite the fact that universities are still considered the State's crown jewels, while Israel's population doubled sine 1973, the Israel Institute of Technology added only one more vacancy for senior staff. "Israeli academia's two flag ships, the Hebrew and Tel Aviv Universities, have lost 14% and 21% respectively, of senior staff vacancies since 1973." Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: ONE STEP FURTHER
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 23, 2009. |
|
The reader comments to my posting yesterday were intense. And in more than one instance I was asked why I don't tell it like it is regarding Obama's orientation and motivation, when it's all so clear. I am not seeking to cover for him in any regard. But I choose not to attribute motivations in instances in which I cannot document them and cannot be certain: Does he act this way because he's a Muslim, because he is an ideological socialist, because he's been bought by certain interests, etc. etc. A strong case can be made for some of these positions, but what concerns me is the effect of his policy and actions — and, as I see it, he's bringing America down. This said, however, there is one distinction that certainly merits contemplation. Is he messing up with regard to genuine American interests because of naiveté, inexperience, bad advice, etc.? Or, as many of my readers suggest, does he know precisely what he's doing? Is it deliberate? ~~~~~~~~~~ I'm not going to return to Obama's interaction with Iran here, in order to consider this premise. But I do want to consider it in a different context: The "peace process." And for this I turn to Barry Rubin's latest column, which is called "Lessons not learned." Rubin traces the recent history of the settlement issue, with which you will be familiar if you've been reading my material: When Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, it was made clear by the Israeli gov't that it considered construction in existing settlements to be consonant with the agreement; the Arabs didn't object and the US had little to say on the subject. That is, until Obama came into office and, as Rubin says, "made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy: sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy..." But this approach turned out to be an abysmal failure. First he tried to strong-arm Israel, and when Israel balked, he attempted, without success, to secure some concessions from the Arab world in exchange — wrongly assuming, says Rubin, that they are desperate for a peace agreement. ~~~~~~~~~~ What happened next is that the PA picked up on Obama's demands and said they wouldn't come to the table unless we froze everything. The US then actually secured a large concession from Netanyahu: We would stop building in Judea and Samaria — but not in Jerusalem — after we completed current building. Hillary Clinton enthusiastically praised this gesture, which infuriated the Palestinian Arabs, who then "threw a temper tantrum," and followed with all sorts of threats. This, says Rubin, is their core strategy: "Why make compromise peace with Israel when you can just claim everything you want, ensuring the door is kept open for a future struggle to wipe Israel off the map entirely?" So, what did the Obama administration do? Back down on everything except the PA plans for unilateral independence. "Having made a deal with Israel, having gotten Netanyahu to take an enormous risk, it then pulled the rug out from under him." Observes Rubin: "Those who always advocate Israeli concessions as the solution should take note. Once again, we've seen that a concession doesn't lead to a concession by the other side nor does it lead to progress. It just produces a demand for more concessions without any real credit for the last one." ~~~~~~~~~~ And, as we all know, the next Obama demand was to cease building in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem. Quite a big deal was made of it. (Obama said it "embittered" the Palestinian Arabs.) This in spite of the fact that the construction fell within the understanding that had been reached with Netanyahu and praised by Hillary. "...the administration...[showed] not only that it wouldn't respect agreements... made [by Israel] with predecessors, but it wouldn't even respect the agreements it made itself." "Obama complained that the Gilo construction...makes it harder to achieve peace... http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705164232& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ OK. Let's look at this for a minute. The steps taken by Obama have been colossally stupid. Or so we might say, if his goal — as he's been insisting — really is a negotiated peace between Israel and the PA. He saw that his demand for a settlement freeze created a hardening, an increased intransigence, on the PA side. And then what did he do? He made another demand of Israel, one he KNEW Israel would never accede to. Obama is a political animal: he understood that even if Netanyahu wanted to stop building in Jerusalem (I don't happen to believe he does), he could not without risking the breakdown of his coalition. And, at the same time, Obama knew, from immediate past experience, that the PA was exceedingly likely to pick up on this and become even more intransigent, in echo of his demand. And so we must ask: Is he simply very foolish, very innocent and almost totally devoid of diplomatic skills? Is he simply so arrogant that he assumes he can condescend to Israel and make demands of us, at the same time that he stretches himself to show the Muslim/Arab world how sensitive he is to Palestinian Arab feelings? And has he thus inadvertently — and very obtusely — gotten himself into a bind? Or, does he have ulterior motives, and has he consciously sabotaged what he claims to be seeking? Quite a statement that Rubin made: "Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire term in office." ~~~~~~~~~~ One of the things that gives pause is the fact that Obama focused on Gilo. I asked, many here asked, why Gilo? Gilo? People were aghast at his approach. Indeed it seemed that his demand was very maximalist. He didn't pick on demolition of illegal Arab housing or purchase of housing by Jews in Arab neighborhoods (all of which is legit but controversial). He picked on a solid and well-established neighborhood that is totally and thoroughly integrated into the Jerusalem municipality, one built on Jewishly-owned land without even a hint of it being on Arab land, one that is not even to the east of the city, as, say, Har Homa is. Maybe he's really so foolish (which is worrisome in itself) that he isn't aware of all this, and just randomly picked a neighborhood that was doing some building to make a fuss over. But there is sufficient bewilderment over what he did to make one wonder. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to thank those readers who shared with me information on Muslims of dubious or clearly inappropriate background who have been given positions in Homeland Security in the US. There are two of particular note: Arif Alikhan was appointed by Obama several months ago to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Responsible for developing policy to secure the nation against terrorism, he killed an LA Police project for monitoring terrorist activities in local radical mosques. He has also referred to Hezbollah as a "liberation movement." Kareem Shora was appointed by Obama to Homeland Security's advisory council, which directly provides advice and recommendations to the Homeland Security Secretary. He was formerly executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which refers to jihadists as "heroes." This is from http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/nov/ devout-muslims-key-homeland-sec-posts and checked out. A similar item sent to me with regard to Fort Hood terrorist Hasan turned out to not be quite accurate: According to Snopes, he attended one or more meetings organized by George Washington University's Homeland Security policy institute, but was never actually an advisor to Obama's Homeland Security Team. ~~~~~~~~~~ You might also want to see Charles Krauthammer's piece, "Travesty in New York," about the Obama government's plans to grant Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who plotted 9/11, a civil rather than a military trial. One more reason to worry about America. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705163996& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ The rumors are flying fast. I'm always reluctant to spend much time focusing on such rumors, which often turn out to be unfounded. But it's time to at least mention them here: It is being said that a deal to secure the release of Gilad Shalit is almost completed. Reportedly, the Hamas demand for 1,000 prisoners — including some who perpetrated major attacks — has not changed, but there are conflicting reports as to whom the Netanyahu government might be willing to release, and where (that is, they might not be permitted to return to Gaza or Judea and Samaria). It chills the heart, and enrages, to imagine that terrorists responsible for the deaths of many innocent Jews might be released. Not to speak of the fact that it puts us all at increased risk and encourages more kidnappings. (I understand that Hamas is offering a considerable amount of money to any Israeli Arab who captures a soldier.) Netanyahu, referring to the release of these terrorists as a "serious dilemma," told the Likud faction today that a deal is not close. When the time comes, he said, there will be a debate in the Knesset and a vote in the Cabinet. Aside from reports from Arab sources, the rumors have been fueled by a trip by President Shimon Peres to Egypt, at the same time that some Hamas officials were known to enter Egypt, and a visit here by German officials (Germany being involved along with Egypt on negotiations.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Speaking of terrorists in our prisons, there is news about Marwan Barghouti. Serving five life sentences for his involvement in terror attacks, he is frequently touted as a potential savior, who — if he is released from prison — can unite the Palestinian Arabs and bring a peace deal. Well, you can scratch that. Barghouti has been quoted in Al Hayat Al Jadida newspaper, via a message carried by his lawyer, as saying that Palestinian factions should lead "popular resistance" (violence) to combat building in settlements and the Judaizing of Jerusalem. "I have always called for creatively combining negotiations with resistance and political, diplomatic and popular activism," he was quoted as having said. "I warned against relying exclusively on negotiations, but some were late to discover this." "Creatively combining negotiations with resistance..." (aka, if you don't give me what I demand at the table, I'll come after you and you'll be sorry). This is pretty much the Palestinian Arab credo and does NOT lead to peace. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE BEN-AMI OF J STREET AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ DEBATE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2009. |
|
Part 1: Framing the issues 
A full theater mostly of emotive fellow Jews was welded to the seats as Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz debated Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, on Sunday, November 21, at the 92nd St. YMHA in Manhattan. Moderator was resigned Governor Elliot Spitzer, whose family donated money to the Y. [My comments are in ellipses such as these.] In the course of discussion, Dershowitz mentioned meeting on these issues with PM Netanyahu, AIPAC, and others. Both debaters set the framework of the debate by declaring that Israel's only interest in the Territories was security. [That is an anti-Zionist and anti-Judaism stance. Zionism claims the land of Israel, and especially the Territories, where Jewish civilization emerged. Security is secondary, necessary to protect the land and people. The participants evinced no understanding that, in any case, the Territories are vital to Israeli security, by providing secure borders and strategic depth against invasion and bombing.] Likewise, both believe in a 2-state resolution, which neither justified as a viable solution [or why there would be two states, considering there already are two states in Palestine, one being Jordan]. The moderator interrupted lively discussion too often, to ask his own questions. He did keep them on topic. He tried to elicit where they agreed and disagreed. Part 2: J Street reviewed [One might have expected Dershowitz to make a devastating denunciation of J Street for being a pro-Muslim organization, but he was in an accommodating mood.] Dershowitz belatedly and tepidly raised two issues about J Street's bona fides. One was that it couldn't call itself pro-Israel after having removed "pro-Israel" from its students' affiliates' logo or banners, because it embarrasses them. Ben-Ami, as was typical of his performance, first tried to deny having done so, then tried to excuse it as the only way to get young people in to "engage them." But he did not explain how and whether he actually "engages" them, and how he is going to turn his campus membership, apparently hostile to Zionism, pro-Israel. Dershowitz ran rings around Ben-Ami's rationalizations, framing it as a matter of false labeling. The other issue was the leadership of J Street. Dershowitz barely mentioned the Arab and Iranian financing of J Street. He did cite anti-Zionist Muslim J Street board member(s). Ben-Ami claimed that the Muslim is pro-Israel. Dershowitz retorted that J Street's Muslim adviser showed his true colors by blaming the U.S. and Israel for the Palestinian Arab refusal to negotiate. [That is the Muslim Arab way of jihad, blame others for one's own deficiencies.] Dershowitz accused J Street of having too many hard Left associates. He attempted to balance that by claiming that AIPAC has too many hard Right associates. [AIPAC is a lobby for the government of Israel, not for Zionism and not for American Jewry. When the government changes, so does AIPAC's line. However, AIPAC also tries to stay in the good graces of the U.S. Administration. It does not have a coherent ideology.] When Ben-Ami more or less complained that one cannot criticize policies of Israel without being called anti-Israel or even antisemitic, Dershowitz disproved that by using himself as an example. Dershowitz constantly criticizes Israeli policies on the Arabs. Nobody calls him anti-Israel. And he didn't call Ben-Ami one. But remember, he defends Israel's right to exist and to defend that existence. That is the difference. Part 3: Cause of the conflict Ben-Ami more or less stated the usual anti-Zionist claim that the "occupation" caused the conflict. Dershowitz denied it. The conflict preceded Israeli acquisition of the Territories. When Israel removed both civilians and military from Gaza, the conflict from Gaza got worse. [I deny that it was occupation.] To that and at other times, Ben-Ami, who claimed a bit hysterically at one point that Dershowitz disrespected him, denigrated Dershowitz as living in the past, and praised himself as looking to the future. Dershowitz retained his equanimity and explained that what happened in recent years helps us understand what is likely to happen again. Neither stated the motivating factor of the conflict they think they can resolve. [That factor is Islamic doctrine.] Part 4: Propriety of friends criticizing Israel 
Dershowitz declared it Israel's right, for being on the front lines, to decide when and how to defend itself. Therefore, American Jews may debate other Israeli policies, but not its defense policy. In this regard, Dershowitz had praise for Pres. Obama. He finds the President distinguishing between Israel's right to defend itself, to which he does not object, and Israel's other policies toward the Arabs, to which he does object. [But Obama's policies would deprive Israel of secure borders and become hardly able to defend itself.] Dershowitz indicated favor for severing the Golan from Israel, for [alleged] peace agreement. Inconsistently, he would be willing for Israel to give up that annexed area but not the annexed part of Jerusalem. Also inconsistent is his citing polls showing Israelis favoring negotiations, but not polls showing they insist on retaining the Golan. The question of the evening and J Street's theme was who should speak for Israel and for U.S. Jewry. Ben-Ami contends that AIPAC stands for the status quo, which does not solve anything. He said that the Jewish community should allow questions. [J Street doesn't just ask questions, it is an advocacy group.] Ben-Ami contends that the status quo is untenable. [Poor arrangements agreed to by Israel have led to war. The status quo would have been preferable. But I can see that keeping the status quo until Islam reforms and ends jihad would take generations. I prefer a Zionist solution, whereby Israel would reclaim the Territories and the Arabs would leave Israel and the Territories. I discuss that in earlier articles.] Dershowitz said that American Jewry does not need another organization that simply divides Jewish opinion [and lets it be conquered]. Whereas J. Street wants to oppose AIPAC and the established voices, Dershowitz proposed agreeing on 80% of the issues and speaking as one voice on them. He would invite J Street into AIPAC and suggested that J Street invite Dershowitz to speak at its next convention. To bring in J Street, AIPAC would expel from its councils the Christian "right wing" [Evangelists], and expel from its membership Jewish "extremists" who want to retain the Territories. J Street should reciprocate by expelling its own extremists. The result would be an effective united front. [I dispute Dershowitz' notion of extremists. The Arabs have 79% of the original Palestine Mandate, in Jordan. Israel has 17%. The Territories comprise the remaining 4%. It would not be extremist for Israel to end up with 21% and secure borders. It is extremist for Israel to be whittled down to 17% and insecure borders. Dershowitz is extremist.] Part 5: Peace enablers and disablers What would make peace, and what blocks it? Dershowitz pointed out that Arab slander blocks peace. The Abbas and Hamas regimes alike are raising generations on hatred and war lust. As for the Arabs' current views, remember that most voted for Hamas. Implication: peace is becoming impossible. Jewish housing does not block peace. Arabs may not like it, but their protesting against i it is an excuse for their refusal to negotiate. Citing Israeli "polls" in support of his own view, Dershowitz said that Israelis favor negotiation. They would be willing to give up most of the Territories for a genuine peace. This contradicts Dershowitz' point that Palestinian Arab education is indoctrination for holy war [which ceding the Territories would facilitate]. [Any Arab leader who proposed a genuine peace would be deemed a traitor by those whom he had indoctrinated in a fanatical drive for conquest. You know what Arabs do to "traitors!" A poll does not make for wise policy, if even honest. It reflects popular misconceptions at the time. It also is used to create misconception. Dershowitz' misconception is to emphasize the willingness to cede, but Israelis emphasize their doubt about Arab genuineness for peace. They can be generous about a gift they do not expect to make.] Dershowitz thinks foreign troops a necessary buffer between the two sides after a peace agreement. When Mr. Ben-Ami recommended that the Quartet help make the agreement and furnish the troops, Dershowitz objected to the presence of UN troops. The UN is anti-Israel. [What does Dershowitz think the rest of the Quartet is — Russia, EU, and State Dept. — fair?] What did the debaters think of PM Netanyahu's policy of building up Judea-Samaria, which has begun to thrive? Ben-Ami thought it good for the Arabs but inadequate to resolve the conflict, which is not based on standard of living. Dershowitz thought it brilliant, because it showcases what cooperation with Israel can bring, contrasted with the more oppressive reign in Gaza. [Prosperity might help Fatah defeat Hamas. So what! Fatah is jihadist, too. Although Ben-Ami realizes that the conflict is not based on economics, he mistakenly attributes it to territory. It is based on the Muslim imperative to dominate.] Part 6,7: Land for peace and settlements 
Ben-Ami alleged that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state unless it divests itself of the Territories. He did not explain clearly. He mentioned it couldn't keep its democracy [which I think more a formality than a reality there] and also keep the territories. [Usually, the Left cites a demographic argument, long since disproved. I agree with the U.S. Chiefs of Staff study that found that Israel could not survive unless it retains most of the Territories. Neither would it sufficiently fulfill its Zionist purpose of statehood, if it gave up its holiest cities, the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as Schechem. Ben-Ami's argument purports to care about Israel, but advocates policies that would get Israel conquered.] Dershowitz immediately showed where he stands, by declaring his early and continuing opposition to Jewish "settlements." [He did not explain why Israel should not expand into that part of the Land of Israel, still largely vacant. I would have preferred an orderly expansion, being contiguous and accompanied by annexations.] Dershowitz believes that Israel should annex the nearer ones and does not consider housing in Jerusalem "settlements." Every country has the right to designate its own capital within its country, including Israel [for which the U.S. makes a negative exception]. Part 8, 9: Unilateral action and recognizing Ben-Ami said that Jewish house-building in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem is a unilateral act that impeded peace-making. As usual, he did not explain his assertion, as if it were axiomatic. Dershowitz replied that it does not mean the Arabs could not negotiate. Spitzer got Ben-Ami to admit that the Arabs take unilateral action, too. [However, none of them mentioned the extensive Arab construction. Why the double standard? Why emphasize and legitimize the sudden Arab demand for a Jewish freeze and only a Jewish freeze? That demand subordinates Jewish claims to Arab claims.] Ben-Ami claimed that the Saudi Initiative would recognize Israel. [That, too, is pro-Arab propaganda. The Initiative does not promise it. It merely hints at it. It does not mention recognizing a Jewish state. Therefore, they still could war on the Jewish state. Under the Initiative, Israel first would make concessions that would enable the Arabs to overthrow it. Then, say the Saudis, they would consider recognition. Too late! That is the real Saudi plan.] Abbas wants peace; he already recognizes Israel's right to exist, said Ben-Ami. [That assertion echoes pro-Arab State Dept. sophistry. Abbas threatens war if he doesn't get everything he wants from negotiation. He is preparing people and army for war.] Dershowitz pointed out that Abbas does not recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. [Significance: since he does not acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty, he would make war on it to change it to another state.] Nevertheless, Dershowitz thinks Abbas not too bad. [It would be wiser to see that Ababs, seeking gains both diplomatically and militarily, is more dangerous than the one-track Hamas.] Part 10: Negotiation Israel did not miss opportunities to negotiate, said Dershowitz. He supposes that it is engaging even now in back channel discussions. Dershowitz, by nature a negotiator, is willing to negotiate with anyone, including Hamas. [He did not acknowledge that such negotiations are likely to fail. That makes his point pointless, a diversion from reality.] Ben-Ami wants U.S. "engagement." [But the State Dept. is anti-Zionist, and is not an honest broker. So far, its so-called "engagement" does not work.] What went wrong in the Gaza withdrawal, Ben-Ami thinks, is Israel's failure to negotiate it. [How unfair, since the P.A. refused to negotiate!] Dershowitz replied that, inasmuch as Hamas took over Gaza, the unilateral nature of Israel's move-out did not matter. He said that Israeli withdrawal did not mean that the Arabs had to demolish [or pilfer] the hothouse industry that Israel left behind, ready to utilize. Would Ben-Ami want Israelis still to be there? Dershowitz thought that the Israeli civilians should have left — he did not explain why — but that the Army should have stayed and prevented the extensive terrorism from there. Moderator Spitzer said that nobody expected rocket attacks from Gaza. [Not true. That is, Jewish nationalists, whose views were not expressed in the debate and who were written off by the two appeasement-minded debaters as "extremist," warned that terrorism would follow withdrawal. They had warned about dire consequences of other appeasement. Their warnings were borne out. But they are called extremists rather than the reckless folks who insist on pursuing policy gambles with security that they were given reasonable warning against making.] Part 11: Gaza Ben-Ami referred to Israel's partial blockade of Gaza as if it were an occupation. Dershowitz, the lawyer, explained to him that a blockade is not an occupation. Ben-Ami asserted that the blockade of Gaza is onerous to the point of starvation [ignoring that Hamas made a military blockade necessary to save Israeli lives, and forgetting to mention that the tunnels also bring in goods]. Denying that food is barred, Dershowitz denied any starvation. [Ben-Ami was asserting the standard, anti-Israel propaganda defamation about the blockade. So much for his being pro-Israel!] Part 12: Iran Stressing U.S. security throughout, though usually not showing why, Ben-Ami treats Iran as an issue of U.S. security. In this instance, he did explain. He said that U.S. regional forces would be imperiled by an Iranian retaliation against any U.S. or Israeli raid. [True, but if Iran got nuclear weapons, it could strike U.S. forces in Europe and, with further development of its rockets, the U.S. homeland. That is a greater risk to U.S. security.] Ben-Ami said he is against Iran getting nuclear weapons, but would wait for sanctions. Contradicting himself, he also admitted that sanctions usually do not work. [He did not explain how he could be against Iran but be financed significantly by pro-Iranian sources. He has no solution that would stop Iran, ruling out as he does a military option and after Iran has been perverting negotiations and deceiving the world about its nuclear program.] Again following the State Dept. line, Ben-Ami tried to link the issue of Iran with the Muslim-Israel conflict. He showed no link, merely asserting that it would be easier to fight Iran if that other issue were out of the way. Dershowitz said that regardless of the Muslim-Israel conflict, the Arabs have an overriding interest in neutralizing any Iranian nuclear threat. [I think that Obama gave Iran more time to complete its nuclear program, by diverting his attention to the conflict with Israel.] Ben-Ami thinks that a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict could peel Syria from its alliance with Iran. He did not explain how, nor how that would affect Iran's nuclear weapons program. Dershowitz thinks that since sanctions against Iran developing nuclear weapons probably are a futile exercise, neither the U.S. nor Israel should take military action "off the table." He expects Iran to build nuclear weapons within 2-3 years, short of the last screws, so they can claim they don't have them. But they could complete the nearly finished weapons in 2 months. Ben-Ami disputed the estimated time Iran needs, without making his own estimate. He argued that estimates have been too short. Dershowitz pointed out that the U.S. estimate was too long. He said it is safer to bank on short ones. Part 13: Refugees 
As for bringing Arabs into Israel, Dershowitz stated in an ambiguous manner, odd for such an articulate and mentally agile lawyer, no objection to millions of Arabs entering Israel. [No one who really cares about Israel would fail to object to that obvious ploy to destroy Israel, that ploy being one of the chief components of the Saudi Initiative that Ben-Ami commends. Ben-Ami and the Saudis, those other "friends" of Israel.] Ben-Ami pleaded that we should acknowledge that a wrong was done to the Arab refugees. [if so, it was done by themselves and especially by their leaders.] In reply, Dershowitz explained that very few of the Arabs were forced out of Israel, and only after they had participated in a genocidal attempt against the Jews. Let us recognize, he said, that there was a population exchange, there being more and wealthier Jews who were expelled [but first robbed] from Arab states. Therefore, Israel owes Palestinian Arabs nothing. He would not object to a symbolic compensation. But, if Israel compensates them, then the Arab states should compensate their Jewish refugees. [Israel should make no symbolic gestures. Once it does, it admits responsibility. Then that becomes a point for further demands and for negotiation. Good will to the wrong people at the wrong time is counter-productive.] Although Ben-Ami derided Dershowitz for having an over-simplified view on refugees, he did not have the complex view of it that Dershowitz does. [It came out as another nasty crack by Ben-Ami. Ben-Ami's posture is that he is pro-Israel but Israel is guilty of everything and the Arabs are guilty of very little.] Part 14: Goldstone Ben-Ami pressed for approval of the Goldstein UN report. Dershowitz distinguished between the report's recommendations, for which the UN commission had no expertise to make, and which Goldstein admitted was based on judicially inadmissible evidence, and the testimony, itself. Dershowitz thought that the testimony should be investigated. Ben-Ami settled for that. They want an independent investigation. Whom would Dershowitz recommend? He named Amos Oz and leftist government officials, who are not objective, and Israeli judges, such as Shamgar and Barak, who ruled out good evidence in favor of biased evidence. [Dershowitz failed to recognize the high standards of the investigations Israel has been conducting, and the low standards by which Goldstein accepted biased hearsay. Trouble is, people have learned to be suspicious of potentially self-serving investigations, and don't know who is fair and who is biased.] The Goldstein mission had four members. One, a Muslim, said it would be cruel to disbelieve Hamas testimony! Another, an officer, didn't believe that Hamas would put weapons into mosques, which of course it did [and for which Israel had ample evidence]. A third member obviously had made her mind up in advance. So had the UN, which set up the mission to get evidence against Israel. Ben-Ami defended Goldstein by calling him a Zionist. [Goldstone was embarrassed into resigning from Human Rights Watch, which specializes in abusing Israel and having to retract accusations.] Ben-Ami likewise defended his own character by references to where he had lived — in Israel. [That is no criterion. Citing military service or Zionist parents wouldn't prove anything about an individual has become radicalized. Viz Rahm Emanuel.] Ben-Ami tried to exonerate the UN and Goldstein by asserting that before setting out, Goldstein got a UN official to change the mission. Dershowitz, always on top of the facts that Ben-Ami was spinning, explained that it was an informal move that did not change the mission or the report, but served as a face-saving excuse for those who want to be deceived. [I had reported the details.] Ben-Ami accused Dershowitz of making cheap shots to impress the audience, by trashing Goldstein. Dershowitz explained that after Ben-Ami cited Goldstein as a reliable source, it was a duty to explain that he is not reliable. [Indeed, the Goldstein mission obviously was trash. Dozens of other major, reasonable criticisms of it were made. It simply was pro-Arab propaganda, which the UN has made into one of its main purposes. Why would anyone honest and pro-Israel put any credence into it?] Nevertheless, Ben-Ami had to agree that the UN is biased. [This contradicts his earlier suggestion that the Quartet, of which the UN is part, mediate and provide a peacekeeping buffer between Israel and a new Arab state.]
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE TRIAL (TRAVESTY) OF THE CENTURY
Posted by Susana K-M, November 23, 2009. |
|
This was written by Arnold Ahlert. |
|
One of the main points being made by conservatives regarding a civilian trial for the 9/11 terrorists is that it will provide Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company a worldwide platform for denigrating America as part of their defense strategy. A hot flash for my fellow conservatives: having America internationally debased may be precisely what our president and his like-minded followers want. Many times I have made the point that there are two types of Americans: in one group are those who add up all the plusses and minuses of our country's history and conclude that we are the greatest nation on earth, warts and all. In the other, those who believe the same calculations reveal a nation which is fundamentally flawed, and in need of a massive re-ordering which only they can provide.The second group also believes we owe the entire world an apology for our historically wayward behavior. For a very long time, the second group, aka American left, has been infatuated with the idea of Americans getting their comeuppance for having the gall to believe our culture, traditions and customs have made us the best nation on earth. The essence of their argument is simple: because we are not perfect, we have no business being proud of being good, nor any reason whatsoever to conclude that our ways are superior to those of any other nation or culture. For them, Ronald Reagan's characterization of America as a "shining city on a hill" is nothing more than collective braggadocio. Such a clear cut assessment of America also rankles leftists because they are heavily invested in the idea that all things are relative, which is why our president, when asked if he believed in American exceptionalism said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Perhaps it never occurred to the president that if everyone is exceptional, then no one is. Or perhaps it did. The American left has long yearned to see the Founding Fathers — and their overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian approach to governance — thoroughly discredited. Part of it stems from their decades-long infatuation with secularism, as epitomized by candidate-Obama's San Francisco characterization of disgruntled Americans "clinging" to guns and religion, a statement which reveals one of the prevailing characteristics of leftist elitism: religion per se is anti-intellectual. This attitude dovetails nicely with their general contempt for the intelligence of average Americans, who they believe must be taken care of by their betters. Another part of it stems from a similar infatuation with diversity: many leftists can't stand the idea that the wisdom of a largely homogenous group of people — "dead, slave-owning, white, European males" is responsible for one of the finest series of governmental philosophies ever devised. Thus, everything leftist Democrats in Congress and this administration are attempting to foist on the American people — Constitutional rights for stateless, non-uniformed terrorists, government-run healthcare, cap-and-trade, nationalizing banks, regulating salaries, etc. etc. — is the rejection of a status quo they consider too white, too religious, too capitalistic, too self-reliant, too free, and too...American. These are the same people who believe the disastrous historical track record of both socialism and communism is attributable solely to the fact that the "wrong people were in charge." And until America "comes to its senses" and adopts that which is a demonstrable failure only because of incompetent leadership, we must be pilloried for our "irredeemable"embrace of freedom and capitalism. And who would make a perfect pitchman for delivering that message to the entire world? Enter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Attorney General Eric Holder has promised us the prosecution of the alleged 9/11 mastermind will be the "trial of the century." No doubt. For those who can't — or won't — recognize the extermination of 3000 Americans on 9/11 as an act of war, or that Islamic jihadism is inherently evil and inferior to our way of life, this spectacle will be a global celebration of rabid, anti Americanism — one that will delight jihadists and "chickens coming home to roost" leftists in equal measure. Some conservatives are "consoling" themselves with the idea that the real motive here is putting the former administration, most specifically George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, on trial. That is naive. America itself is in the cross hairs here: the religious right, flyover country, the military, the CIA, capitalism and every other institution and concept leftists hold in contempt. New York City once again a bulls-eye? There's an old saying, "bad things come in threes." The bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 — and the subsequent civilian trials — was number one. 9/11 was number two. Number three? Let's hope old sayings aren't invariably accurate. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: DEPLORABLE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 22, 2009. |
|
I began writing this post, earlier today, by talking about imponderables, and then focusing on Obama policy with regard to Iran — which policy leaves many of us confused, frustrated, and angry. Following through, I posed a series of questions, all exceedingly valid: Did he ever REALLY believe that Iran would be receptive to dialogue and compromise? Has he been blinded to ominous Iranian realities because he is so solidly wedded to a philosophy that demands resolution of all conflicts via dialogue? Or because he is so intent on courting the Muslim world? Or because he rejects long-standing notions of America as moral cop and pretends to ignore what he doesn't wish to deal with? Or because he wants to keep Russia — which is not predisposed to sanctions — happy? Or for some other as yet unspecified reason? How does he justify the virtual slap in the face he delivered to the rebels in the streets of Iran, who pleaded for American support, after the election? (These dissidents, it should be noted, have just renewed their call for assistance from the US: Mohsen Makhmalbaf, spokesman for a key Iranian opposition movement has asked Obama to publicly demonstrate support for Iranian democrats and intensify financial pressure on the Revolutionary Guard.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Acknowledging that I have no satisfactory answers, I moved beyond these questions to the present: We've passed the time limit Obama had originally set for Iran to accept a proposal — as imperfect and dubious as it was — for shifting the situation and thereby reducing the threat of Iranian development of nuclear weapons. What is more, the West is now in possession of additional evidence regarding Iranian duplicity and hidden nuclear facilities. (Additional evidence, as if we didn't already know it, that you cannot trust these guys.) In the face of this, it has been generally acknowledged that it's time to get tough with Iran. And so last Thursday Obama issued a statement in this regard: "Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal...and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences." What? "As a consequence we have begun discussing...the importance of having consequences"? How tepid and wishy-washy (and convoluted) could he get? Sort of like a mother, saying to her misbehaving child, "I'm going to discuss this with your father, and then you'll see, you may be in big trouble." Obama's explanation was distressing: "Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran," he said. Potential steps? Nothing definitive there. But some weeks ago Israel had urged the US to have sanction plans in place, so that once it was clear that Iran was not cooperating, they could be immediately activated. But Obama — Oi! — had not wanted to do this because it would send a negative message to the Iranians when he was reaching out a hand to them. He didn't like a carrot and stick policy: he wanted to be all carrot. So now Iran has more time, while sanctions are "discussed." Obama's position is that Iran's intransigency will increase the willingness of the international community to resort to punitive measures. Israel is urging that sanctions be applied that would deny Iran any nuclear fuel capabilities. And Israel is further urging that if the international community won't get serious the US should act alone. ~~~~~~~~~~ But here's the kicker, which has just come to my attention: In 1983, 241 US Marines were killed in the bombing of a barracks in Lebanon. It has taken many years to track, and to bring through the courts, but in 2007 a US federal judge ruled that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages in the bombing, to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution. Lawyers for the families have been working to seize Iranian assets so that payments could be made. However, the Obama government is going to court to try to block
this, because (are you ready?) it would "jeopardize sensitive
negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a
potentially damaging precedent." (emphasis added)
Here's a chance to zap it to Iran, big time, and Obama would rather not do it. I confess, professional cool went out the window with this and I couldn't draw a breath. And so, now that I'm breathing again, I must ask my final set of questions: Is the president of the US daft? And, if not, precisely what is he about? Lastly, where is America, that all this could be happening? ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me add information shared by Barry Rubin in his most recent posting: A correspondent in Iraq has interviewed the commander of US troops there, and sent the dispatch via Reuters. Said this commander, al-Qaeda, which is fighting in Iraq, has joined forces with previous supporters of Saddam Hussein (former Ba'athists, who made off with considerable funds from Iraq). And the site of rendezvous is Syria. According to US General Ray Odierno, "Investigations into massive suicide bombings in Baghdad on Oct. 25, in which more than 150 people died, indicated that explosives or fighters were coming across from Syria." Explains Rubin: "Syria is letting al-Qaeda and Saddamist terrorists come in, get armed and trained, cross the border [to] Iraq, and run back for safe haven." Taking it one step further, Rubin observed: "As U.S. forces withdraw someone is trying to wreck the situation there so that the US departure looks like defeat." The general confirms this: "We believe that there will be attempts to conduct more attacks between now and the elections because they want to destabilize those." ~~~~~~~~~~ Just as I've asked questions, Rubin also does: "So, the Obama Administration's military commander says Syria is behind massive attacks and working closely with Osama bin Laden's guys. ~~~~~~~~~~ My friends, get this information to your Senators and Congresspersons without delay. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
Keep the explanations short, and provide URLs. Act to redeem this situation before it is too late. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" A sophisticated research ship has been launched in Eilat, at the Institute for Marine Sciences. Hebrew University, Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, and a number of other agencies and private donors have cooperatively made this possible. Profession Aaron Kaplan, who heads the Institute explains, that this will greatly advance Israeli marine research — especially with regard to unique organisms found in the Gulf of Eilat. Such research has increased value in recent years as marine biological models are used for medical research. ~~~~~~~~~~ Professor Meir Liebergall, chairman of the orthopedics department of Hadassah Medical Center, Ein Kerem campus,and Professor Eithan Galum, have announced a new technique that involves a "breakthrough in concept and overcomes major scientific and logistical problems." For the very first time ever, platelets and adult stem cells from the blood and bone marrow of patients with fractures have been separated and then injected into the patients, causing bones to heal in a quarter to a third of the time it usually takes, and permitting healing to occur that in some instances wouldn't have otherwise been possible at all. The technique has been developed over the course of years. ~~~~~~~~~~ Eye from Zion is an Israeli non-profit that sends volunteers into developing nations to do cataract surgery and restore people's sight. All money donated to the organization is used to cover expenses; none of the dozens of volunteers surgeons involved takes payment. The group brings its own equipment, sets up a clinic, and starts operating. Many hundreds of operations have been done in such places as Vietnam, China and Azerbaijan. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
NEIGHBOURS: BUILDING BLOCKS OF PEACE — OR WAR
Posted by Lyn Julius, November 22, 2009. |
|
Living side by side is not enough: Israelis and Arabs must meet, talk and learn from each other |
|
At the National Theatre in London, Our Class is telling the story of the 1941 massacre of the Jews of the Polish village Jedwabne — all the more painful for being true. What makes the play so hard to watch is that the murderers and victims knew each other. Catholics and Jews sat in class together, flirted, shared dreams and aspirations. Eventually, though, deep-seated antisemitism and prejudice caused one half of the class to turn on the other. The idea that familiarity leads to mutual respect underpins the work of some 30 Arab-Jewish coexistence projects in Israel alone. If Jews and Arabs talk to each other, live together, play music together — so the thinking goes — there could be peace. Coexistence is not new to the Middle East. Jews and Muslims lived cheek-by-jowl for 14 centuries. Arab mythology holds that the Golden Age in Muslim Spain was a model for peaceful coexistence. But the relationship was not equal. Jews were subjugated, self-abasing dhimmis, exploited for their talents. They had to buy their physical security from the ruler of the day. Maimonides fled from fanatical Muslims, not Christians. In modern times, Jewish-Arab coexistence broke down completely. Roughly half the Jewish population came to Israel not as refugees from the Holocaust, but fleeing Arab and Muslim antisemitism. A million Jews once lived in Arab lands. Today, their communities, predating Islam by 1,000 years, are almost extinct. The periodic violence that has erupted in the Middle East has tested interpersonal relations to the hilt. Just as Righteous Gentiles saved Jews from the Nazis, some Arabs saved Jews: 300 Jews sheltered in 28 Arab homes during the Hebron massacre of 1929. Honourable Muslims rescued Jews from rioting mobs in Arab countries. While the authorities failed to intervene to protect Jews — or even incited the rioting — the friendly neighbour stood as the last line of defence. But familiarity also breeds contempt, resentment and greed. Among stories of neighbourly betrayal in Hebron was the Jewish doctor murdered by his own patients. The Makleff family near Jerusalem was slaughtered by the Arabs they worked with. Jews terrorised by the 1941 Farhoud in Iraq (179 Jews dead) and the Libyan pogrom in 1945 (130 Jews dead ) recognised, among their assailants, the local policeman, butcher and milkman. Yet there must be a place for coexistence initiatives. Projects such as Daniel Barenboim's East-West Divan Orchestra play a role in humanising Arabs to Israelis, and Israelis to Arabs — whose countries habitually demonise them. The cooperative village of Neve Shalom introduces Arabs and Jews to each other's cultures. Unless the dialogue is balanced, however, coexistence can become an exercise in Jewish self-abasement. It can lead to Jews suppressing their rights, identity and suffering while empowering Arab grievances. Jews may feel the pain of a Palestinian refugee and even "understand" terrorism, while there is no corresponding shift on the Arab side — because Jewish rights, suffering and the pain of expulsion of Jews by Arabs, may be ignored. The prejudice at the root of rejectionism and terrorism can turn a neighbour into a monster. Only if we confront this unpalatable truth can people live as equals in true peace and mutual respect. Lyn Julius co-founded Harif, an association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa This article appeared October 29, 2009 in The Jewish Community Online
|
|
DEALING WITH THE DEVIL
Posted by Mark Silverberg, November 22, 2009. |
|
The assumption that the Obama administration's diplomatic initiative to our enemies will enhance America's image in the world and increase our security is becoming more questionable with each passing day. What we have learned is that dialogue and accommodation with messianic, apocalyptic Islamic regimes like Iran are not only pointless, but threaten the stability of the international order. In January, President Obama addressed the Iranian mullahs in terms suggesting a possible reconciliation between the two countries if the Iranians would "unclench their fist." The speech was met with chants of "Death to America" and derision by the Iranian mullahs who demanded an apology for decades of past injustices allegedly committed by the US against the Iranian people, and ridiculed Obama's slogan of "change" as a retreat forced upon America by Iran's Islamic revolution. Later, Obama released a video offering Iran congratulations on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year. This initiative was also received coldly in Tehran. Over the past several months, the President of the United States .... has shown obeisance to a Wahhabi despot in a bowing gesture seen widely in the Arab world as a sign of submission; shook the hand of a Venezuelan dictator who not only referred to him as an "ignoramus" less than a month earlier, but is co-architect of the Russian-Iranian campaign to displace American influence in the southern hemisphere; made serial apologies like "Bush did it", "reset button" and "I was only (you fill in the blanks) when that happened" ad nauseum; toyed with the idea of participating in the anti-Semitic Durban II Conference in Geneva in the naive belief that he could change the conclusions it would reach; remained silent in the face of Iran's fraudulent presidential election and the crushing of its opposition movement; cut funding to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in New Haven that documented human rights violations in Iran; snubbed the Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of Tibet, in mid-October so as not to offend China; allowed "strict deadlines" on the international inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities to come and go without consequence; allowed the State Department to cut funding for Freedom House, the bipartisan organization that reports on freedom and human rights throughout the world, because it publishes material critical of Iran; failed to instruct the VOA's Farsi Service to report more aggressively on Iranian actions; failed to assist the independent Iranian-American and European radio and TV stations to overcome the Iranian regime's jamming of their broadcasts; failed to support the development of new software to evade Iranian "filtering" of the Internet and cellular phone calls; surrendered our national pride by insulting the sacrifice made by Americans who died in World War II liberating Europe by referring to past American "arrogance"; joined the UN Human Rights Council that would later endorse the infamous Goldstone Report albeit over American objections; appointed individuals with strong anti-Israel biases to significant foreign policy posts; made serial apologies for America's responsibility for the current economic crisis, its failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, dictating solutions to other nations (except Israel), the "legacies of slavery and segregation, past treatment of native Americans," Guantanamo, Hiroshima, unilateralism, insufficient respect for the Muslim world, and the mistakes of the CIA (including the possible prosecution of former CIA interrogators); pressured the Israelis to stop construction to accommodate the natural growth of their population in the major cities of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (demands seen by 96% of Israelis as patently unjust); praised the history and culture of the Islamic world, and enhanced the historical record to magnify its achievements; equated (in his June 4th Cairo speech) Palestinian suffering to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, and the Palestinian situation with U.S. blacks in America before the civil rights movement (implying that Jews are oppressors); gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to two virulently anti-Israel people — Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tutu of South Africa; condemned the Israeli occupation of the West Bank resulting from the Six-Day War in 1967 without mentioning the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian aggression that started that war and the numerous occasions before and since where the Palestinians have rejected Israel's right to exist; paid a visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan's Islamization of Turkish foreign policy resulting in Turkey canceling Israeli participation in "Anatolian Eagle", its annual multiple air maneuver with NATO in favor developing closer military ties with Iran and Syria; virtually froze our defense budget in time of war (1); has been unable to decide whether to seek victory, admit defeat or to keep the status quo in Afghanistan; accepted the Nobel Peace Prize without having shown any real accomplisments; unilaterally abrogated our missile-defense arrangements with our allies Poland and the Czech Republic to curry favor with the Russians (which has not worked); and backed off any suggestion of future American unilateralism by changing the name "Global War on Terror" to the less politically-charged "man-caused disasters" (as stated by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in March), thereby intentionally avoiding the "T"-word. These actions form part of Obama's "strategy" — the idea being that if the US becomes less arrogant, less unilateral, more internationalist, and changes the tone of its entire foreign policy, its enemies would become more accommodating. His problem, however, is that unilateral concessions and offers of unconditional engagement with our enemies do not represent a strategy; they are merely tactics .... and they aren't working. For the Iranians, American apologies, concessions and contrition denote American weakness and the decline of American global power and influence. What's worse is that these actions have bought Iran valuable time to build an atomic bomb and expand its Islamic revolution throughout the region. The result has been an upsurge of bombings in Iraq, and explains why the Taliban feel no need to surrender anything in Afghanistan. The Obama administration fails to understand that jihadism did not evolve from the Reformation, the Enlightenment, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, but from jihadi Salafists like Ibn Tamiya in the 15th century, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (Wahhabism) in the 18th century, Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Sayyid Qutb whose revolutionary Islamic followers seek to restore their ancient Caliphate and return the world to the Dark Ages. These jihadists do not share our Western visions of democratization, globalization, religious tolerance and freedom. They do, however, have their own vision which is to humiliate us, drive us from the Middle East, expunge all Western influence and the forces of modernization from the region, and replace American influence with their own — and they have proven to be far more effective at "exporting" their vision over the past three decades in North Africa, Western Europe, Somalia, and other parts of the Horn of Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Gaza, than we have been at "exporting" ours. In 2008, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards told his fellow officers: "Our revolution has not ended .... Our Imam did not limit the movement of the Islamic Revolution to this country, but drew greater horizons", and al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri warned Obama: "It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim world and its history....You are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world.....This is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see" which explains why Iran is estimated to have 40,000 well-trained, undercover Shi'ite operatives in the Arab Gulf states — 3,000 in Kuwait alone. Not exactly the "unclenched fist" Obama seeks. Then there's the Iranian nuclear issue. As David Ignatius writes in The Washington Post: "The central question about Iran, as Henry Kissinger has observed, is whether it wants to be a nation or a cause. In the case of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's clearly a revolutionary cause." Ahmedinejad is not a deal maker. Yet, even as the UN's nuclear watchdog agency and Israeli intelligence have acknowledged that the Iranian mullahs are on the nuclear threshold and have perfected long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, the Obama administration is convinced that it can talk or threaten the Iranians out of it or, in a worst case scenario, impose "crippling sanctions" that the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Malaysians and Venezuelans are already undermining in furtherance of their own economic and political self-interests. As a result, Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating over 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago. In short, the Iranians have no intention whatsoever of abandoning their nuclear weapons program (2) and are playing for time. As Charles Krauthammer writes: "They are seeking the bomb for reasons of power, prestige, intimidation, blackmail, and regime preservation", and given US and European dithering, Ahmedinejad sees challenging Obama as low risk and high reward. He has concluded that the West has no stomach for a fight. Obama has another problem. His outreach to Iran is being interpreted by Sunni Arab leaders, especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as an American betrayal. Based on their growing defense relationship with Israel (3), they have concluded (rightly or wrongly) that America has removed the military option from the table. As Barry Rubin of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Israel wrote recently: "In the Middle East, it is not so useful to think yourself popular and show yourself to be friendly. You have to inspire fear in your enemies and confidence in your friends. And if you don't inspire fear in your enemies — if you're too nice to them — then you will indeed foment fear among your friends." As a result, these Arab nations either are developing or certainly will develop their own nuclear weapons programs as it appears to them that the US is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, abandon its military option against Iran's nuclear installations, end all efforts at regime change, and curtail international sanctions. The reassurance the Sunni Arab world and the Israelis are looking for is an American commitment to end the Iranian nuclear threat and destroy Iran's ability to develop the bomb, not a post-nuclear-Iran "defense umbrella" as Obama is offering. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent threat to "obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack against Israel only reinforced Israeli fears that the U.S. would prefer to contain a nuclear Iran rather than pre-empt it militarily. In Syria, the U.S. administration is already preparing to suspend the enforcement of U.S. sanctions, has facilitated a $7B trade deal between the EU and Syria, the effect of which will be to revitalize the country's stagnant economy (all in return for nothing), is preparing to send a procession of emissaries, return the U.S. ambassador to Damascus, and lavish numerous goodwill gestures on a regime that considers Ahmedinejad a close ally and personal friend. Even the Golan Heights may be thrown into the bargain if enough pressure can be brought to bear on Israel. Obama obviously believes that returning the Golan Heights to Syria is the panacea for a Syrian-Israeli "peace deal" that would assist the U.S. effort in Iraq by forcing Syria to stop the swelling influx of Sunni terrorists, arms and explosives into that country, meet its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (which ended the 2006 Lebanon War) by sealing its border to the smuggling of arms to the Lebanese Hezballah, and accept responsibility for halting arms smuggling to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But he's wrong. Syria's Bashar Assad couldn't sign a peace treaty with Israel even if he wanted to — and he doesn't. "Emergency rule" has been in effect since 1963 and the never-ending war with Israel has justified it. The regime could not exist without repression. War also costs it nothing as Hezbollah and Hamas can fight Syria's war by proxy. There is no better way for the hated Alawites to ingratiate themselves with the Arab world as a whole than by adopting the anti-Zionist cause as their own. In 1999, Syrian foreign minister Farouq al-Shara delivered a speech to the Arab Writers Union in which he explained that Syria's interest in a negotiated settlement with Israel had nothing to do with actually coming to terms with Israel's right to exist, but rather that the recovery of the Golan Heights was merely a stage on the road to the destruction of Israel. The Syrian regime seeks a peace "process" to gain international respectability, but has no desire to end its conflict with Israel. It has too much to gain by keeping the pot boiling and keeping its relationship with Iran strong. The March 29, 2009 issue of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) encapsulated Syrian media reaction to Obama's overtures in these words: "The US has capitulated to Iran and Syria", and an editorial in the al-Watan newspaper summarized Syria's position in terms vastly different from those expressed by Obama — "The Syrians are looking forward to a change in American policy, not to a change in Syrian policy (italics added)." In Gaza, Obama is pushing hard to provide $900 million in reconstruction aid to rebuild the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip — an enormous sum of money much of which will be siphoned off by Hamas through international relief organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that subverts American laws, aids violent Islamist extremists, propagandizes against Israel while favoring Hamas, and works with banks targeted by the United States for money laundering and terrorist financing. American financing will allow Hamas to restore its missile capabilities and terrorist infrastructures, assume control of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of those Palestinians who seek a stable relationship with Israel, enhance Iranian power in the region, and allow Hamas to claim credit for improvements in Gaza. By funding UNRWA, the Obama administration will not only perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem, but will add power and legitimacy to a terrorist regime and its Iranian state sponsor, both of whom are committed to the annihilation of America's staunchest Middle East ally. So Mr. President, here's some advice for whatever it may be worth. Contrary to what you have told the world, we are defined by our differences from the despots, tyrants and Islamic lunatics who attach electric prods to the genitals of their prisoners, give them acid baths, drill holes in their ankles and skulls, leave them naked in refrigerators for days, cut out their tongues, cut off their ears, force them to watch gang rapes of their wives and sisters, throw acid in the faces of girls simply because they are going to school, chop the fingers off people simply for daring to vote in their country's election, glorify and rejoice in shedding the blood of innocents, treat women like chattels, stone homosexuals to death, mark religions other than Islam for oppression if not extinction, bludgeon women who wear lipstick and videotape beheadings. Perhaps it's time to learn to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends. After all, we live in dangerous times given the existence of numerous rogue regimes that are developing nuclear weapons capability and have a global terrorist network dedicated to the destruction of the United States and its allies. World leadership requires more than apologies, empty threats, unenforceable sanctions, and "regaining the moral high-ground." It requires making tough decisions and adopting tough positions that will inevitably be met with hostility throughout the globe. Sometimes, it behooves us to use maximum power against our enemies to protect our homeland and the Free World, even if that means incurring the wrath of other countries that lack the courage and conviction to do what is both right and necessary. Unless American diplomacy is backed by "hard power", "soft power" will carry little weight with the more realpolitik-oriented Middle Eastern elites. During the past century, we have moved from one war to another, one ideological conflict to another, seldom really learning important lessons. History tells us that fanatical regimes have a field day with naive adversaries, but we continue to learn nothing from the experience. David Stokes said it best at Townhall.com: "Can anyone imagine any leader in, say, late 2001 or early 2002 talking about rapprochement with the radical Muslim world with political impunity?...We are moving on (after 9/11), we are reaching out, we are charting a new course, and we are making the age-old mistake of willfully forgetting the past." Smiles, handshakes, apologies and contrition may move people, but they do not move nations, and appeasement and accommodation have always failed with such enemies. How can we weaken Hamas or Hezbollah when improving relations with the movements' main regional sponsors — Iran and Syria — remains a centerpiece of American efforts? Moreover, you are dealing with a messianic, apocalyptic, revolutionary Islamic regime in Tehran whose sole mission is to humiliate the US wherever and whenever possible, expel it from the Middle East, and establish Iranian hegemony over the entire region, so as you begin pressuring Israel to cede its security by relinquishing the West Bank to Iranian-backed terrorists, continue to give the Palestinians a pass when they fail to honor any of their commitments, allow Iran to develop inter-continental ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads, turn Lebanon over to Hezbollah and the Syrians in return for nothing, allow Iraq to become an Iranian protectorate, force major strategic concessions from the Israelis in return for more empty promises from the Palestinians, diminish our presence in the Persian Gulf, and begin turning away from our allies in furtherance of some deal you think you can negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, remember this ... Your approach will cost us our allies, our credibility, our global influence, and eventually our security. Polls currently indicate that more than 61% of the U.S. public favors military action against Iran. From a political perspective, that means it is now easier to take action than not to do so. But time is no longer on our side. Allowing a theocratic regime intent on fomenting a religious war to obtain nuclear weapons represents an intolerable threat to humanity. For some reason, you believe that our self-abasement will allow us to "re-take" the moral high-ground in world affairs, and draw the world to the morality of our causes. But by abdicating our responsibilities as a superpower, apologizing endlessly for our past, withdrawing support from our allies, and ceding American power to others, most notably the UN, we will not only hasten the decline of America as a superpower, but assure the ascendancy of revolutionary Islamic Iran. In his memoirs, Churchill wrote that, in 1938, Hitler could still have been stopped at a relatively low price and many millions of lives could have been saved if England and France had not deceived themselves about the realities of their situation. He also noted that America will always do the right thing, but only after it has exhausted every other alternative. Unfortunately, by that time, it will be too late, and Iran will have the bomb. If that is to be the case, the consequences for Western civilization will be catastrophic. Last November, we voted for change, not surrender. It's time we got our priorities straight. ENDNOTES (1) As Steven Price writes in Commentary in "Why Obama is Wrong on Missile Defense": "The 2010 budget underfunds, delays, or outright kills core programs designed to protect our homeland......At a time of growing threats from unstable regimes that are testing long-range missiles and at or near nuclear status, (why) would we spend less money on missile defense? .....There is good reason to believe America is actually more at risk today than at any time during the Cold War. In 1972 only nine countries possessed ballistic missiles; today that number is more than two dozen. New nuclear actors, such as North Korea and possibly Iran and Syria, may not be deterrable in the classic sense. Mutually assured destruction is useless against an enemy that does not value life." (2) See Michael Rubin, "What Iran Really Thinks About Talks", netwmd.com, April 13, 2009. (3) In June, according to Debka intelligence sources, the Egyptian government, for the first time and as a warning to the Iranians, allowed an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine equipped with cruise missiles and carrying nuclear warheads to pass through the Egyptian Suez Canal rather than require the Israelis to circumnavigate the far greater distance to the Persian Gulf that would have taken them around Cape of Good Hope. The Daily Express (UK) also reported that Saudi Arabia is ready to permit Israeli planes to transit Saudi airspace to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters and the New Media Journal and a member of Hadassah's National Academic Advisory Board. His book "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad" and his articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com |
|
BIG WARMING CABAL MAY FINALLY BE COOLING
Posted by Truth Provider, November 22, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, As you have been reading here for a long time, it is ALL a fraud and a cabal. However, real scientific findings and the growing exposure of fraudulent pupetrators, such as Al, may finally bring about some refreshing cooling. Your Truth Provider,
This below was written by Marc Sheppard
and it appeared yesterday in American Thinker entitled "The
Evidence of Climate Fraud." It is archived at
|
|
A folder containing documents, data and, e-mails purportedly "hacked" from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking-gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists — the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based. In a Friday interview with Investigative Magazine's TGIF Edition, CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed [PDF][1] that the incriminating documents, which have been widely disseminated online, are in fact genuine. Accordingly, whether indeed the labor of hackers, or instead that of a CRU whistleblower, the contents of the FOI2009 folder are now public record — and that's nothing short of dynamite. After all, the names of the email exchangers represent a who's-who of the world's leading climate alarmism scientists, including Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt, and James Hansen. And the e-mails themselves seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception. In one particularly odious e-mail dated November 1999, Jones writes to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes: I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Now, these are the same Mann, Bradley, and Hughes whose MBH98 reconstruction (aka the "Hockey Stick" graph) — which deceitfully depicts last millennium's global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century — remains the poster-child of global warming hysteria despite being thoroughly debunked. And here we find Jones writing the three the following year admitting to using Mann's "trick" to "hide" a temperature decline. Not surprisingly, the Keith mentioned is none other than CRU's own Keith Briffa, another Hockey-Team leader, whose temperature graphs, derived from tree ring data from Yamal, Russia, were cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th-century warming. But as we reported at the time,[2] that buttress crumbled last month when Briffa's results were proven to stand no more reliably than Mann's. Ultimately, neither reconstruction attained its alarmist imperative goal of proving today's global temperatures unprecedented. Despite repeated fraudulent efforts to demonstrate otherwise, 20th-century highs remain documented as several degrees cooler than those of the Medieval Warming Period of 900-1300 AD. Bad news for the mankind-stinks crowd in general; worse news for those actually involved in this devious deception. Both Mann and Briffa had been challenged for years to produce their data, methods, and source code by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre. Both ignored the tenets of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) McIntyre cited and fought every effort to induce their coming clean. And actually not without good reason — last month, CRU was effectively forced to release the Yamal information, whereupon an analysis by McIntyre proved[3] that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position. And we now know that on the very day our exposé of the Briffa scandal, UN Climate Reports: They Lie,[4] appeared here at AT, Jones forwarded this email response from Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to Briffa: [my emphasis] It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is not used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it is irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology? Beyond his sophomoric cheap shot at this fine publication's highly regarded name, Wigley admitted that McIntyre's comparison of "Yamal-12 with Yamal-all" implied a "selection" of data on the part of Briffa. Yet his concern was not one of scientific integrity, but instead that Briffa may not be up to the task of properly "explaining" the cherry-picking as he is "too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of[f]." And while offering his assistance in the cover-up, imploring caution because "in some eyes" it might appear they're hiding "bogus science," Wigley actually defended the practice of withholding data. Perchance the hitherto-sequestered April 2007 document entitled jones-foiathoughts.doc, concerning reactions to FOIA inquiries, might lend some insight into CRU's atrocious reporting policies. Within, Jones lists three options to such requests. As an alternative to the first of actual compliance, he suggests he and his co-conspirators might "send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries" and "remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s." Or perhaps "send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN" (Global Historical Climatology Network), adding that "this would be the raw data, but it would annoy them." Amazing. Yet this is but the tip of the seasonally advancing iceberg. Communiqués suborning subterfuge abound here, including one from May of 2008 in which Jones actually exhorts Mann to "delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4" and to entreat others to perform likewise. Was this in fact a fourth (and likely illegal) Jones option for dealing with McIntyre's FOIA requests? There appear to be thousands of emails, documents, reports, and data files to review here. So I'm sure this fledgling story will continue to evolve as greater minds than mine analyze them throughout the weekend. For those sporting taste buds leaning toward the technical, rest assured that both Climate Audit[5] and Watts Up With That[6] will certainly sate those appetites. Needless to say, look no further than American Thinker for continuing political analysis. And for those of you wishing to join in this criminal investigation, the FOI2009 folder is available for download here.[7] Criminal? Oh yes, indeed. As this mock-science serves as justification for trillions of dollars in imposed and proposed new taxes, liens, fees, and rate hikes — not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international climate debt "reparations" — such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is: larceny on the grandest scale in history. Sorry, Al — the science hasn't been settled. It's merely been meddled. Footnotes [1] http://www.investigatemagazine.com/ australia/latestissue.pdf [2] http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ un_climate_reports_they_lie.html [3] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 [4] http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ un_climate_reports_they_lie.html [5] http://www.climateaudit.org/ [6] http://wattsupwiththat.com/ [7] http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89 To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
WHY WON'T THE ARABS PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM IRAN BY ACTIVELY BATTLING AGAINST TEHRAN HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 22, 2009. |
|
It isn't hard to conclude that Iran having nuclear weapons is a direct threat to Arab states, except Syria — Tehran's ally — which would benefit. Why, then, don't Arab states and intellectuals public express more concern? Western observers were shaken up when at a debate in Qatar, the relatively moderate Arab audience split almost down the middle between those cheering and those jeering the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons. One member of the audience said: "Why in the first place should Iran seek the trust of anyone? Iran is an independent, sovereign country, and it has every single right to defend itself. If it wants a bomb, definitely it should have one." The audience cheered. Another man said: "There is something called balance of power. As long as there is Israel, we need a nuclear bomb." A serious analysis would have to include three main points in explaining this seeming suicidal desire of many Arabs that the real worst enemy of the current Arab order become really, really powerful: First, fear. Iran is strong, aggressive, close, and represents an ideology that appeals to some of their people. To stand up to Iran's growing strength could incur costly hostility, pressure and subversion now. And once Tehran gets nuclear weapons, it will remember and take revenge on those who have tried to thwart it. Second, there is the Middle Eastern version of Political Correctness which, unlike its Western version, has very sharp teeth. All good Muslims are supposed to love each other, hate Israel, and hate America. Much the same can be said of all good Arabs, though Iran of course does not benefit directly from that paradigm. Consequently, if Iran can become a nuclear-armed Muslim state which views America, the West, and Israel as its enemies, then that must be good for Muslims and even Arabs too, right? How proud they all can be that one of them has made good! That will sure show the West that Muslims can have the ultimate weapon. Certainly, many of their people will be enthusiastic and so the rulers — even in dictatorships — rush to get to the head of the crowd lest it turn on them. Third, their behavior is based on hopeful thinking, a sort of more likely version of wishful thinking. Surely, they wish, the United States or Israel will solve the problem without their having to do anything. Incidentally, this is similar to their position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. And, of course, this is a test of U.S. power and will power. After all, if America can't deal with Iran for them that proves the United States cannot protect them against Tehran. So they are better off keeping their mouths shut now and the option open of appeasing Iran. In general, Arab states are content to wait it out. Some movements — Hizballah, Hamas, Iraqi clients of Tehran — and Syria are already on the Iranian team. Qatar and non-Arab Turkey are moving in that direction. Lebanon has been Finlandized, that is, forced into a posture of not doing anything Tehran doesn't like because of the power of Hizballah and other Iranian clients inside the country. But for most — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the remaining small Gulf states — the risk is too great of changing sides. After all, they genuinely don't trust Iran and really don't want it to change the strategic balance in its favor. Yet on the other hand, their fear that Iran might become a hegemonic power in the Middle East and subvert these states a factor that should make them vigorously oppose Tehran getting nuclear weapons. The same goes for their hatred of Iran as radical Islamist and Shia Muslim and (largely) ethnic Persian. The first set of motives, however, outweighs the second. And so they remain silent. Here's an obscure story that indicates the shape of things to come. A group of Iran-backed Shia rebels, called the Houthi, in Yemen are waging a guerrilla war to try to take over the country. The Saudis, who view themselves as the guardians of Yemen and don't want another pro-Tehran state on their border, have been bombing them. Two top-ranking Iranians have denounced the Saudi action as "Wahhabi terrorism" and openly threatened Saudi Arabia. The language they used indicated the ideological nature of the war, since the Saudis' Wahhabi version of Islam is very anti-Shia. The Iranians said the war is a U.S.-backed effort to divide Arabs. And for those who think that Iran's current internal conflicts will take care of its external aggression, the identity of these two Iranians is significant. One of them is Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, introducing a military threat. But the other is Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, a leading "moderate" member of the radical ruling group who opposes President Ahmadinejad. In other words, Tehran's ambitions have a wide base of support across faction. Now, the way things are supposed to work, the United States should support the Saudis, signaling Riyadh that America is a reliable ally (so don't be afraid of Iran having nuclear weapons) and Tehran that Washington won't tolerate Iranian aggression (so be afraid and slow down or abandon nuclear weapon development). Of course, the Obama Administration won't say a word. Why? Specifically: --It views normal power politics as neo-imperialistic. So here's the question of the era. You are an Arab or a non-Arab Muslim (or an Israeli). You don't want your country to be taken over by Islamists who are likely to shoot you, seize your property, and force you to change your lifestyle to that of Taliban Afghanistan. You don't ask yourself: Is President Barack Obama nice to Muslims, sympathetic, and apologizes for America being tough in the past. Rather, you ask yourself: Can I depend on America under the Obama Administration to protect me now and in the future? Would the United States attack Iran if necessary to deter Tehran? Would it even threaten the use of nuclear weapons to shield me against any Iranian attack? Would it send troops if I decided I wanted them? Ok, what's your answer? And if it is "no" then what alternative to appeasement is possible? At the debate in Qatar, an Iraqi woman in the audience tried to have it both ways, pointing out that even from a perspective that thinks Israel makes the devil look like a nice guy there are good reasons to oppose Iran having nukes. Note that she didn't mention the United States at all as the solution: "We're going to [be] between two powerful countries, Iran and Israel, with nuclear weapons. Where will this region be?" Answer: Up the Gulf without a paddle. By the way, if you want to get an idea of what Middle East politics is really like, watch this 32-second film about a day in the life of a railroad track inspector. And remember you can't always expect to get this lucky. * Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
|
|
THE ISRAELI COURT GETS ONE RIGHT FOR A CHANGE
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 21, 2009. |
|
1. Haaretz reports gleefully that the Israeli military command in the West Bank issued an order that any settlers who cuss at soldiers at checkpoints should be arrested. Now, let's put aside the constitutional question of whether cussing at and insulting soldiers should be protected speech. I can live with a system that penalizes hooligans of any sort who cuss Israeli soldiers. But the real problem here is that, like so much else in Israel, the new order is being implemented in a discriminatory manner that coddles the Left and panders to the anti-Semitic "anarchists." While some guttersnipes from the Right do in fact cuss soldiers, vulgar and violent attacks on Israeli soldiers and police by the Left take place every single week in the West Bank. The Israeli leftists, with their Palestinian terrorist friends, joined by the "internationals" and "anarchists" from the International Solidarity Movement (or ISM, which really stands for I Support Murder), attack Israeli soldiers guarding the construction of Israel's security fence all the time. The army is under orders to coddle them and not arrest them. And since the army is now going to arrest settlers who behave in an uncivilized way, when will the police and the University of Haifa shut down the "ALEF List." The "ALEF" list is a chat list of anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis that operates under the auspices of the University of Haifa. See this: http://isracampus.org.il/ALEF%20Watch.htm A few months ago it circulated materials with the photos and
addresses of Israeli army officers and with the caption "War
Criminals." When someone circulated the photo of an Arab judge in
Tel Aviv with his address, the police interpreted that as attempted
murder. The ALEF list's distribution of the photos of army officers
was even more clearly a call for murdering them. For details on this
story, go here:
If cussing soldiers is criminal behavior, what is this? 2. Now as reluctant as I am to concede that the dual Israeli court system has done something proper and correct, I have to concede that it has done so this past week. It seems that one Matan Cohen, a young "anarchist" from the above-mentioned hooligan gangs that attack Israeli police, suffered a serious injury to one of his eyes. Cohen sued Israel in Israeli court for millions of shekels, claiming that his eye was damaged as a result of rubber bullets being fired at the rampaging rioters in whose midst he was jihading. Cohen and his buddies went on a media campaign, appearing on Channel 10, and accused the soldiers of trying to murder him. Just one itsy-bitsy problem. The judge, Dalia Ganot in Tel Aviv District Court, investigated and found out that young Cohen's eye was the victim of a rock being thrown by his jihad friends at the police and soldiers, a rock his trajectory his the wrong Jew (or — if you prefer — the right Jew) by mistake. Cohen was standing out of range of the rubber bullets and video film of the events showed that no soldiers were shooting anything at all when he was injured. The judge added diplomatically that Cohen is a person for whom the facts and the truth are never in danger of being found in his possession. She noted that Cohen had kept changing his version of his story. And best of all, Judge Ganot hit Cohen with court costs in the amount of 50,000 shekels. I would have preferred of course that the Judge had ruled that even if Cohen HAD been shot by a rubber bullet while assaulting the cops and the soldiers, he would STILL be un-entitled to any compensation. In fact, he should have been charged the cost of the bullet. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
POLITICIZING THE IDF
Posted by Moshe Dann 212009. |
|
IDF not an auxiliary police force to be used at whim of defense minister Condemning IDF soldiers who refuse to expel Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria as "contravening the values of the IDF" begs the question; what are the values and what is the role of the IDF? That soldiers should refuse such orders because it is "against Halacha," is arguable. Refusing an order that has nothing to do with military or strategic concerns, however, is not a question of Halacha! Ordering the IDF to evacuate Jewish communities and destroy homes and property directly violates the IDF's own Code of Ethics. "The goal of the IDF is to protect the existence of the State of Israel and her independence, and to thwart all enemy efforts to disrupt the normal way of life in Israel." The IDF is not an auxiliary police force, to be used at the whim of the defense minister. Orders which are politically motivated may be technically "legal," but they undermine the IDF's morale and raison d'etre. Refuse orders? Not when the objective is related to security or military, not when you are ordered to defend and protect Israel. Destroying Jewish homes, however, evicting Jews and beating up children is not the job of the IDF. We need to understand this distinction. The IDF's purpose is to protect its citizens against our enemies. Who is "the enemy" in Jewish communities and how are they a threat to our well-being and security? This is especially important since the decision to evict Jews is not sanctioned by the government, cabinet or Knesset. Although the military governor and defense minister have this power under "Emergency Regulations" handed down from the British Mandate, it was intended to be used in extreme cases to stop terrorism — not against innocent civilians who have committed no crime. Using the IDF to carry out a highly controversial government policy, like evacuating Jews from their homes, has no military purpose. The misuse of IDF soldiers in such actions, therefore, is a direct blow to Israeli democracy, the IDF itself and our soldiers. The "our" is critical. They are us As a citizen army, IDF soldiers are conscripted; they serve with pride and without question. The IDF's strength and character are rooted in their mission to protect us. Its morale depends on the fact that we are proud of their sacrifices and support them wholeheartedly. Their battlers are ours — and so are their losses. We pray for and celebrate them because they are us. That is why we encourage them to act on their conscience. Refusing to serve immoral, non-military and non-strategic orders takes courage; it's an honor. At other times in history soldiers have pleaded, "But we were just following orders." That is no excuse for committing atrocities and immoral acts — no matter what the "law" says. Soldiers who protest the politicization of the IDF have raised an important question, one that is at the core of every democratic society: how should one protest what they believe is an abuse of "the law" and a violation of the role and values of the army? The danger to the integrity of the IDF is not from those who question and protest what they believe to be unjust, but from those who are insensitive to the reasons for that protest. "Following orders" is not an excuse, or substitute for acting as a human being and as a Jew. Not following orders in the service of reason and conscience can be the highest form of moral action. Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il |
|
NEW ELEMENT DISCOVERED
Posted by Truth Provider, November 21, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, My friend Tom sent me from England this fabulous piece. Enjoy! Your Truth provider,
|
|
This simple science class for Saturday mornings should be useful and instructive and inspire you to eschew politics and politicians in favour of viticulture, gastronomy, and other worthwhile pursuits while there's anything left to enjoy at all New Element Discovered — Soon To Be Included On The Periodic Table: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 — 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each re-organization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
DECISION ON THE MATTER OF TZVIA SARIEL
Posted by Rabbi Dov Stein, November 21, 2009. | |
|
3 Kislev, 5770 DECISION ON THE MATTER OF TZVIA SARIEL
AND ACCOMPANYING DECISIONS REGARDING ARRANGING COURT HEARINGS
BACKGROUND Tzvia Sariel, a symbol of faith and faithfulness to Torah and the Land, is again imprisoned. Three weeks ago, Tzvia Sariel was arrested as she protected a 17 year old girl, resident of Ramat Migron, from the barbarous acts of the police and other security forces which evacuated the community. Tzvia Sariel and her friends were arrested due to false claims, for example that they refused to be identified, and were forced to get undressed by female police officers, under the claim that they might be carrying drugs or weapons, and therefore needed to undergo an embarrassing full body search, whose only reason is to abuse the detainees. A year ago, after an extended unwarranted detention which lasted three and a half months, Tzvia Sariel was released after it was revealed in court the blood libel cooked up against her by the authorities, by enlisting Arabs in order to incriminate her. The Torah Court for Matters of Nation and State, headed by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, on the 7th of Adar Bet 5768 (14th of March, 2008) ordered the prison authorities to bring the young woman before the Court. The jailers indeed followed the court order and brought the young woman, under heavy guard, to the Court. The Court ordered her immediate release after it was proven, not just of her complete innocence, but her righteousness, purity of heart, and integrity. Usually, it is very difficult to prove the libels of the authorities, however in this case, after two days, in the court of Judge Nava Bechor, it was proven, against their will, of her complete innocence. The young woman was released. Judge Bechor noted in her decision that the Mukhtar of the neighboring village of Alon Moreh admitted that he was urged by threats by Major Iyad Amar to enter Alon Moreh and to orchestrate an olive harvest when it wasn't time. The 80-year old Mukhtar was loaded in to a vehicle of the Civil Administration together with other elderly individuals, and they were instructed to harass young girls inside Alon Moreh with a harvest display. Tzvia Sariel and her friends forcefully informed the guests that they are not wanted, and then the people from the Civil Administration jumped upon them and arrested them. The officer has still not been put on trial, which shows that the man knew that his lies would gain backing of his superiors and the entire system. Unlike Judge Bechor, Judge Miriam Lifschitz, in front of whom Tzvia Sariel was brought for an extension of detention, ordered the continued detention of Sariel, and it is likely that she knew that the claims in the charges were lies. The judge indeed allowed her to go free if Tzvia would give fingerprints, but before this, she also accepted the claims of a policeman that Tzvia's identity was not known. Tzvia Sariel announced that she would not cooperate in the Judicial System's display of crimes and lies. To our dismay, this is indeed spoiled fruit of cooperation between the police and the Judicial System. The police called Tzvia Sariel's mother on the day of her arrest and informed her of her daughter's incarceration, and thus the police admitted that they knew the young woman's identity. Tzvia Sariel's fingerprints were taken by force a long time ago, and the combination of these claims is only meant to degrade, humiliate and break the young woman's spirit. It pains us that Judge Miriam Lifschitz places herself and the honor of her position, retroactively, in the service of the police. It will not thus be done in Israel, for one to abuse another, to embarrass a daughter of Israel, wherein all the honor of a daughter of the king is inside, to abandon her to the fist of wickedness. Just like the brothers of Matityahu's daughter, her Jewish brothers are commanded to save her from distress and incarceration. Judge Lifschitz, who is a religious woman, profanes the name of Heaven, as she turns herself to a governmental arm acting purposefully against Jews due to their remaining faithful to the redemption of the nation and land. Therefore, Tzvia Sariel's stance, that she does not recognize the system for practical and Torah reasons together, is correct. We see in Tzvia Sariel's behavior a good example for the masses. The Jewish Public is called to unite around Torah courts in every place in order to fulfill the basic command: Deuteronomy 17:18 — Judges and officers you shall place for yourselves in all of your gates that Hashem your G-d gives you. Deuteronomy 17:20 — Justice justice you shall pursue, so that you might live and inherit the land that Hashem your G-d gives you. As long as there is not proper justice in the Land, we will not be able to inherit it. As it says: Isaiah 1:27 — Zion will be redeemed with justice, and its returnees in righteousness. Rabbi Yisrael Ariel — Head of the Court
|
|
A DRAFT OF THE LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT BIBI NETANYAHU SHOULD SEND
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 21, 2009. |
|
Dear Mister President: In recent days you have called for a freeze on all construction activities in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. It has been your opinion that this is "occupied territory," because it lies outside the 1949 ceasefire lines that separated Israel from the Kingdom of Jordan while the latter illegally held East Jerusalem until 1967. Gilo of course has also been the target of numerous terrorist attacks from the very same savages that your State Department would like to see seize control of Gilo and of Jerusalem's Holy sites in the Old City. Well, Mister President, I have taken your words under careful consideration. I have reached the conclusion that you are correct. It is indeed time to put a stop to construction in the capital city in the area of disputed ownership beyond the Green Line. The disputed area must remain as it is, with no new building at all, until a new state is erected that can take it over and perhaps even establish its national capital there. I am of course referring to Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria, and all the Virginia territories seized by the United States using force of arms that lie across the Potomac, are outside the legitimate boundaries of Washington, DC. They lie across the Green Line, by which I mean the Potomac River, which turns green in the summer. Obviously Alexandria is part of the sovereign state of Virginia. Now it is true that no Confederacy exists today, just like no Palestinian state exists. But who is to say that none will ever arise within the framework of diplomatic free exchange? And if the Confederacy does achieve statehood and independence, its leaders will naturally wish its capital to be in Alexandria. Richmond is a little too far away. Since the ultimate status of Alexandria is a subject of contention, the only fair thing to do is to halt all American construction activity there at once. Ditto for Arlington. To continue to build there is a provocation and an obstacle to peace. And we really do think the time has come to remove that military outpost and illegal settlement out of Arlington that you people maintain in the Pentagon. I realize that some people reject the idea of an independent Confederacy as inherently racist, and that various anti-democratic pro-violence extremist groups are leading the campaign for such an independent state. But those groups are light years more progressive, peaceful and tolerant of ethnic differences than are the Islamofascists to whom you are trying to grant statehood in the Palestinian-occupied Jewish homelands. Respectfully yours,
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
GUESS WHO WAS HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR ON OBAMA TRANSITION TEAM? COLONAL NIDAL HASAN!
Posted by Scott Robinson, November 21, 2009. |
|
I just got this from a friend in Georgia and it is very interesting, please read. |
|
Wonder why Obama didn't want congress to start an investigation into the killings at Fort Hood. This president is a lying, two-faced scumbag. The Muslim scumbag that killed 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood was on Obama's transition team. Unbelieveable! Almost too difficult to believe, but his name is right there in the document! Nidal Hasan, was Homeland Security advisor on Obama transition team (He was a participant and is listed on Page 29) Now we have a little insight into why Obama said to not jump to conclusions about Nidal Hasan. This man who killed and wounded the people at Fort Hood, Texas was an advisor to Obama's Homeland Security team. Look on page 29 of the Homeland Security Institute link
Contact Scott Robertson by email at usacan1@msn.com |
|
WHITHER AMERICAN JEWRY
Posted by Ted Belman, November 21, 2009. |
| Far more newsworthy than Caroline Glick's criticism of Netanyahu was her public rebuke of Obama this week for his attempt to strong-arm Israel into barring Jewish construction in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood. Her article appeared November 19, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
During a recent speaking tour in Canada, MK Nahman Shai (Kadima) shocked some of his hosts when he said that his primary goal in politics today is to bring down the Netanyahu government. Although indelicate, Shai's comment was not surprising. Kadima is in the opposition. And like all opposition parties in all parliamentary democracies, the primary goal of its members is to bring down the government so that they can take power. Given that this is the case, it is unsurprising that until this week, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni tried to blame Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for US President Barack Obama's hostility towards Israel. Far more newsworthy than her criticism of Netanyahu was her public rebuke of Obama this week for his attempt to strong-arm Israel into barring Jewish construction in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood. On Wednesday Livni said, "Gilo is part of the Israeli consensus... and it is important to understand this for all discussions of borders in any future agreement." Indeed. There is an Israeli consensus. The Israeli consensus regarding Jerusalem is based among other things on the understanding that no nation can give up its capital city and survive. Livni wants to be prime minister one day. For that to happen, Israel must survive until she wins an election. And Israel will not long survive if it surrenders its right to its capital. One might have thought that American Jews could be counted on to stand by Israel on this issue. But then, one would be wrong.
FOR THE past six years, Republican Senator Sam Brownback has repeatedly submitted a bill to the US Senate that, if passed into law, would revoke the presidential waiver that has allowed successive presidents to refuse to implement the 1995 law requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. This year Brownback co-sponsored his bill with Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman. As luck would have it, the Brownback-Lieberman bill was submitted two weeks before Obama launched his latest campaign against Jewish building in Jerusalem. In the 1980s and 1990s, American Jews lobbied hard to get the embassy moved to Jerusalem. But now some American Jewish leaders recoil at the very notion. In response to the Brownback-Lieberman Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 2009, the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle published an editorial last Friday titled, "Bad move, Senator Brownback." The newspaper's editors condemned their retiring senator and called his bill, "a cheap, grandstanding move by a conservative Republican on his way out the door, playing to Jews and Christian Zionists while trying to throw a monkey wrench into President Obama's diplomatic spokes." According to Sen. Brownback's office, the paper never had any criticism of the same bill when he submitted it during president George W. Bush's tenure in office. But now, as Israel's government and opposition stand shoulder to shoulder protecting Israeli control over Jerusalem from assaults by Obama, Kansas City's Jewish newspaper's editorial board willingly bucked what it acknowledged are the wishes of "Jews and Christian Zionists," in order to stand by their man in the Oval Office. Some of Israel's most high-profile supporters in the US are conservative talk radio and television hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. But rather than thank them for their support, the Anti-Defamation League, which is supposed to be dedicated first and foremost to defending Jews from anti-Semitism, published a special report this week where it insinuated that they cultivate a climate of hatred and paranoia which could endanger Jews among others. The ADL report, "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," dubbed Beck the "fearmonger-in-chief," for his opposition to Obama's domestic and foreign policies. It similarly castigated the so-called "tea party" movement which has attracted millions of Americans opposed to high taxes, and the townhall meetings this past summer where millions of Americans peacefully argued against Obama's healthcare policies. The ADL's decision to issue a special report attacking Obama's political opponents and insinuating that Americans who oppose him cultivate an environment in which paranoid and dangerous fringe groups feel comfortable operating is strange given that the ADL never put out a similar report against parallel anti-Bush movements. As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted this week, the ADL was more likely to see overt and vicious anti-Semitic statements and placards being waved around at anti-Iraq war rallies than at anti-Obama healthcare and tax policy demonstrations. Ironically, the ADL has a specific institutional interest in combating leftist paranoia. A recent movie attacking the ADL called Defamation, by leftist, anti-Israel Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir, is currently hitting the film festival circuit in the US and Europe. A major hit among anti-Israel activists and regular anti-Semites on the Left and Right, Defamation accuses the ADL of exaggerating the Holocaust and anti-Semitism to justify what Shamir views as its nefarious aims. Apparently, tribal loyalty to the Left trumps the institutional interests of the ADL. It certainly trumps the interests of New York University's Hillel director Rabbi Yehuda Sarna. As James Taranto reported on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, this week Sarna called for NYU's Jewish community to join NYU Muslims at a rally that both commemorated the massacre at Ft. Hood and denounced NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan for writing a column in Forbes magazine. In his article, Varadarajan committed the crime of stating the obvious fact that Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by his Islamic beliefs when he shouted Allahu Akbar and shot some 40 people, killing 13. Given that people and groups like al-Qaida and Hamas that share Hasan's views assert that all Jews should be killed, it would seem that the good rabbi would not feel the need to attack professors who point out that Hasan's views are dangerous. But then, it is no longer strange to see Hillels on American university campuses behaving in a manner that is not in line with what might be considered the interests of either the American Jewish community or the Jewish people as a whole. Take UC Berkeley's Hillel center, for example. Since Ken Kramarz, Hillel's regional director for Northern California, started his job in June 2007, Berkeley's Hillel has adopted a hostile view towards Judaism and Israel. As pro-Israel community activist Natan Nestel notes, in the past year alone, Hillel held a dance party on Yom Hashoah, and it held a Cinco de Mayo barbecue on Remembrance Day for Fallen IDF Soldiers. It has also failed to hold community Seders for the past two years. Instead, last year, its members hung signs in the Hillel building declaring, "Matza sucks." Beyond its derogatory treatment of Jewish and Israeli holidays, Berkeley's Hillel has allowed an extremist group called Students for Justice for Palestine to participate in its organizational meetings. SJP calls for Israel's destruction through unlimited Arab immigration. It also advocates for UC Berkeley to divest from Israel. Edgar Bronfman, Hillel's International Chairman, has characterized SJP umbrella organization as "anti-Israel... anti-Semitic alarming..." No doubt owing in part to Berkeley Hillel's decision to permit SJP members to spread their propaganda at its organizational meetings, Hillel's student leaders and members participated in SJP's Israel Apartheid Week this past March. The student meeting that SJP participated in at Berkeley's Hillel was sponsored by a group called "Kesher Enoshi." This group describes itself as "a progressive Jewish community that engages directly with Israeli civil society. We do this by educating ourselves and others about the day-to-day struggles of people in Israel by making direct connections with human rights/social change organizations in Israel, linking their struggles with those on campus and in the wider community, and building a community of active participants in social change in Israel." This mission statement, which says nothing about Zionism, sounds an awful lot like the goal of the New Israel Fund. This month, three Arab "civil society" groups supported to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the NIF published a poster depicting an IDF soldier touching the breast of an Arab woman with the caption, "Her husband needs a permit to touch her, the occupation penetrates her life every day." The poster was issued to publicize a conference in Haifa called "My Land, Space, Body and Sexuality: Palestinians in the Shadow of the Wall," whose purpose was to demonize Israel using post-modern jargon. Unlike Hillel, NIF is widely recognized as a far-left fringe group. But as Arab Israeli NGOs use the dollars of American Jewish NIF donors to advance their "civil society" programs aimed at delegitimizing Israel's right to exist, the Reform Movement — which is not a fringe group — decided unanimously two weeks ago to criticize and pressure Israel for what its leadership views as Israel's unfair treatment of its Arab citizens. As this column goes to press, if its board members don't cancel their meeting, the San Francisco Jewish Federation will be grudgingly voting on a resolution that would prohibit it from sponsoring events that denigrate or demonize Israel or supporting organizations that partner with organizations that call for divestment, sanctions or boycotts against Israel. The resolution follows the Jewish Federation of San Francisco's decision to co-sponsor the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival last summer. That festival featured Shamir's Defamation, and the egregiously anti-Israel film Rachel, about the late pro-terror activist Rachel Corrie. The film festival was also sponsored by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace group, the American Friends Service Committee, which hosted a dinner for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York last year, the Rachel Corrie Foundation and other radical anti-Israel groups. If the vote takes place, it will be a great victory for a small group of local Jewish activists. These individual Jews have banded together because they are deeply disturbed by the federation's willingness to use community funds to advance events whose basic message is that Israel should be destroyed.
KADIMA'S INTERESTS as a political party place it at loggerheads with the government on almost every issue. But its leaders this week were rational enough to recognize that they must support Israel's sovereign rights in Jerusalem despite the fact that doing so placed it on the government's side. Their display of sanity is a clear indication that Israeli society today is healthy and capable of meeting the challenges it faces. It is clear that most American Jews believe that it is in their interests to support the Democratic Party and the Left. But like the anti-establishment Jewish activists in San Francisco, American Jews ought to realize that on issues like Israel's survival and their own survival as Jews they ought to stand by their interests even when they seem to clash with their leftist and Democratic loyalties. And they ought to stand by their friends on these issues, even when their friends are conservative Republicans. It can only be hoped that the San Francisco pro-Israel upstarts' campaign against the federation was successful yesterday. Then, too, if the American Jewish community is to long survive, these San Francisco Jewish activists' demand that their community support Israel's right to exist must be joined by their fellow American Jews throughout the country.
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com
website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem.
Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com
|
|
TOLERANCE BREEDS INTOLERANCE
Posted by Ted Belman, November 21, 2009. |
|
Liberals like to say that the path to peace and freedom is to be more tolerant of other cultures — including those that seek to overturn our own way of life. If we only took the time to understand them and have them understand us we could achieve a united prosperity based on the our shared common interests. Nice ideal...but in reality all we are doing are enabling the enemies of freedom and democracy to spread their message, attract new recruits and strengthen themselves by using our own goodwill against us. It's time we woke up to the fact that by tolerating evil we are in effect accepting its existence. By reacting to their malevolence with indifference we are by default sanctioning it. And by allowing movements whose goal is to destroy us to operate on our soil we are hastening our own demise. Please read:
Contact Liran Kapoano at lkapoano@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: A DIFFERENT PA ANGLE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 20, 2009. |
|
Before I look at that angle (of necessity, briefly, before Shabbat), I want to add one other news item about Jerusalem housing that I inadvertently left out yesterday. This did not make mainstream news (thanks to Tamar A for calling my attention to it), but I located it in a couple of different sources. News is always selective. Rabbi Yitzhak Hershkowit who for many years has owned property in Beit Tzafafa, a Jerusalem suburb, has never been able to use that property because of Arab squatters. He fought this in the courts for over thirteen years, and has proven that the land is legally. The court agreed that the squatters should be removed, but the police have never executed the court order. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to the "angle": There are some analysts who see effecting an over-turn of SC Resolution 242 at the heart of what's going on with the PA right now. Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the US, in a column yesterday, made this point. Shoval describes current PA efforts to establish a state as "a wheelless cart before a lame horse," which is great. But he suspects ulterior motives. A Jerusalem Post editorial expresses the same suspicions. ~~~~~~~~~~ I've been doing some checking with regard to the Palestinians taking their theoretical state-in-the-making to the UN. It is a complicated business, and the complications are compounded by the fact that within the international arena theoretical rules are one thing, while in reality states often act as they damn please, in accordance not with law but political whim — as we well know. What is basic fact is that the Security Council does not "endorse" states, or — whatever the term — bring them into being by virtue of a resolution: there is no mechanism for this within international law via any agency. The PA would have to declare a state first. (And if this declaration is unilateral it would render Oslo null and void.) According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933, there is a basic "definition" of a state, which has been adopted by the international community. In order to qualify as a state, an entity must: [] have a permanent population Does the PA qualify? No way. Consider, just for one example, that the PA seems bent on declaring a state that includes Gaza, where its government would have no control. Would it (wink wink) be considered to have met the required criteria in the course of its declaration, or be laughed out of the international arena? As to whether to recognize this new state once it is declared, each nation would make its own decision. Recognition of a nascent state by other nations does seem to be an important part of creating the legal reality. ~~~~~~~~~~ This new state would then apply to the Security Council for UN membership. This membership does not create the state, but simply accords the state, which already exists, the rights and protections conferred upon member states. What's important here, is this, from the International Judicial Monitor (as of this summer): "...the Security Council must decide to submit a state's application for admission to the General Assembly for a two-thirds majority vote. The two-thirds requirement means that a state may not be granted admission to the UN if it is not recognized by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. This is the case for Kosovo which will likely not be able to join the UN in the near future because it is only recognized by sixty-two UN members." And so this new Palestinian state, were it to be declared, might be stopped right there. Which would render moot the entire discussion about Resolution 242. ~~~~~~~~~~ This is not what analysts are looking at, however. For them the real sticking point has to do with borders, which the PA quite obviously intends to set as the Green Line (everything that was not under Israeli control before the Six Day War of 1967). If the SC were to accept "Palestine" as a member state, does this mean it would be sanctioning or endorsing those borders as unilaterally claimed? If the answer is yes, this would mean setting up a conflict with SC Resolution 242, which, basically, says that Israel does not have to withdraw from all territories acquired in 1967, and is entitled to safe and recognized borders that are arrived at via negotiations. And Israel does not have to pull out of any territory until this negotiation occurs. The Green Line is not considered a safe border — strategic depth is required. (This sets foolish Obama's statement about settlements not bringing security into conflict with this resolution as well.) The concern is that the PA is seeking to overturn or override this resolution. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs held a conference on 242 a couple of years ago (I was in attendance and learned a great deal). For detailed information from that conference see:
~~~~~~~~~~ There'll be time for more after Shabbat. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
5,000 HOUSING UNITS FOR ARABS IN JERUSALEM; JORDAN ASKS U.S. JEWS TO
FAVOR ARAB STATEHOOD; SAUDI-YEMEN WAR EXPANDING
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 20, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL PLANS 5,000 HOUSING UNITS FOR ARABS IN JERUSALEM 
Jerusalem plans to build 5,000 housing units for Arabs in the eastern part of Jerusalem (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). Will the Palestinian Authority complain that Israel has no right to do so?
IDF FIRES BACK INTO GAZA 
"Overnight, Israeli aircraft successfully targeted a weapons-manufacturing facility in the southern Gaza Strip and two smuggling tunnels in the Rafah border area. The attacks were in response to the recent firing of rockets into Israeli territory," stated the IDF. Dr. Aaron Lerner equates that to mean, "...if the Gazans don't shoot, Israel will do nothing against the dangerously growing weapons manufacturing industry in Gaza." (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). Hamas admitted the accuracy of the attack (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19). Would you say that any workers in the arms smuggling tunnels, who were killed in the raid, are civilians? I'd say they are part of the war effort; smugglers work at their own risk. There may be civilians in the same, bombed building that makes weapons. Israel didn't target them, but Hamas placed the factory at the risk of their lives, and exploits any publicity their deaths reap. It is a grim reaping, but suffices to get anti-Zionists indignant against Israel for defending itself, and not against Hamas for both war crimes: (1) Firing at Israeli civilian cities; and (2) Placing its own military facilities in civilian areas, so that any warfare there is likely to injure civilians. Misdirected as that indignation be, it is take up by the UN. So much for the UN and its commissions! By blaming the Jewish state for a normal reaction, belated as it usually is, the UN and its supporters encourage Hamas war crimes and Arab civilian casualties. That demonstrates a lack of concern for the Arab civilians and unconcern about real war crimes. Their motive is to accuse Israel of non-existent war crimes. (Thus Hamas is back to its war crimes, without protest from the world. But its greater crime may be its abuse of its own children. JORDAN ASKS U.S. JEWS TO FAVOR ARAB STATEHOOD King Abdullah of Jordan asked visiting members of the American Jewish Congress to support a peace that guarantees the rights of Palestinian Arabs and a state, which also would guarantee Israel's security under the Arab Peace Initiative behind the 1967 armistice line (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). That Initiative would have Israel cede not only the Territories, but part of Israel's capital, including Judaism's holiest site, and flood Israel with about 5 millions Arabs (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19). The King's state is an Arab Palestinian state. Why set up another? The Arabs talk about rights and international law, but deprive citizens of rights and some of them flout international law (see prior piece). Arab guarantees? They break their agreements with Israel, one of their principles being Islamic deception. The 1967 armistice line would not provide secure borders for Israel, as the U.S. Chiefs of Staff report explained. That is why the Arab initiative is not one for peace. The 1967 lines are more severe for Israel than UN Security Council Resolution 242, which would have Israel retain what parts of the Territories it needs for secure borders, if there were genuine peace. There would not be genuine peace, because for religious reasons that a peace agreement does not cover, the Arabs in general and Abbas' Arabs in particular claim all of Israel. Getting a state would put Abbas in a much stronger position to pursue the Muslim Arab claim against Israel. The Initiative does not include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. If adopted, the Initiative would end Jewish statehood. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs means an Arab take-over of Israel, as if King Abdullah does not know that. One wonders whether the American Jewish Congress pointed that out to him. Therefore, although an agreement would be said to bring peace, it would bring war and probably genocide by those nice Arabs who talk about rights, law, and security, but who have attempted genocide against Israel (and Sudan and Iraq). SAUDI-YEMEN WAR EXPANDING
Saudi border patrol [A.P. photo] The Saudi-Yemen rebel war is expanding. S. Arabia has evacuated 400 villages from its border areas. It is trying to keep the surviving rebel troops from spreading out and forcing S. Arabia to spread out its own forces. Earlier news mentioned a Saudi blockade of northern Yemen and its capture of arms ships for rebels (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). I omitted reports that reporters said could not be independently confirmed. The rebels claim that Saudis attacked them when they were just in Yemen, so they entered S. Arabia to retaliate. Yemen has its architectural beauty but miserable circumstances. What do some of its people produce now? More misery, most recently displacing tens of thousands of Saudi civilians. WHY THOSE DEMOLITIONS IN JERUSALEM "The municipality noted that it is also destroying illegal structures in the Arab sector. Three buildings were demolished Wednesday: a structure, 90 square meters in size, that was built on public land in Isawiya; a structure in Wadi Hilwah, also built on public land, sized 32 square meters; and three temporary structures in Silwan that served as pens for sheep and horses. All of the structures were razed after courts ordered them to be torn down." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19). This is normal law enforcement, not political. Opposition to it is politically inspired, and by opposing normal enforcement, it supports anarchy. Anarchy in a big city means hindered service, fewer amenities, theft of public property, etc.. That is not in the interest of residents. BEDOUIN INTIFADA IN SOUTHERN ISRAEL? 
Bedouin in southern Israel have increasingly conducted an Intifada against the personnel of the Nevatim Air Force Base in the Negev, in southern Israel. It is Israel largest base. When personnel drive around at night, their cars are stoned. A washing machine was placed in the middle of the road, to cause an accident. Some Bedouin youth pulled an Israeli pilot from his car and beat him up. The base commander ordered servicemen to use an alternate highway at night and he increased perimeter security (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). This is Arab disloyalty and war, and has not excuse. I wonder whether anti-Zionists will hear about it, and if they do, will complain about it? BARAK & PERES HAVE NEW PEACE PLAN 
Israel's President Peres and Defense Min. Barak proposed a new plan that they say would bring peace. The plan would give the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) sovereignty over half of Judea-Samaria for two years, most of the rest of the area. If Israel keeps the nearby settlement blocs, it would cede parts of Israel. Israel would guarantee completing negotiations in 18-24 months. Israel would get a P.A. letter recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, presumably ending Arab demands to flood Israel with descendants of alleged refugees, and promising to be demilitarized. The Cabinet is evenly divided on the plan (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19). Dr. Aaron Lerner notes that Barak did not suggest when or how the P.A. would be de-militarized and the terrorist infrastructure dismantled. He did suggest that a foreign expedition assist the P.A.. [From what?] The foreign troops likely would act as human shields against Israeli self-defense from the continuing terrorist infrastructure. Starting with sovereignty is reckless. As the plan puts it, "If these [AL: international involvement and regional Arab guarantees] don't help to bring regional stability, we will have to act by ourselves against the threats on the basis of our right to self defense." Dr. Lerner responds sarcastically, "That's nice to know." Apparently, the plan calls for binding arbitration, if negotiations do not conclude on time. Israel is not likely to fare well under outside arbitration, given the bigoted current political climate. [Imagine placing national security under binding arbitration by hostile outsiders! Imprudent, if even sincere.] This a risky plan without an exit strategy. Dr. Lerner suggests that those who proposed the plan first think it through. (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). One doubts they can. Starry-eyed appeasers of the Arabs rarely have. This is an anti-Zionist plan. Therefore, this is a largely left-wing Cabinet and government. All those labels and aspersions of it being such a right-wing government, what sense did they make? Neither does the plan make sense. It does not resolve what to do about Jerusalem, a major point of disagreement, but gives the P.A. sovereignty of much of the area, making it equal in status to Israel and reducing Israeli bargaining power. How can Israel promise to conclude negotiations within a limited time, when the Arabs have obstructed negotiations before? How can Israel count on a P.A. promise to demilitarize, when it is militarizing now in violation of its agreements, and once sovereign, it is not bound by a pre-statehood promise, not that sovereign Arab states keep their treaties (vis. Egypt's and Jordan's non-normalization, contrary to their treaties). The notion of Israel having to make up to the P.A. for any land it keeps in Judea-Samaria is without foundation. The armistice lines of 1967 have no legal effect on who is entitled to what land. The land on the other side never belonged to the PLO and Israel has the better claim to it. Letting P.A. forces come nearer to Israeli cities means more terrorism, including rocket attacks.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
TIME TO TAKE BACK JOSEPH'S TOMB
Posted by Michael Freund, November 20, 2009. |
|
More than 9 years have passed since Israel abandoned Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) in the wake of an armed Palestinian assault against the holy site. That withdrawal set a dangerous example for the Palestinians that resorting to carnage and terror does pay, which only continues to inspire them to dream of ejecting us from the region through violence and mayhem. And that is precisely why I suggest in the column below from the NY Jewish Press that it is so crucial that Israel reassert control over Joseph's Tomb. We cannot and must not allow this affront to Jewish history to stand, especially now when so much pressure is being brought to bear on Israel to make still more concessions to the Palestinians. It is time to take back Joseph's Tomb, and with it, our self-respect as well. Comments and feedback may be sent to me directly.
|
|
It was supposed to be temporary. Nine years ago last month, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered the Israeli army to withdraw from Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) in one of the most humiliating retreats in the nation's modern history. The move came after Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists had launched a coordinated assault on the Israeli soldiers who were bravely guarding the sacred burial ground of our biblical forebear. Displaying their customary respect for Jewish holy sites, the Palestinian attackers had surrounded the compound, strafed it with automatic-weapons fire and attempted to seize it by force. Rather than standing firm in the face of the Palestinian onslaught, Barak chose instead to make history of the most dubious sort. He issued an unprecedented order for the IDF to pull out under fire and surrender territory to the Palestinians as a direct result of violence. The abandonment of Joseph's Tomb, we were assured at the time, was not permanent, but rather a tactical move dictated by the situation on the ground. Back on October 7, 2000, just hours after the last IDF soldiers had evacuated from the area, the website of Yediot Aharonot reported in a banner headline, "Israel pulls out of Joseph's Tomb — 'Temporarily.' " But here we are, nearly a decade later, and the Tomb still remains "temporarily" abandoned by the Jewish state, in what has become a mark of shame for our people and our country. Indeed, who can forget the painful scenes that followed the withdrawal, when a frenzied mob of Palestinians armed with sledgehammers hacked and smashed the tomb to pieces? And what about the prayer books and other Jewish religious objects that were set alight, as the throng celebrated the destruction they had wrought? Coming just a week after the start of what came to be known as the Second Intifada, the pullout from Joseph's Tomb fanned the flames of Palestinian rejectionism, which continue to smolder to the present day. The withdrawal set a dangerous example for the Palestinians that resorting to carnage and terror does pay, which only continues to inspire them to dream of ejecting us from the region through violence and mayhem. And that is precisely why it is so crucial that Israel reassert control over Joseph's Tomb. We cannot and must not allow this affront to Jewish history to stand, especially now when so much pressure is being brought to bear on Israel to make still more concessions to the Palestinians. It is therefore time to turn back the clock and reclaim this part of our ancestral patrimony. Don't believe those in the media and on the Left who cast doubt on the authenticity of the tomb, mockingly suggesting that it belongs to an unknown Arab sheikh. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the late Dr. Zvi Ilan, one of Israel's foremost archeologists, described Joseph's Tomb as "one of the tombs whose location is known with the utmost degree of certainty and is based on continuous documentation since Biblical times" (Tombs of the Righteous in the Land of Israel, p. 365). The Book of Joshua (24:32) states explicitly, "The bones of Joseph which the Children of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried in Shechem in the portion of the field that had been purchased by Jacob." Ancient rabbinic texts such as the Midrash mention the site, as did the early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who visited it nearly 1,700 years ago. Arab geographers, medieval Jewish pilgrims, Samaritan historians and even 19th-century British cartographers all concur regarding the site and its location. Prior to the Palestinian takeover in October 2000, the tomb's compound was host to a yeshiva, and it was visited by thousands of Jewish worshipers annually. So there is no doubt that Joseph's Tomb really is the tomb of Joseph, son of the biblical patriarch Jacob. And we owe it to him — and to ourselves — to take it back and raise the Israeli flag once again over the compound. Twice in Jewish history, Joseph was forsaken by his brothers and handed over to foreign control. The first time was in the biblical story, when he was tossed into a pit and sold to traveling merchants. The second time was in October 2000, when his tomb was surrendered to Palestinian rioters. It is not too late to right this historical wrong. Doing so will send a message to our enemies that we shall never again retreat under fire, and that we will defend our right to live and worship in this land as we see fit. So let's at last do what should have been done long ago — take back Joseph's Tomb, and with it, our self-respect as well.
Michael Freund served as deputy director of communications &
policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office under
Benjamin Netanyahu from 1996 to 1999. He is founder and chairman
of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which reaches out and assists
"lost Jews" seeking to return to the Jewish people.
|
|
UNITED IN HATE
Posted by Rami Dishy, November 19, 2009. |
|
Antisemitism on the Right exist, but is dormant. It's not "in" to be a Nazi or a Fascist. But what is flourishing and spreading, even getting legitimacy is the Left alliance with Islamist that swiping Europe and unfortunately our own tribe. This anomaly, the marriage of two opposite belief, the Left which strive to equality between the sexes, accept gay life stile, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, separation of Church and State, align itself and find common ground with the most autocrats, ruthless and backward ideology, still living and getting it's inspiration from it's dark age ideology, and oppose every noble and sacred doctrine that the Left see as holly. What is behind that pathology? Is the self hate of the Left, still locked in it's Marxist Ideology of "destroy the existing world order, and then built the Utopia". The experience of the Soviet Union and Stalin it's god, not enough a lesson to awake the dreamers and it's intellectuals? Can anyone visit and compare Communist Cuba with it's poverty, with that of thriving Israel, despite its constant wars imposed on it by it's enemies, accepting millions of refuges, despite the economic boycott and isolation. What makes some people to loose it's identity and pride to the extent that they commit moral suicide? The Left is blind to reality, still living in the old dogma, blaming Israel and connecting every evil to it. George Orwell would be amused but not surprise seeing that reality.
Ramy Dishy lives in Ontario, Canada. Contact him by email at clement32@rogers.com |
|
BOSNIAN SOLDIER PENNED OKLAHOMA CITY-STYLE BOMB INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFGHANIS
Posted by Susana K-M, November 19, 2009. |
|
This was written by Julia Gorin. |
|
In a monumental cover-up that only begins to approximate the colossal, decentralized conspiracy that brought you an Islamic Bosnia and a KKKLA Kosovo and revived Hitler's Independent State of Croatia, our "security" and "intelligence" agencies, along with all of Congress, have been keeping from you the obvious fact that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was an al-Qaeda plot involving several Iraqis. It was because of the Clinton-directed coverup of Oklahoma City that the Bush administration couldn't tell you the real Iraq-9/11 connection, and why during the pre-Iraq hearings all that Dick Cheney could manage was: "There's a connection. There's a connection." Oklahoma-based investigative reporter Jayna Davis was all over national media in 2002 about this, but then disappeared from the airwaves when no one was interested in pursuing her story to its logical conclusion: that our law enforcement agencies are just as capable of doing the opposite of protecting us. The night before the start of Tim McVeigh's trial in 1997, she tendered her resignation at her ABC-affiliate station KFOR-TV that had recently been bought by the NY Times, which had no intention of publicizing a Middle East connection to the bombing. Only Bill Clinton's Rush Limbaugh connection. Not only were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols front men for an extensive Middle Eastern operation that included mostly Iraqis but also Palestinians and others, but on pages 270-71 of her 2004 book The Third Terrorist, Davis reports what American troops found when they arrived in Afghanistan in October 2001: Validation arrived in October 2001 when President Bush deployed U.S. troops to eradicate the fanatical ruling Talibain in Afghanistan. Strewn across the basement floor of a Kabul mansion which once housed a hideout and makeshift headquarters for bin Laden loyalists was a do-it-yourself guidebook to construct an "Oklahoma-style" bomb. A Bosnian soldier in the Al-Qaeda army of terrorists had penned the step-by-step instructions and components needed to replicate the Murrah Building explosive device. On June 11, 2001 — the two-year anniversary of the official "end" of our latest war against Serbs as we fortified "their" enemies — Timothy McVeigh was executed. That night, America closed its eyes and soundly went to sleep. We woke up exactly three months later. The unanimous glee over McVeigh's execution had to do not only with the "whiteness" of the terrorist, but also with the fact that he would take his secrets with him — and even the mainstream news accounts at the time revealed that there was much he wasn't revealing. The public and our law enforcement were happy to not look any deeper, affording ourselves some denial and the illusion of safety. But the attack to take place three months later would lead investigators right back to Bosnia, where five of the 9/11 hijackers trained, fought, or had citizenship — and to Albania and Kosovo. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. The cartoon is by Dry Bones, and is not part of the original article. |
|
ISRAELIS BAFFLED BY NEWS OF DEFENSELESS US SOLDIERS
Posted by Roberta Dzubow, November 19, 2009. |
|
This was posted by Confidential Reporter in China Confidential http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2009/11/ israelis-baffled-by-news-of-defenseless.html |
|
Many Israelis want to know: why didn't the soldiers attacked by a U.S. Army major-turned-terrorist return fire? When a Muslim goes, well, Muslim in Israel he is typically shot to death by someone — say, a reserve soldier — within seconds of screaming "Allah Akbar." In contrast with the Israeli experience, it took 10 minutes before a civilian police officer at Fort Hood was able to shoot and stop Muslim fanatic Nidal Malik Hasan. How could that happen? How could so many people trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare be so defenseless? The answer — and this may astonish many Americans — is that the victims were unarmed. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to carry guns for personal protection, even on a 340-acre base quartering more than 50,000 troops. So it goes in brain-dead, liberal America. Fort Hood is a "gun free" zone, thanks to regulations adopted in one
of the very first acts signed into law by anti-gun President Bill
Clinton in March, 1993. Go to
She is HOT! 
POSTSCRIPT: Israeli teachers, from kindergarten on up, are also armed; so, a Virginia Tech-type slaughter is highly unlikely at an Israeli university. Israelis, who have had to combat terrorism all their lives, are not afraid of guns. They are an armed people, ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their country. Unlike indoctrinated Americans, paralyzed by fear and political correctness, Israelis understand that people, not guns, kill people. American Jews, for the most part, are nothing like their Israeli co-religionists. American Jews — as this American Jewish journalist well knows — are disproportionately liberal and anti-gun. This is especially true of elitist, intellectual/professional Jews in Manhattan and the New York suburbs. They pride themselves in their masochistic, near-suicidal "tolerance" of Jew-haters and violent criminals. The lessons of the Holocaust are lost on these Jews. They relish
victimhood...Proud, tough Jews and proud, patriotic Americans make
liberal Jews — and liberals in general — nervous.
Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: UN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 19, 2009. |
|
As those of you who read my postings regularly are probably aware, Anne Bayefsky, director of Eye on the UN, is a diligent and responsible critic of the UN, and a reliable source of information on its activities. I am in communication with her from time to time, and rely on her information. She is passionate, and dedicated. Bayefsky — who holds credentials as a UN observer by virtue of her position as director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at New York's Touro College (an NGO) — was present in the UN in New York on November 5, when the General Assembly voted to endorse the Goldstone Report. Outside the General Assembly chamber a microphone is set up for delegates to speak. After the Goldstone vote, the delegate from Libya and the Palestinian observer both utilized this mike in order to speak in support of the Report. Bayefsky then approached the empty podium where the mike stood. She did not anticipate problems, she said, as representatives of NGOs have used this mike in the past without incident. ~~~~~~~~~~ Bayefsky spoke for about five minutes, impromptu. She called the U.N. a "laughingstock" for focusing on Israel and ignoring Hamas human rights violations; she said the lack of balance in the report made it a travesty of justice. As she finished speaking, she was surrounded by UN guards, who brought her to their office, confiscated her credentials, and escorted her out of the building. Bayefsky reported to Fox news that, as she was brought out of the building, a security officer told her, "the Palestinian ambassador [Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Riyad Mansour] is very upset at the statement you made." According to Inner City Press, when Mansour, who had walked away, was told that a representative of a pro-Israel NGO had spoken, he asked, "Did we capture them?" Bayefsky currently awaits either the return of her credentials or a hearing in January or February before the Committee on NGOs. If she must go before the Committee — which is chaired by Sudan — she figures her chances are nil. Right now she is being prevented from attending significant meetings. "The frenzy of anti-Israel activity is going on right now," she said. "There's a reason they're keeping me away — this is no accident." The UN is presenting a very different story, it should be noted. There were claims that her pass had not been revoked, and that there was action against her because she approached the mike without permission and this cannot be permitted. ~~~~~~~~~~ This happened on November 5. I cannot explain why Eye on the UN, where I secured the bulk of this information, only released it today. (Perhaps there had been hope of securing a quiet resolution to the matter.) I also garnered information at
~~~~~~~~~~ Sometimes matters are not as they seem, and sometimes they surprise us. Today, for example, I was just a tad surprised when the news reported that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who is here now, told the Post that our plans to build in Gilo, as regrettable as they might be, did not have to be an obstacle to returning to negotiations. Kouchner, who has not been a friend, seems to have chosen to refrain from leveling harsh criticism at us and instead to implicitly chastise the Palestinians for refusing to come back to the table. Apparently he was unmoved by Ahmed Qurei's designation of the Gilo building plans as the "final nail in the peace process's coffin." And it seems he was unruffled even though Saeb Erekat called our plans a "provocation against the international community." Kouchner said he knew this wasn't a political decision. And he's right. This didn't reach Netanyahu's desk — it was routinely processed. Just possibly this time the Palestinians have overplayed their hand, trying the patience even of their supporters. ~~~~~~~~~~ We are still stymied here as to why Gilo, in particular, has made such big news. An American friend tells me that it has made considerable press in the US. Strange, with all that is going on. Please know that it's not only the residents of Gilo who are reacting — Israelis in general are irked. As analyst Herb Keinon has pointed out, the way Obama has handled this situation indicates a "continued misreading and misunderstanding of the Israeli public." After all, writes Keinon, this is not about "a far-flung settlement overlooking Nablus, nor even in one of the settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, nor even a Jewish complex in one of the Arab neighborhoods of the capital, but in Gilo, one of the large new neighborhoods built in the city following the Six Day War. "...many Israelis [are] clearly dismayed that the US — like Europe — now seems to be considering as settlements the post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem." Obama had called for a complete settlement freeze that included east Jerusalem, which Netanyahu rejected. "By continuing to press the issue, Obama — who recently showed nascent signs of wanting to engage the Israeli public out of an understanding that if you want to get Israel to make concessions, Israel will need to trust the US president — risks further alienating the Israeli public. According to a Jerusalem Post poll conducted in August, only four percent of Israelis consider him to be pro-Israel." Says Keinon, one of the assumptions that Obama made when taking office was that the Israeli public was anti-settlement. "But [the assumption was] mistaken. The Israeli public does not hate the settlements...the large settlement blocs, such as Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion...are well within the Israeli consensus. And the public certainly doesn't view the neighborhoods of Jerusalem...as 'settlements.' ~~~~~~~~~~ In spite of the focus on Gilo, there actually are a number of matters to report with regard to housing in Jerusalem: [] A new Jewish housing community — a private venture on privately owned Jewish land — is being constructed in Nof Zion, situated adjacent to the Jabel Mukaber neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem, on the Armon Hanatziv ridge. The first stage of building, close to 100 units, is already complete and residents began to move in some months ago. Yesterday, the cornerstone was laid for the second stage of building. Construction is slated to begin in six months, and will ultimately add 125 apartments to the community. Some 100 people gathered for the cornerstone ceremony. MK Danny Danon (Likud) was there. "I have a message for President Obama," he told the crowd. "Take your hands of Jerusalem. Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and we have every right to live and raise our children here." Participating as well was a group of Americans — lead by NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind — completing a tour of Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem, with an eye towards coming to live here. [] Also yesterday, in spite of local resistance — including rock-throwing — five illegal housing structures were demolished in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Issawiya and Silwan. This is in addition to two demolished just days before and another 14 slated for demolition. The Municipality of Jerusalem reports that these buildings were all constructed without necessary permits, and at least one was on land designated for a road. The Arab residents claim they cannot get permits. Construction of 2,000 housing units in Tel Adasah, in north Jerusalem, and 2,500 units in a-Swahra, near Jabel Mukaber, were to begin following final approval by relevant municipal committees, while construction of 500 new housing units in Dir-al-Amud, near Beit Safafa, were in the advanced stages of planning. ~~~~~~~~~~ An observation here: Obama has said that "Settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security." In point of fact there are issues of security — maintaining strategic depth around Jerusalem and holding on to the high places in Samaria, from which rockets could be shot at our airport, etc. But what this teaches us is actually a broader and very important lesson: We should not, we must not, make our case based on security alone. We have rights to build and live in Judea and Samaria born of our heritage in the land and international law going back to the Mandate. It is time we spoke in these terms. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" I have been wanting to write about the economic miracle of Israel, and the amazing entrepreneurship demonstrated by Israelis. Here, instead, I provide you with a video clip of an interview of the co-author of a book called Start-Up Nation. We demonstrate some unique characteristics that do us proud.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
IRAN TRIGGERS NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION; EXPANDING "SETTLEMENT" IN EASTERN
JERUSALEM?; FBI WARNS THAT TERRORISTS PLOT CYBERWAR
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 19, 2009. |
|
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION TRIGGERED BY IRAN Nuclear proliferation triggered by Iran? The website of this verbatim material has an accompanying article that quotes Arab leaders' grave concern about Iran's clandestine and illicit nuclear arms program. Hence my headline. Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Egypt
Indonesia
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Morocco
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
This article on the site comes with extensive documentation, as you
can see from the numbers in ellipses.
EXPANDING "SETTLEMENT" IN EASTERN JERUSALEM? The government of Israel is in process of approving 900 new houses in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem, on land acquired in 1967. The U.S. calls this "expanding a settlement." The White House press secretary "was 'dismayed" and asking both parties to avoid unilateral actions that could 'pre-empt or appear to pre-empt negotiations.'" "Disagreements over settlement building are in large part the reason that the negotiations, which have been stalled for months, have not resumed." Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is seeking support for statehood without negotiation. The State Department disapproves of that route. Abbas said he has "no option but to try a different course." (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 11/18, A6.) The comparable Wall St. Journal article mentions that Israel annexed the area. U.S. officials said "The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes." Former P.A. negotiator Ghaith Al-Omari said, "Both sides understand it's in their interest to return to negotiations." Some Mideast experts fear that both sides will harden their positions "even more." (Jay Solomon, 11/18, A10.) Hardened? The P.A. has raised its demands, whereas Israel has lowered its demand for no pre-conditions by acquiescing 90% on housing, by not approving any new housing in the Territories. I call that softening. It is just anti-Israel propaganda to try to rip away that last shred of Israeli dignity, and for what? To protect the new P.A. demand to pre-condition negotiations? It is a double standard not to blame just the P.A., for raising new demands as the obstacle to negotiation. Of course, the negotiations won't cover the cause of the conflict, which is not territorial but existential for Israel because Islam insists on dominating people of other faiths. Another double standard is the U.S. saying it asks both sides not to pre-empt negotiations, referring to Jews building houses but not Arabs. Another double standard is U.S. objection to Israel applying the rule of law on eviction and demolition. The eviction is because Arabs won't relinquish property owned by Jews. This puts the U.S. in a Jim Crow position of contending that Jews may not own property in that part of town. The demolitions are of houses built illegally. The U.S. objection to that is objectionable. What is the significance of Israel's annexation of eastern Jerusalem, which included the Old City and mostly vacant tracts for normal municipal growth? Was the annexation legal? Yes, because: (1) Israel is paramount heir to the Palestine Mandate, incorporated into the UN Charter, and which requires "close settlement of the land by the Jews," and the area was part of the legally unallocated territories of the Mandate; and (2) Victims of aggression may annex areas needed for national security. Protecting the capital from the nearby P.A. would protect Israel from a third invasion from Palestinian Arabs, the other two being from Jordan, the Palestinian Arab state. Therefore, to call a neighborhood in Israel's biggest city a "settlement" is absurd. But since the term is pejorative, it is used and exclusively against Israel, despite extensive construction by Arabs, often illegally. One problem is that first the Arabs coin a loaded term, then the Left adopts it, and finally it becomes politically correct. Then when people use it, they assume facts that do not exist. Another double standard is in equating the two sides, as in asserting that both sides should want to return to negotiations. Israel repeatedly has offered to negotiate. The Arabs refuse. STATE DEPT. EXPLAINS ITS VIEW ON JERUSALEM Ian Kelly explained the State Dept. view on Jerusalem. He said, "We believe that the — that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties." What Israel does, in building, demolishing, evicting from houses in eastern Jerusalem is "unilateral action." It is "dismaying." [I find it dismaying that people think that Arab squatting on other people's property is proper, and that evicting them so the property-owners can move in, is improper. I find it strange to object to demolition of houses built contrary to law, as those Arabs' houses were. Is there supposed to be no law enforcement until a final status agreement?] A reporter demanded that the State Dept. strongly condemn Israel, not just call their decision "dismaying." One called for U.S. action, because, he said, Israel "blatantly" "ignored" the "wishes" of the U.S. envoy. [Is the envoy's wish Israel's command? How arrogant! But you will see that the reporters who commented side with the Arabs.] A reporter commented, "...soon it's not even going to be possible — there's not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state." [Doesn't that reporter know that the Jewish communities in the Territories take up only about 5% of the land? They are not "expanding," they are building only within existing municipal boundaries. PM Netanyahu has not approved any new building in the Territories. The reporter should acknowledge that. I think that simply gives Arab builders an advantage and it honors Abbas' unreasonable demand for concessions in advance of negotiation..] On the U.S. first asking for a complete freeze, then accepting Netanyahu's 90% freeze, a reporter asked, wasn't "the President turning his back on the promises he's made to the Palestinians?" Mr. Kelly said the President had not put it that way. [Again, arrogance in supposing that the elected President of the U.S. has the right to promise to a third party what Israel, who did not elect Obama, would do.] A reported challenged the spokesman to cite any Arab unilateral actions. Mr. Kelly cited the move for statehood now. A reporter thought that is not as grievous as Jewish building (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/17). Fact is, Jewish building is permitted by Oslo, to which the PLO/P.A. agreed. If it were illegal, why didn't the P.A. say so then? Does anyone ever hold the P.A. to its agreements? Fact is, Jewish building does not change the legal status of territory being negotiated. If it did, then what about the more extensive Arab building? Fact is, moving for statehood is exactly the kind of change in status that Oslo bars. Again, the reporter's bias hindered his judgment. ISRAEL PROPOSING BIOMETRIC I.D. PM Netanyahu favors a proposal for Israelis voluntarily to submit biometric data for use in establish tamperproof I.D.. This would reduce identity theft. There is some controversy over whether to have other uses for the data (www.imra.org.il, 11/17). How about I.D. to track terrorists? P.A. GETS BOYCOTT OF JERUSALEM TROLLEY PROJECT 
Jerusalem is planning a city-wide, light rail system, using foreign contractors whom the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is trying to compel to withdraw from the project. The stated objection by the P.A. is that since the trolleys would run in eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem, their presence there would violate international law. The Eastern Orthodox Archbishop agrees. Foreign Arab states successfully have exerted pressure on some of the contractors' suppliers. Huge contracts with Arab states are imperiled (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/18). Having visited Jerusalem many times, and having studied city planning, I can see the need for mass transit there and in its commuting area. Even if the Geneva Conventions applied, which Israel states that they do not, the notion of holding a city hostage to them is absurd. Must the city stultify? If Israel were an occupying power there, it would be even more bound to govern and provide services to the whole city. To deny Israeli sovereignty there, the P.A. would spite its own people, for many Arabs would be served by the trolleys. Once again, political posturing and unwarranted indignation harm innocent people, including the very people in whose name the indignation is exercised. A year ago, my sources within Eastern Orthodoxy explained that the Archbishop of Jerusalem is appeasement-minded. Considering how much the Palestinian Arabs already persecute Christians, the Archbishop prudence would advise him to resist the jihad against the Jews. F.B.I. WARNS THAT TERRORISTS PLOT CYBERWAR 
The FBI believes that al-Qaida has a little capability in cyber warfare, but is planning to upgrade that. If al-Qaida could tap into U.S. files, it probably would do so with destructive intent, even to bring down vital services. Officials of Homeland Security and the Justice Dept. say that the U.S. has neither the preparation nor laws for a suitable defense. When sub-systems are integrated into larger systems, the sub-systems are not sufficiently vetted for security weakness (Siobhan Gorman, Wall St. J., 11/18, A4).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
HOLDER'S AL QAEDA INCENTIVE PLAN: THE WORSE THE TERRORIST, THE MORE RIGHTS HE HAS?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 19, 2009. |
|
The question beginning to emerge: Is President Barack Hussein Obama the Biblical evil who was forecast as Gog who brings Armageddon to the world — or the later Christian prediction that an anti-Christ figure would appear as a false messiah to start the war of Gog and Magog — known as Armageddon. Strangely, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran predicts that the re-appearance of the Mahdi (Muslim messiah) who allegedly disappeared when he fell down a well is to re-emerge during a Holocaust. As you know, Ahmadinejad has stated he will build Nuclear Bombs to destroy Israel and attack all "infidels" (non-believers). It appears that there is a convergence of thought that Obama and his selected Mafia may be the evil predicted by all to arrive as a false messiah. The people, advisors, Czars and Czarinas he has gathered around him share his intentions to diminish America but advance One-World dominance or, as President George Herbert Walker Bush said, "Await the "New World Order'". This was written by William McGurn and it appeared November 16, 2009 in Wall St. Journal as an Opinion piece. Write to MainStreet@wsj.com |
|
When it comes to terrorists, you would think that an al Qaeda operative who targets an American mom sitting in her office or a child on a flight back home is many degrees worse than a Taliban soldier picked up after a firefight with U.S. Army troops. Your instinct would be correct, because at the heart of terrorism is the monstrous idea that the former is as legitimate a target as the latter. Unfortunately, by dispatching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders to federal criminal court for trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be undermining this distinction. And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas. "A fundamental purpose of rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to give those at war an incentive for more civilized behavior — and not targeting civilians is arguably the most sacred of these principles," says William Burck, a former federal prosecutor and Bush White House lawyer who dealt with national security issues. "It demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone." We don't often speak of incentives in war. That's a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on. Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines — or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply. None of this seems to bother Mr. Holder. Since he dropped his bombshell on Friday, much commentary has focused on the possibility that KSM might be found not guilty. That, however, is unlikely: Mr. Holder is not a fool, and everyone in the Obama administration appreciates the backlash that would occur if a KSM trial results in an acquittal. Thus, the men he will send for trial will be those against whom he has the most evidence. The perversity here is that the overwhelming evidence of their war crimes gain them protections denied a soldier fighting in accord with the rules of war. It even gains them more protections than their associates who attack military targets. This double standard means that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing are sent to military tribunals while the perpetrators of 9/11 are sent to federal court. Andrew McCarthy has a unique perspective on the move to criminal trials. As an assistant U.S. attorney in 1993, he successfully prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheikh") for the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Even though the cases were somewhat different — that plot was conceived, plotted and carried out on U.S. soil — Mr. McCarthy says the experience persuaded him that federal trials are a bad way of handling terror. "At first, I was of the mind that a criminal prosecution would uphold all our high-falutin' rhetoric about the constitution and majesty of the law," says Mr. McCarthy. "But when you get down to the nitty gritty of a trial, you see one huge problem: The criminal justice system imposes limits on the government and gives the defendant all sorts of access to information, because we'd rather have the government lose than unfairly convict a man. You can't take that position with an enemy who is at war with you and trying to bring that government down." By going down this line, says Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Holder has invited any number of dangers: making the Manhattan courtroom a target for terrorist attack, inviting the disclosure of sensitive intelligence, opening the possibility that some al Qaeda operative will be acquitted and released within the U.S., etc. Worst of all, he says, is turning the laws of war upside down: Why fight the Marines and risk getting killed yourself or locked up in Bagram forever when you can blow up American citizens on their own streets and gain the legal protections that give you a chance to go free? With this one step, Mr. Holder is giving al Qaeda a ghastly incentive: to focus more of their attacks on American civilians on American home soil. "It is foolish to think that al Qaeda does not train to our system and look for our vulnerabilities," says Mr. McCarthy. "Remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told his captors when we got him, 'I'll see you in New York with my lawyer.' It seems he knows our weaknesses better than our government does." 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 |
|
AN AMAZING WEDDING: THE DOCTOR WHO SHATTERED THE STATUES
Posted by David Wilder, November 18, 2009. |
|
Chabad Sichat HaShavuah for Parshat Chaye Sarah 5770 I'm leaving tonite, together with Noam Arnon and Simcha Hochbaum for the annual Hebron Fund Dinner, to be held at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows, NY. We are looking forward to seeing many friends at the event. We're expecting many people to attend, and I'm told there are still some tickets left. So if you haven't purchased yours yet, call today — 718-677-6886 or register online at: https://secure40.securewebsession.com/hebron.site.aplus.net/ english/form.php?id=4 You may have seen in the media that the NY left is trying to prevent the dinner from taking place at Citi Field and will probably show up to demonstrate on Saturday night. It is imperative that we have BIG numbers at the dinner, showing them that New York stands behind Hebron. (I even have a friend coming in from Texas, especially for this event!) A couple of nights ago I had the privilege to attend an amazing wedding, of two amazing people, with an even more amazing story. Below are some of the photos at the ceremony, together with short version of Dr. Aharon Abraham's life story, translated from a Chabad Shabbat magazine. There's also a link to a half hour video of the wedding, at Ma'arat HaMachpela. Enjoy! 
Also take a look at the photos of Kiryat Arba-Hebron's participation in International Clean Up week. (And see you Saturday night.) The article below is entitled
"The Doctor Who Shattered the Statues". It was
translated from an article appearing in Hebrew in Sichat
HaShavuah for Parshat Chaye Sarah
|
|
A year ago, Dr. Aharon Abraham was Director at the ICU Medical Center in prestigious British Kennedy in Mumbai, India. The horrible terror attack at the Chabad house caused him to leave India and go to Israel."This house was the center of my life," he says with pain. "There we spent Shabbat and holidays. The terrorists took part of me, they took my soul. Following the incident, finally I decided to leave India and go to Israel. I have no more business there." He currently resides in Kiryat Arba examining job opportunities suitable to his expertise and experience. Concurrently he completes the conversion process which he and his wife and children began in India, thereby closing a chapter of his life story, very not routinely. Confrontation with the father His previous name was Vagirds Frads. The story is very reminiscent of the story Abraham. His father was a senior Hindu cleric. "He had all kinds of statues, he attributed to them special powers," he says. "I did not understand how Dad honored a man-made statue. I didn't understand why Mother bother preparing food for statues, and sometimes I eat it in secret". When grown up and graduated from high school, he began to confront openly his father. "I told Dad: How can you believe this nonsense?! Father heard and said nothing, had no answers. One day I took a hammer and simply smashed the statues. He shouted at me: the gods are angry! I answered him: If they're angry, let them do something, reconstruct themselves "... Identification with Abraham The young man left his village and enrolled to study medicine at the University of Mumbai, where he made contact with Christian students. They saw he was looking for faith, and gave him a Bible. "A new world opened before me," he recalls excitedly. "I eagerly read the Psalms and became acquainted with the figures of Moses and Abraham's story and with Am Israel." He successfully graduated and became a doctor specializing in one of the medical centers in Mumbai where he met his wife, who worked as a nurse. She followed his interest in the Bible. After they married they decided to change their family name to 'Abraham', following the admiration they felt for Abraham. He also decided to change his first name to Aaron. "Aaron the priest was a wonderful person, full of glory," he explains with a smile. That terrible night They gradually made the decision to convert and become full-fledged Jews. The were tempted to undergo a Reform conversion, thinking they were already Jews. Then they met Chabad emissaries Rabbi Gabi and Rebecca Holtzberg HY"D in Mumbai. They approached him about their sick child (who later died later from disease). Following this bond, Dr. Abraham realized that a Reform conversion was worthless. He began studying Judaism with the Rabbi, while his wife studied with the Rabbi's wife. 'Our whole life centered around the Chabad House, "he said in a trembling voice." It's the only place where we could get kosher food. Gabi and Rivki were our guides, we did not move without them. They gave us Judaism and we gave them medical care for their sick child. We began a process of true conversion and found the extraordinary beauty of the Torah commandments. Then came that terrible night, and took away my Master ..." He sobs a few moments and says: "But what we learned from Gabi and Rivki will accompany us and our children forever." TONIGHT, HAVING COMPLETED THEIR CONVERSION, Aharon and Ruth Malka Abraham married at Ma'arat HaMachpela in Hebron, on the first anniversary of the murder of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg HY"D. Their children have new names too: Sarah, Shmuel Gavriel and Sharona Rivka. 
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. |
|
MAY YOUR CURSE BE ON ME, MY SON
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 19, 2009. |
|
"Perhaps my father will feel me, and I will be in his eyes as a
mocker and I will bring upon myself a curse and not a blessing. And
his mother said to him, 'May your curse be upon me, my son'."
A youth who had "illegally" entered Gush Katif in its last days asked me: "I don't know what to do. I must leave Gush Katif for a few days and then I will not be able to return." "Why not?" I asked him. "Because if I come back I will have to use a false identity at the checkpoint, and that would force me to lie," he answered. "I do not want to sin." "I have a great solution," I said to him. "I will write you a note in which I accept upon myself the Divine punishment that you will receive for lying to get back into Gush Katif. After you have lived out your 120 years on this earth, request to be buried with the note and I will merit your Divine retribution. Do we have a deal?" It didn't take the boy long to see the absurdity of his question, and I lost out on the deal of a lifetime. It is easy to confuse young people. They are inexperienced and naive. Jacob lacks the life experience of his mother, Rivkah. He is not yet worldly, spending all his time learning Torah. He has not yet acquired the perspective needed to place contradicting values in their proper order. Suddenly, his mother makes an outrageous request of him — to lie to his father, Isaac, and to re-arrange events so that he will give him the blessing reserved for his brother, Esau. Isaac loved his sons. He was blind to the fact that Esau was deceiving him. He was liable to entrust the faith in G-d revolution that his father had pioneered in the hands of his wicked son, Esau. Rivkah understood that this would be a tragic mistake. Jacob also understood. So now what? It is forbidden to lie! The answer to this dilemma is not simple. Generally, the preferred course of action is not to break the law — even for a worthy purpose. "Justice, justice must you pursue," says the Torah. Justice must also be pursued with justice. That is generally the case, but not always. When should one break the rules? "Who should one listen to? The teacher or the student?" the Rambam rhetorically asks in the Laws of Kings. In other words, if a person is instructed to carry out an action that is against the commandments of the King of the world and His Torah — he is forbidden to do so. In reality, this simple directive becomes more complex. In any given set of circumstances, there will always be the rabbis who will explain that it is a terrible sin to deceive Isaac, that Jacob is a terrible soldier, the whole country will fall apart because of him and that we will be left with no army. We have already witnessed the result of this approach; the destruction of Gush Katif, Israel's defeat in the two wars that came on its heels and the world's negation of Israel's right to exist. Those military, political and spiritual leaders who confused the naive Jacob, leading him to believe that it is a terrible sin to oppose the law — have brought the State of Israel to the edge of the precipice. Today, when they once again condemn the conscientious soldiers who refuse to evict Jews from their homes, they prove that they have learned nothing from their mistakes. "Who is it who hunted food and brought it to me, and I ate from it all before you came, and I blessed him, and he shall surely be blessed," says Isaac to Esau. The famous Biblical commentator Rashi explains that it is not true that if Jacob had not deceived his father, he would not have received his blessings. In this verse, Isaac endorsed the blessing that he gave to Jacob. Ex post facto, he agrees with Rivkah and Jacob. Rivkah and Jacob identified and prevented the mistake before it happened, warding off catastrophe in the process. Likewise, now is the time to deal with the crimes into which the government is dragging the IDF — not after the next catastrophe, G-d forbid! The role cast upon the youthful Jacob is not an easy one. His commanders and some of his rabbis are pressuring him, trying to confuse him into gagging his own conscience. They would prefer that he would stop listening to the voice of G-d that clearly instructs him to stop. May your curse be on me, my son. May your curse be on me. Shabbat Shalom, Moshe Feiglin 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
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: SLIP-SLIDING IN THE PA
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 18, 2009. |
|
No standing firm on the ground for these guys. With what I suppose they imagine to be nimble steps, they move this way and that. Except that their steps, seen from here, are shamefully clumsy. Today Saeb Erekat, PA negotiator, declared that Israel was twisting Palestinian words, as they never said they were going to declare a state unilaterally. No? You could have fooled me. All they want, he explained, is to preserve the two-state solution, as one state is not an option. And, since negotiations are stalemated (through no fault of theirs, of course), they want the Security Council to endorse the two-state solution, with the border of the new Palestinian state set at the Green (pre-'67) Line. This strikes me as patently ridiculous. Every mention within the international community of the two-state solution or anything akin to it — Oslo, which was formally signed, the informally agreed-to Road Map, etc., specifies that the details must be determined via negotiations. Even SC Resolution 242, which doesn't even mention Palestinians, never mind address a "two-state solution," says Israel's borders must be determined via negotiations. And let's look back even further than this: When Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan in 1949, it stated explicitly that the armistice line that was being established (which is the Green Line) would not prejudice negotiations in the future to determine the final border for Israel. The Green Line wasn't it. ~~~~~~~~~~ At least one Israeli government source is cited as saying that the statement by Erekat is an effort to backtrack after it became apparent that the EU and the US were not supportive of a unilaterally declared state. Slip-sliding... But I'm seeing something else, as well: "One state is not an option..." Yet not long ago leaders in the PA were saying that if the negotiations weren't going to progress, it was time to think about one state. Of course, in voicing this threat, they were envisioning a "bi-national state" that would render it impossible for Israel to be a Jewish state — that would, ultimately, be Arab/Muslim in nature. But then matters shifted. WE said, well, if negotiations aren't going to progress, and there are going to be unilateral declarations from the PA, we might unilaterally move to assume full sovereignty over significant parts of Judea and Samaria. That would make the bulk of Judea and Samaria, which the Palestinians covet, very Jewish indeed, and block the very possibility of forming a viable Palestinian state. So they, slip-sliding, said, uh oh, let's reverse tactics. What we learn from this is the value of making offensive moves and not appeasing. ~~~~~~~~~~ There might have been some advantage to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, however. MK Uri Ariel, of the right wing Ihud Leumi (National Union), is one of those who sees it this way: "I pray for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to declare a state unilaterally. That is the only way we can finally annul the wretched Oslo accord, which exacted a price in blood and brought the PLO terrorists into the state of Israel. "A statement of this nature means that the government will have no choice but to annex all of the communities in Judea and Samaria. In practice, it will have to annex the entire region and formally turn it into a part of the state of Israel." Everything is so much in flux, it's difficult to predict what will come next. But it remains extremely unlikely that we'll extend sovereignty over even parts of Judea and Samaria except in response to some PA stance that essentially voids Oslo. More's the pity. At very least there has been a paradigm shift of sorts — as Israel is making it increasingly clear that return to the Green Line is not an option. ~~~~~~~~~~ And, as the PA leaders continue to slip-slide, we must not forget the option of "armed resistance," which they maintain is their right. This past August, Fatah (the major constituent party of the PA) held a congress, its first in 20 years. This provided the party with an opportunity to genuinely moderate, by adjusting its constitution to eliminate the call for violence. That, however, is not what happened. They continue to embrace this option. ~~~~~~~~~~ And it happens that I see the following news item as having a connection to their embrace of this option: The PA is calling an international conference, which will be attended by representatives of such countries as Spain, Canada, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, and Sweden who are involved in international legal systems. A major goal they intend to advance in the course of the conference: Securing a change in the status of their terrorists in Israeli prisons to "prisoners of war." According to Israel National News, this will enable them to secure more "rights" for the prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. But frankly I find it hard to believe that it would be possible to provide them with any more rights. As it is, I'm ashamed that these terrorists are treated as well as they are. They not only can have family visitations, but also conjugal rights. And they can actually earn a degree from an Israeli university while sitting in our prisons. I would suggest the possibility that what they really want is to redefine terrorism down. Terrorism, what terrorism? Our brave soldiers are merely engaging in "resistance against the occupation," which is their right under international law. Watch and see. ~~~~~~~~~~ Sources in the Netanyahu government are claiming that there is no crisis with the US over our building in Gilo. Although surprised at the intensity of the US response (with the US saying it is "dismayed" about this), these sources maintain that it is understood that there will be no building freeze in Jerusalem. This reaction, they say, is a show for PA consumption. I'm not sure if this take is quite accurate. Obama has actually given an interview to Fox news, in which he criticized the plans to build in Gilo, saying this makes it more difficult to re-start negotiations and "embitters" the Palestinians. Embitters? Give me a break. ~~~~~~~~~~ A question occurs to me here: The statement about how it's understood that there is no freeze in Jerusalem makes it clear that we are abiding by some informal and very quiet agreement regarding a freeze at least in major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria (whatever the parameters with regard to completing units for which tenders have already been issued). This was supposed to be done to make the PA happy, so negotiations could begin. Obviously, Obama is still hoping — oi! is he hoping — this will happen. But if the PA is intransigent, and there are no negotiations, precisely how long do we wait before we say the deal is off? This is the danger inherent in these open-ended arrangements. ~~~~~~~~~~ The articles about Fort Hood keep coming, and just when I think I've read enough, one appears that is significant enough to merit being shared. (Thanks, Dick B) 
He wrote: "...A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our "Band of Brothers and Sisters" can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole, but as family units. Share this man's words broadly, my friends. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" From many places on the earth, there are Jews who come home to Israel. In some cases, individuals whose ancestors were Jews come here to reclaim their heritage and join with us. See this video of descendants of the Jews of Kaifeng, China, come to Israel to re-connect with their Jewish roots and convert formally to Judaism.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY WATER UPDATE; WHY EGYPT ALLOWS SMUGGLING INTO GAZA; TRY 9/11 HEAD IN NEW YORK?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 18, 2009. |
|
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY WATER (Update) Israel allotted land along the coast for the Palestinian Authority to build a desalination water plant. The Arabs refused the offer (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). No other details to confirm the Israeli government's citing of that affair as an example of Palestinian Authority incompetence as a prelude to statehood. TERRORIST FINANCING & U.S. JUDICIAL PROCEDURE Two similar cases in U.S. judicial proceedings led to opposite decisions on the same principles. The Treasury Dept. had seized the assets of two charitable fronts for terrorism, al Haramain for Chechen rebels, and Kindhearts for Hamas, without securing warrants. The organizations' attorneys contested the seizure as violating Fourth Amendment protection requiring warrants. The U.S. legal system does not require warrants for all seizures of property. The exception is when the seizure is not primarily for use in criminal prosecution. The seizure of terrorist funds is to prevent those funds from being used in terrorist activities. [They do this in regular criminal cases.] The government contended that showing probable cause and securing a warrant were impractical. The Kindhearts judge found the government explanation unconvincing. The other judge allowed the seizure to stand. "As the court explained, not only must the government act fast to prevent asset flight, but it would be nearly impossible 'to meet the specificity requirements in an application for a warrant, and...to track down assets belonging to the designated individual and apply for a warrant in each jurisdiction in which the asset is located.'" The dichotomy may be headed for Supreme Court resolution (Steven Emerson, 11/17, sent via suanema@gmail.com from Jewish World Review). America, like Israel with Hamas and Abbas, lacks the clarity and courage to declare war. In our case, this would be the war on Radical Islam, what Pres. Bush called "war on terrorism." War, it is understood, permits greater government power to prosecute it. After all, in war, time is of the essence and lives may be at stake. President Obama is confused about whether to use civilian courts or military tribunals, because he does not seek to put us on a wartime standing. If he were concerned about civil liberties over which kind of court to use, why have his Administration and his Party muzzled criticism in several different situations, the way that they had criticized Pres. Bush for doing? Nevertheless, it grates to allow government to seize property in the U.S. without due process. It is not wise to tempt government abuse. How about allowing seizure on a temporary basis, with a non-time-consuming explanation to a court? The government would have a limited but sufficient time to show probable cause, and if not satisfactory, the charities would be deprived for a limited time. WHY EGYPT ALLOWS SMUGGLING INTO GAZA Why has Egypt allowed the number of tunnels smuggling goods into Gaza to return to pre-war levels of several hundred? The war destroyed about 300 tunnels. Israel knows that Egypt could end the smuggling by putting a barrier along the Rafiah corridor. Trucks unload contraband just yards away from nonchalant Egyptian soldiers. The U.S. provides technical support to Egypt on tunnel detection, but has been unable to persuade Egypt to act decisively against the smuggling. Yaakov of the Jerusalem Post explains that Egypt's Sinai economy depends on the smuggling. Smuggling has become a big business. The U.S. is trying to help the Sinai economy grow independent of smuggling. Besides, Egypt does not want to end the smuggling, until Israel ends its embargo on Gaza, which led to the increase in smuggling. Egypt worries that if it ended the smuggling, demonstrations in Egypt might destabilize the regime. Now, U.S. officials suggest to Israel that it end the embargo, in order to boost Abbas' prestige (www.imra.org.il, 11/17). Omitted from the report is Egypt's strategy. Egypt's strategy is like Saudi Arabia's failed balancing act: deflect terrorism from itself to enemies. Egypt is letting Hamas conduct a war of attrition against Israel, but worries that Hamas also will send terrorists into Egypt. How precarious is Egypt's regime? Has the U.S. blundered into building a first class military for Egypt, that might fall into Radical Muslim hands? The U.S. assumes the false stance that Abbas is a moderate, but always "weak" and needing Israeli sacrifices to boost his power. He is a terrorist jihadist, a dangerous enemy of Israel. The sacrifices allegedly to boost Abbas' standing have brought death and potential war, as P.A. forces gain strength. The latest proposed sacrifice would enable Gaza to become stronger and to bring in more arms. Israel's mistake was in ceding control over the Gaza-Sinai border. Notice that the U.S. and the major media ignore Egypt's battening off smuggling rather than battering it. Publicly, the U.S. turns a blind eye to Egypt's indirect war on Israel. This is a world of pretense. One cannot take official statements at face value. Some of my readers cite such statements as evidence against my refutation of them. That is not logical. Is the U.S. hope to offer alternative employment to Sinai residents a realistic way of ending smuggling? Smuggling is a tradition there. If Israel ended its embargo of all but items of military use, wouldn't the smuggling of arms remain more profitable than civilian employment? TRY 9/11 HEAD IN NEW YORK?: Part 1 The Obama administration decided to try the 9/11 mastermind in New York. This decision is a blunder. The decision should have been to try him elsewhere, by military tribunal. A civilian court offers more rights to defendants who killed civilians than a military court offers defendants who attacked our military facilities abroad. This defendant, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will enjoy "more legal protection than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone." One main purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to offer incentives to reduce casualties as by not targeting civilians, carrying arms openly, and fighting in uniform. As you can see, the decision makes terrorism on U.S. soil more attractive to perpetrators. Like other terrorists, Mohammed flouts the Conventions and U.S. law, yet avails himself of its courts in order to continue his effort. He might get acquitted, though that is not likely. But it is possible, because civilian courts restrict government maneuverability and allow defendants access the records on which government evidence is based. To safeguard security secrets, the government may withhold incriminating evidence. Attorney-General Holder has given the government a choice of revealing military secrets or getting weaker prosecution in this and other cases. He made a target of the Manhattan courtroom (William McGurn, Wall St. J., 11/17, Op-Ed). Part 2 Mohammed and four others will be tried a few blocks from Ground Zero. Holder said this would give the bereaved an opportunity to witness justice. But will justice be done in a civilian court? More likely, the locale will boost defendants' morale, as they think of the nearby hole they made in the ground, originally a site of mourning and defiance, but now a symbol of American incompetence and failure to recover, all these years later. The trial will give defendants a stage for influencing people. They may try to turn the tables on the U.S.. An Al-Qaida training manual instructs, "At the beginning of the trial...the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them, by state security, before the judge...." In other words, lie. (Remember that, when evaluating Islamist testimony.] In this case, Mohammed was waterboarded, and often. The decision to use civilian courts has been defended as successful in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker." For him, from arrest to sentencing took five years. He turned the trial into a mockery, as he entered contradictory please. He explained, "You're allowed to lie for jihad." [Remember that, when you judge Islamist credibility.] The trial of the blind sheikh unearthed intelligence data that, relayed to Osama bin Laden, informed him what the U.S. knew about his arrangements (William McGurn, Wall St. J., 11/17, Op.-Ed.). Osama could change his compromised arrangements. Part 3 Parts 1 and 2 related the case for using military tribunals to try Islamist terrorists. They came from the Wall Street Journal. Part 3 relates the case for using a New York civilian court. It comes from the New York Times, and is by Steven Simon. Mr. Simon distinguishes between the types of terrorism cases suitable for civilian and for military courts. He suggests using "military forces in places, like Afghanistan, where conspirators can't be arrested by federal agents driving Fords." [I think that the method of apprehension is less a determinant of where to try someone than whether civilian trials risk security, as parts 1 and 2 argued.] Would a civilian trial risk letting terrorists free [and perhaps on U.S. soil]? Simon thinks not. It hasn't happened in New York yet, and the indicted Mr. Mohammed has confessed. [The earlier parts mentioned that it was a close call. The principle here is not just whether to try terrorists in New York, but in any civilian venue. What may happen next time, with a different prosecutor, judge, jury, and venue? In trials, confessions get overturned or replaced with "not guilty pleas." This time around, the federal government is suspected of brutal, unfair, and careless arrest, treatment, and accusation. Also, prosecutors have been over-reaching and using poor strategy.] Does civilian trial risk disseminating intelligence data to terrorist organizations? Simon doubts it. Prosecutors claim to have enough unclassified evidence. This case is about an old situation, whereas al-Qaida wants to know where the next drone will attack. [Again, Simon ignores the principle of civilian trial for terrorists, and bases his argument on the specifics of this case. What about the next case? I think that al-Qaida would gain from a knowledge of our intelligence methods, still being used, or which al-Qaida agents we are aware of. Trials bring surprises about what evidence is excluded and included.] Would a civilian trial provide terrorism with a platform? Simon thinks it would provide anti-terrorism with a platform. Federal courts do not permit TV cameras in, to broadcast live. Testimony may be given, but not speeches. Judges may quash oratory. Simon admits that earlier trials were a circus. He dismisses the effect of that by scoffing, who remembers them. [Judges may allow more leeway in capital cases. Demonstrations may be held outside.] To the contrary, Simon assets, the trial will allow a platform for anti-terrorism. The horror of terrorism would be made clear. Americans will be reminded of how low our enemy is. [The Arab world saw the horror of the event, and generally celebrated. I don't have confidence that our government will use that platform, given Pres. Obama's failure to do so.] Suppose the trial were by closed military tribunal, followed by execution. It might inspire terrorist recruits. By contrast, an open trial may strengthen American's reputation just as the Muslim world is losing its regard for terrorism [which has turned on fellow Muslims]. The trial could illustrate the depravity of specifically attacking civilians, as some Muslim clerics have begun declaring (11/18, Op.-Ed.). Here is an example of Radical Muslims having "hijacked" Islam, whose doctrine disapproves of attacking civilians. This point is well taken, although terrorists have contempt for U.S. openness and exploit it. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE UNRWA COMMISSIONER-GENERAL KAREN ABU ZAYD'S BIASED DISCOURSE
Posted by >Véronique Chemla, November 18, 2009. |
On October 15, 2009, I hurried to attend UNRWA Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd's press conference in Paris. Oops! I arrived about ten minutes late. The audience was scattered. "Blockade, occupation" and revisionism Ms Abu Zayd was raising the alarm over the 7 million dollars' deficit gap which corresponds to its general expenses (education, health and social services). With about 29 0000 employees, UNRWA is "responsible for 4.6 million refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the occupied territory". Ms Abu Zayd was expecting political support from France. She was also looking for new partners, including in the private sector and municipalities. For about 25 minutes, Ms Abu Zayd often blamed Israel, "blockade and occupation" for Gaza residents' problems. On the destruction of UNRWA's buildings, "Israel is willing to pay compensation, especially to what happened to our warehouse. Our report has to be verified by" adjusters. « 37 schools and 11 clinics experienced damages, which were not important, so we were able to repair them ». Moreover, if compensations are paid to UNRWA, « this will be a precedent which will help us" in another topic: the consequences of Intifada. Noha Rashmawi, a press officer of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Delegation in France, asked Ms Abu Zayd: will UNRWA sue Israel? "No", Ms Abu Zayd answered. She added that this is not UNRWA's mission, rather that of human rights NGOs' missions in « Israel and Palestine ». Ms Abu Zayd insisted upon the impact of the Cast Lead Operation on the UNRWA. "Obviously, Israel wants us to be operating... We could get everything we need for our 'summer games'". She delightfully told that the Gaza children set a Guiness world record by flying 3,167 homemade kites sending peace messages. I asked the last question upon textbooks used in UNRWA-run schools and the future teaching of the Holocaust in the schools it runs. Ms Abu Zayd explained that UNRWA has respected "the agreement with UNESCO (Editor's note: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) for 60 years. The textbooks that we use in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, West Bank and Gaza are the textbooks of the local authorities. We have an "enhancement curriculum" which is human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance. We have negotiated that with all the departments of education of every country where we work. We found that it is a particularly important curriculum in Gaza which is living in this conflict under occupation, and that the children really need to know very seriously about what their rights are... Children make plays, poems on human rights, on their right to play". Concerning UNRWA's recent decision to include the Holocaust in its curriculum for the "higher grades and the preparatory grades, people are interested, but they are worried about their own children having to learn about the Holocaust while they just came through this horrible war in January, when there were so many of their rights, in fact all their rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated. Palestinians [do not enjoy any] of their rights, especially in the Occupied Territories. That is why people are asking questions... We will develop that curriculum draft with university professors who are advising us, parents, human rights groups », Ms Abu Zayd said. No time to ask explanations: the press conference was over. I went up to Ms Abu Zayd to question her about that false parallel between Holocaust and the situation of Palestinians in Gaza. Another journalist had priority. Thus, I moved away. Suddenly, angry Noha Rashmawi talked to me. She justified that parallel alleging a genocide of Palestinians. « How many dead? », I asked her. Moreover, a genocide is an intentional act. She answered: "One dead person is enough!" « This is not the legal definition of a genocide », I replied. "This is my definition", she told me. A French public TV journalist remained curiously silent beside her. I finally invited Ms Abu Zayd to explain her parallel. She dryly said: "If you had lived in Gaza and went through the 22 days of that war, that is what you would have in mind". And she moved away. UNRWA's Palestinian narrative Ms Abu Zayd, who will retire at the end of 2009, often expressed the Palestinian narrative, excluding facts justifying the Israeli policy, and concealed Hamas' policy. For instance, Ms Abu Zayd deliberately misused the term "blockade". On November 9, 2009, she admitted before the UN Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) that she did not use that word in its "judicial meaning". 
Thus, while blaming Israel for pitiful Palestinian living conditions, she did not say a single word about the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, the economic and humanitarian Israeli aid to Hamas-run Gaza, the still flourishing "tunnel economy" and the belle vie in Gaza. Her speech, which tarnished Israel's image, aimed at inspiring the public opinion's sympathy, and concealed the international community's billions of dollars to Palestinians since 60 years. Ms Abu Zayd was thus justifying the UNRWA's existence, in particular its appeal for financial aid. That controversial UN Agency is known for its failure in solving the problem of hereditary status Palestinian refugees, for connections between terrorism and its camps or facilities, for terrorist organizations' members on its payroll, etc. Moreover, Ms Abu Zayd did not evoke the Hamas' responsibility for the destructions it caused. Hamas deliberately targeted the civilians of Israel, which caused the Israeli military response, and Hamas exploited its own civilians as human shields, which are war crimes: for instance, it placed its rockets among the Gaza civilian population, near the UNRWA facilities. According to the international humanitarian law, a military objective does not cease to be one if it is located inside a civilian population. Furthermore, Kites, which symbolize Palestinians' aspiration for freedom ("open-air prison Gaza"), are a prominent theme in the anti-Israeli propaganda, ranging from movies to art exhibitions. Last but not least, Ms Abu Zayd had already stated that slanderous Nazifying parallel in an interview to Jerusalem-AFP, without seemingly being questioned. That infamous parallel conceals the relevant reasons that justify the Cast Lead Operation as well as the IDF's ethical behaviour. It was underlined by the hateful pro-Hamas "Arab street"'s demonstrations during the Cast Lead Operation in order to demand boycott and condemnation of Israel by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice (The Hague, Netherlands). It was also expressed in particular in a United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) conference at the UNESCO Headquarters on April 29 and 30, 2008. That demonizing parallel also aims at two perverse goals: withdrawing the Jewish Diaspora' support to the Israeli state and marginalizing the Jewish Diaspora in their own countries. If the Jewish Diaspora remains on the Israeli side, then, the public's opinion will perceive it as badly as it perceives Israelis. Furthermore, the public's opinion will justify anti-Semitic acts. And if that Jewish diaspora complains and requests for protection and justice, the public's opinion will think: "The Jewish diaspora has what it deserves!" It is shocking that the UNRWA Commissioner-General expressed such a biased discourse and endorsed that infamous revisionist comparison. We can be troubled by the way the Holocaust will be taught in the UNRWA-run schools. What is also troubling is the fact that an allegedly neutral UN agency expresses an unbalanced discourse, presents that anti-Israeli narrative, including its revisionism, as the truth.
Veronique Chemla is a journalist for L'Arche,
Front Page Magazine and American Thinker. Her website is in French and
English. Visit it at htttp://veroniquechemla.blogspot.com/200
This article is archived at |
|
PRE-ELECTION STUNT OF A SWINDLER; SOMETHING ISN'T WORTH TO SAVE; SHAMEFUL RESULT OF JEWISH ASSIMILATION
Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 18, 2009. |
|
Pre-Election Stunt of Another Swindler? Mahmoud Abbas announced that he is not going to run for re-election in January's elections. He accused the Israeli government with "adopting a policy that ruins all peace efforts." He also criticized Hamas for not reaching reconciliation with his Fatah faction. Most likely Fatah may hold a rally to pressure him to change his mind since the faction has no major candidate to replace him. (Everyone is at fault but not he! He continuously rejected any offer of peace made by Israel and it is most likely that he wants to boost his popularity by orchestrated 'popular' support or has stolen enough for a comfortable retirement. His predecessor, Yasser Arafat, had done the same! For someone who is planning retirement, Abbas has been doing quite fancy and active election campaigning.) Note: It is easy to subscribe to this editorial letter. Just send emails of your friends and relatives to stevenshamrak.e with the word "Subscribe" on the Subject line at any time. May be Something isn't Worth to Save. The collapse of the Palestinian Authority, Israel's (fake) negotiating partner, was raised as a possibility after Mahmoud Abbas said that he intended to resign (good riddance). Meanwhile, PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad is accused of quietly staging a ''bloodless coup'' against PA President Mahmoud Abbas (What coup? Hasn't Abbas announced his resignation?). And, Azzam al-Ahmed, a prominent Fatah figure closely associated with Abbas, declared that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist and would never do so. ''Fatah is a liberation movement,'' he said. ''Fatah cares only about the interests of the Palestinian people.'' (The time is long overdue for Israel to start to care only about the interests of the Jewish people!) Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak The killings in a Texas army base were not the first religiously motivated homicide committed by Muslim military personnel in the US Army. Politicly correct idiots in America, Europe or Australasia are deliberately avoiding questioning the loyalty of Muslims to their country of residence. Same Jew-hating bigots have never been shy questioning Jewish loyalty! Who does not Want Peace? The Palestinian Islamic Hamas movement said on Tuesday that it will never negotiate with Israel : "Hamas will not negotiate with the occupation (Israel) and will not be the lifeboat for Oslo team," said Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, referring to the Palestinian National Authority's (PNA) negotiation with Israel under the Oslo accords since 1993. (They reject the Oslo peace agreement, Israel's right to exist and unity among so-called Palestinians. So, who is the villain here?)Ending Another Stupidity. The Knesset approved a preliminary reading of a bill by Likud MK Danny Danon that would stop the practice of allowing public funding for burials of (Arab) citizens who committed terrorist attacks. A Self-Hating Jew is the Worst Enemy. Israel's desire for peace seems to have ''completely vanished,'' France's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said. ''What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that there used to be a great peace movement in Israel,'' (Why does the absence of the peace movement on the Arab side not hurt or shock him?) Islamic Brotherly Love. The leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula, Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, warned: ''They are being driven by a greed to take over Muslim countries and they are full of a wish to annihilate Sunnis... Their threat to Islam and its people is much bigger than that from Jews and Christians,'' (And both branches of Islam want to achieve world domination by Islam!) Quote of the Week: "We are living in a global, post-national, post-modern, post-identity, world where people (Jews) are again asked to make a choice between universalism and nationalism, between freedom and identity& A young Jew after months and sometimes years of standing in the face of extreme and false slanderous attacks on Israel, finally says enough — I want to live in a world without Israel & Strengthening our Jewish identity is the best guarantee to continue kibbutz galuyot, gathering of the exiles.... rebuilding our Jewish identity can empower us to fight for tikun olam (perfection of the world at large — ed.), with more justice and more freedom for everyone." — Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel — Zionism is the Jewish independent movement with the goal of the creation the Jewish homeland on our ancestral land. Enemies of Jews are determined to deny us this freedom. The true freedom is to know and appreciate who you are. The abandonment of one's Jewish identity is return to slavery! King Abdullah Rejects "Jordan is Palestine". Jordan's King Abdullah on Tuesday condemned his fellow countrymen who have envisioned Jordan as a homeland for the Palestinians. Abdullah said that Jordan could defend itself — and that the 'Jordanian option' was no option, as far as he was concerned. (I agree — Jordan occupies 77% of Jewish land, hosting Bedouin refugees from Saudi Arabia and fake Palestinians, 60% of its population. The Sinai Option is a better solution!) Little Economic Miracle. Israel has stood out among advanced economies as a place where the crisis hit softer and may have passed quicker, than almost anywhere else. Israel's economic growth has not been based on easy credit or a real estate boom, but on the technology-driven productivity gains that economists believe is the key to sustained economic growth. It is Official: Lebanon is a Rogue State! Lebanon's prime minister has formed a Cabinet that includes the terrorist organization Hezbollah and its allies. Hezbollah has significantly expanded its ability to strike deep into Israel with rockets that can now reach the Jewish state's largest cities, and now possesses tens of thousands of projectiles. (And it is all due to supplies from Iran and Syria and the inaction of the Lebanese government and the United Nations.) Hamas and Ethic are Incompatible. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) rebuked the Islamist Hamas group that runs the Gaza Strip for banning a gathering of Palestinian reporters who hoped to discuss ethics in journalism. (Surprising criticism — they, the journalists, must be truly pissed off with Hamas!) Hypocricy of the Headlines. Alleged Gaza rocket launch renews war threat... — timesonline.co.uk — There is nothing "Alleged" about Hamas and Hezbollah rockets! Another Hypocritical Friend of Israel. The Indian Chief of Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor arrived in Israel a week ago. Israel and India enjoy close defense ties and Israel last year overtook Russia as the number-one supplier of military platforms to India. Since the Mumbai attack, Israel has assisted India in beefing up its security, particularly along its coast, where the terrorists allegedly infiltrated from nearby Pakistan. India is interested in working with Israel on submarine-launched cruise missiles, ballistic missile defense systems, laser-guided systems, satellites as well as unmanned aerial vehicles. (India supported and anti-Israel resolution of the UN Human Rights Council not long ago and does not miss an opportunity to reassure its oil suppliers with periodic anti-Israel outbursts!) Islamic Bigotry of Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to lash out at Israel's Cast Lead counter-terror operation in Gaza last winter, as he came to the defense of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who faces worldwide condemnation for the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of his country. (Sudan has expelled 4 million refugees from Darfur, the same as the number of Arabs living in Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Must Israel follow the Sudanese government's example to earn the approval of Turkey?) Unjust System and Self-hating Media Support Arab Thugs. Arab squatters stoned Jewish property owner Yitzchak Herskovitz,78, who has been fighting a decade long battle in the courts to have his property returned, as he came to give them an eviction order. Two people who escorted Herskovitz were wounded by the stone barrage, but the self-hating Israeli media had depicted Herskovitz and his friends as the aggressors in the incident. Shameful Result of Jewish Assimilation. A man who starred in a video released by al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri, inviting Americans to convert to Islam, has been identified as Adam Yehiye Gadahn, an American with Jewish ancestry. He was born Adam Pearlman on September 1, 1978, the grandson of a prominent Jewish surgeon and the son of musician Phil Pearlman, who converted to Christianity and changed his named to Gadahn (apparently derived from the Biblical figure Gideon) He grew up in Santa Ana, California, converted to Islam and, in 1995, posted an essay on the USC Web site describing his conversion. According to his parents, Gadahn moved to Pakistan in 1998, where he married an Afghani refugee. (As a result, conspiracy nuts and anti-Semitic idiots are already using the individual tragedy of some Jewish families and accusing the CIA/Mossad/British Intelligence of creating Al-Qaida. Another sad case of Jewish self-hate is Yousef al-Khattab, born Joseph Cohen) Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
HAVING A LITTLE BUYER'S REMORSE?
Posted by Arlene Peck, November 17, 2009. |
|
I don't consider myself a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican. When it comes to political elections, I am an independent. And, when the next election comes around, I'm voting for the "other one." Yet, for those Americans still in a self imposed trance of "Obama is the man and going to bring change" attitude, I want to talk about "buyer's remorse." Our President compares the "suffering of the Palestinians" with the Nazi's murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. The Obama administration is systemically changing our culture. In fact, when I watched a recent television show, I saw a class of Kindergarten children reciting the phrases of their "leader" and it reminded me of Chinese children marching in lock-step for Mao when I was a child. Then it was considered brain washing. Is that the "change" he meant? When anyone dares criticize the President, it's a race issue. The man was elected on personality, not policies. He also is a master speech maker and realized early the power of words. The president with the good old wholesome American name of Barak Hussein Obama has created a government sub-culture of Czars who are not checked on or responsible to anyone. Now he has appointed two devout Muslims to sensitive positions, this after the "Allahu akbar" massacre at Fort Hood. His men say they want to '"share the wealth." Have you noticed that they don't plan on giving up the ''perks" that they get from their job related health care policies in the House and Senate? This president came out of nowhere and ran on the wave of resentment created by Bush. The country was so dissatisfied at that time with the "same old, same old" it would have elected "Jack the Ripper." And, that folks, is what we got. Even the Christian community seems concerned that Obama, while talking to the United Nations, spoke at length about the need for Israel to fulfill Palestinian claims and rights. He also used his favorite word "refugees" in hopes of "returning" millions of Arabs to the Jewish State. When he awarded two of the most virulent anti-Israel and Jewish people today, Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tuto of South Africa, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, that was terrible, but Norway outdid that with the Noble Peace Prize. Once I took pride in the large number of Jews who joined this exclusive body of men. Then came Arafat and Jimmy Carter. Arafat left his legacy as being the "Father of Terrorism" and the damage he did will be felt for decades to come. Carter? Never a man of peace, but an anti-Semite who when he was governor of my state of Georgia, was the most incompetent in memory. Obama's entrance into this group completes my loss of faith in the value of this award. Obama made the settlement freeze a condition for negotiations. His envoy just tried to prevent building in Gilo. However, the "conflict" in the Middle East isn't, nor has it ever been, about land. It's about the reality that none of the Arab states can bring themselves to state that they recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State. Land is NOT the issue. It's obvious for those who might take the time to look at a map. Israel is a speck surrounded by twenty-hostile nations with huge land and oil reserves. Picture a pack of matches on a football field with Israel being the matchbook. Obama can't admit that. So for Obama to "sneak" in not only how Israel must give up more of it's "occupied" land, but also settle the "refugee" problem, is a major move against the Jewish state. Bibi managed to stand strong on that while Obama backed down. His comments on "refugees" means, "Lets move millions of displaced into the Jewish state." What I can't understand or tolerate is how so many of my Jewish brethren in the USA continue to have trust in this man or his policies. It does warm my heart to see that the ones who are actually in the Jewish State think the opposite. Amazingly, like Ahmadenijad in Iran, Obama is making little effort to hide his disdain for the Jews. He gives out a Muslim holiday greeting while leaving the Jews in the cold. It is obvious that his roots and heritage and sympathies are Muslim. In the recent "giveaways" another little known gift from Obama and Company has quietly, with little fan-fare, given three hundred million dollars of our tax payer money to "re-build" Gaza and its perpetual refugees from what he considers the war of aggression from Israel. So my question, while he's getting ready to pressure Israel to open the jails and let the the terrorists out to roam the streets, is why doesn't someone pressure the White House to tie that tainted money to the release of captured Gilat Shalit and gain his freedom? Arlene Peck, an internationally syndicated columnist and television
talk show hostess ("WOW! It's Arlene Peck"), is a weekly commentator
on ShalomTV and a guest commentator on the Middle East for radio
station KABC. Listed as one of the 100 most influential Jewish women,
Arlene has been featured in magazines such as Lifestyles, where she
was described as "Politicallly Incorrect and Loving it."
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: AN ERUPTION OF REASON?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 17, 2009. |
|
Well, some reason, anyway — and from a surprising source. The PA had appealed to the EU for support in their efforts to unilaterally declare a state. I was certain that the response would be encouraging and enthusiastic. After all, the EU has been deeply enamored of the Palestinians for years, exhibiting a political bias in their favor and lavishing upon them huge sums of money for which they demand insufficient accountability. But no! I was wrong. This is what Carl Bildt — the foreign minister of Sweden, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency — said today: "The conditions are not there as of yet...I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first, so I think that is somewhat premature." Forgive me if I take a moment to savor this. "There has to be one first..." Chickens coming home to roost. All these years in which the PA leaders did zilch to build the solid basis for a state has perhaps caught up with them. They imagined, perhaps, that they could coast forever — constructing a virtual state diplomatically without actually producing one. Methinks that the response was a self-protective one, at bottom. Ultimately the EU would look silly if it backed a state that doesn't have its act together and would fail to function. But oh, the disappointment in Ramallah must be huge right now. (Although Abbas, predictably, says he'll keep at it.) ~~~~~~~~~~ In point of fact, the Palestinians have been there, and done that, before. In 1988, the Palestinian National Council (the legislative body of the PLO, which at that time met in Algeria) proclaimed an independent state, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. This was via Resolution 43/177, which "acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council...and affirmed the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967." What happened subsequent to this was nothing. Because there was no state. You will note, please, that there is no representative from Palestine in the General Assembly, only a Palestinian with observer (non-voting) status. ~~~~~~~~~~ To declare a state unilaterally a second time would not be terribly smart. In fact, right now it seems that this whole gambit is likely to weaken the PA, and diminish whatever respect it has in the street and internationally. Abbas has backed himself out on a limb and cannot climb down without looking foolish. Ultimately this may strengthen Hamas, which will have a field day with the failure of the PA to garner international support. The State Department has come out solidly for formation of a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and the EU has declared itself prepared to help get the PA back to the table. But if the PA does return to the negotiating table — even though we haven't, in line with absolute PA demands, frozen all building activity in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem — its position will be diminished by virtue of the fact that it was coerced. Arabs, culturally, are very big on issues of pride and face. On at least two occasions already, Abbas has been upset with Obama for pushing him to take positions he didn't want to. Once in September, when Abbas met with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN, after swearing he wouldn't. And a second time weeks later, when Abbas, at US prompting, withdrew a motion in the UN Human Rights Council on the Goldstone Report, which caused him considerable flack in the Arab world and prompted a quick reversal. He's barely recovered from that. If the PA refuses to come back to the negotiating table, there would be stalemate, which would not sit well at all in a number of Western capitals, most notably Washington DC. What I wonder at this point is whether Abbas is willing, or able, to be coerced into backing down. ~~~~~~~~~~ You might be interested in seeing a piece by Jonathan Schnazer of the Jewish Policy Center, regarding ways in which a unilateral declaration of statehood could backfire on the PA.
~~~~~~~~~~ Now as to a decision, or policy statement, that does not reflect a whole lot of reason. (Can't expect too much reason in one day, I guess.) US Envoy Mitchell, acting on behalf of his government, has brought pressure to bear on us to stop building in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Gilo? It seems strange that the US should focus on this neighborhood in particular (but see more below). Gilo is fully within the municipal borders of Jerusalem and is constructed on land that had been Jewishly purchased (there is no suggestion that it rests on Arab land). It made news repeatedly some eight years ago when there was shooting at residential housing along its southern periphery by terrorists in adjacent Beit Jala. While it is beyond the Green Line, so are numerous other neighborhoods of Jerusalem — Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Pisgat Zeev, etc. From our perspective, this is irrelevant as it falls within full Israeli sovereignty and is an integral part of the city. ~~~~~~~~~~ The pressure from Mitchell in this regard has had no effect on Israeli policy. Just today Jerusalem's Construction and Planning Committee approved the building of 850 new housing units, and Interior Minister Eli Yeshai signed the approval. Said Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, in a statement released by his office: "Israeli law does not discriminate between Arabs and Jews, or between east and west of the city. The demand to cease construction just for Jews is illegal, also in the US and any other enlightened place in the world. Bravo! ~~~~~~~~~~ And here we have a PA response to this, from Saeb Erekat: "We condemn this in the strongest possible terms. It shows that it is meaningless to resume negotiations when this goes on." Meaningless, huh? Does this provide a clue regarding whether the PA will ultimately back down and come to the negotiating table? I want to get this straight: If they can't get Gilo, there's no point negotiating a Palestinian state? ~~~~~~~~~~ The British government also objected, saying: "The Foreign Secretary has been very clear that a credible deal involves Jerusalem as a shared capital. Expanding settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem makes that deal much harder. So this decision on Gilo is wrong and we oppose it." So let's take a look at a map. (The Green Line is yellow here.) Gilo is not even in the east of Jerusalem. It is, as I said, beyond the Green Line to the south. Everything that was not in Israeli possession before '67 is being called "east Jerusalem." And the presumption being made is that it all belongs to the Arabs. In their dreams. ~~~~~~~~~~ "In their dreams" is pretty much what Gilo residents have to say about this, as well. YNet is reporting that people in the neighborhood are furious about the US demands, which they see as totally out of line. Most interesting was this quote from Meir Turgeman, a Jerusalem council member, who blames what's happening on "collaborators who went and leaked it out." He explained: "I don't believe that the Americans are up to date on the construction situation in Gilo and they aren't interested in it either. This came from within. There are people in this country and on the city council who are collaborating with external bodies who don't have Jerusalem's best interests at heart. So, Bravo! a second time. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday I wrote about the way in which former president Clinton misused demographic data to make the case that we must give the Palestinians a state before our Jewish state is swallowed up. That argument has been thoroughly debunked. To begin with, there was an over-estimation in the number of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. An over-estimation to the tune of about 1 million people. In addition, Palestinian birthrates have either stabilized or dropped (during various time periods), while Jewish birthrates have increased. To see details and have access to various articles on the subject, see:
~~~~~~~~~~ One more article (of the probably dozens I've seen) on the Fort Hood jihad massacre. This by Charles Krauthammer, who speaks of "Medicalizing mass murder." "...Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2009/11/12/AR2009111209824.html ~~~~~~~~~~ Then you might want to see what was put out on this by Caroline Glick's "Latma" website of satirical video clips:
~~~~~~~~~~ Iran, Iran, Iran. The story that was horrendous gets more horrendous, as IAEA inspectors conclude Iran may have more hidden nuclear plants. And still Obama waivers. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: EIN AVDAT NATIONAL PARK
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 17, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. HOW I GOT THE SHOT: If I had to vote for the most spectacular and beautiful spot in Israel, Ein Avdat National Park would be it. This narrow, spring and rain-carved canyon in the middle of the Negev Desert features towering rock walls, a waterfall, reflecting pools and abundant wildlife. Photographing inside the park is tricky because the high walls create extreme contrast during the hours the park allows visitors. I tried sneaking in at sunrise one morning but was escorted out by a ranger who lectured me on disturbing the peace of the animals coming to drink from the spring. (He was right!). This shot, taken two years ago in December, shows the approach to
the park from the lower entrance. I was surprised to see a small grove
of trees burning late fall colors. To my additional good fortune, a
bit of sunlight managed to duck under the clouds, poke through the
canyon and brighten the orange tree crowns. To complete the shot, I
chose a wide view that gives perspective to the high canyon walls. For
those who have never been there, this composition delivers the best
impression of what it feels like to hike through this breathtaking
park. Once again the desert, feared and maligned for its inhospitable
climate, reveals its power and beauty to the intrepid visitor.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
NUTS
Posted by UCI, November 17, 2009. |
|
This was written by Mark Steyn and it appeared November 9, 2009 in the National Review Online. |
|
For the purposes of argument, let's accept the media's insistence that Major Hasan is a lone crazy. So who's nuttier? The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats? Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel? Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death? Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia? Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further? Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion? Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what's going on? General Casey has a point: An army that lets you check either the "home team" or "enemy" box according to taste is certainly diverse. But the logic in the remarks of Secretary Napolitano and others is that the real problem is that most Americans are knuckledragging bigots just waiting to go bananas. As Melanie Phillips wrote in her book Londonistan: Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority. To the injury of November 5, we add the insults of American officialdom and their poodle media. In a nutshell: The real enemy — in the sense of the most important enemy — isn't a bunch of flea-bitten jihadis sitting in a cave somewhere. It's Western civilization's craziness. We are setting our hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer.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!" |
|
EGYPTIAN DEFAMES JEWS & BEN FRANKLIN; US DIDN'T DESTROY IRAQI ARTIFACTS; IRAN DEMANDS SANCTIONS END IN ADVANCE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 17, 2009. |
|
EGYPTIAN DEFAMATION OF JEWS & BEN FRANKLIN Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sinwar, a lecturer on Islamic history at the Islamic University of Gaza, defamed the whole Jewish people past and present and Benjamin Franklin. He claimed that Jews don't like to work, but prefer to have other people work for them. Therefore, he alleged, they complained about their forced labor on pyramids. The pharaohs had the right to their labor. Archeological finds show that they enjoyed work privileges, so their complaints were unwarranted. Likewise, Al-Sinwar asserted, Benjamin Franklin warned America that
the Jews will take over the U.S. and get the other Americans to work
for them. Americans are occupiers of their country
If Americans are occupiers, what are the Arabs descended from those who conquered Egypt? Benjamin Franklin said no such thing as imputed to him. This is one of those myths that Arabs make up and then they and other antisemites repeat until they all deem it fact. Franklin must have been aware of the fortune that a Jew, Haym Solomon, sacrificed for the American Revolution, perhaps saving it. I have heard of no archeological evidence that Hebrews worked in ancient Egypt. It is difficult to justify forced labor, and even more difficult to believe that its victims enjoyed rights. It sounds like the usual Arab review of the Bible as a platform on which to erect all sorts of calumny against the Jews. What people dislike having others work for them? The mechanism by which such a trait is transmitted is conveniently omitted. It isn't religious. It isn't cultural. Note the racist nature of the accusation. It applies to Jews across the thousands of years and miles. That makes it genetically inherited, or racial. The notion that Jews are more inclined to exploit people is prejudiced. But let us consider the behavior of Jordanians and Saudi Arabians. They have a high percentage of unemployment and a very high percentage of foreign labor. Saudi Arabia wants to replace alien employees with citizens. Its people refuse to do it. They not only hire foreign maids. They are notorious for refusing jobs they consider not sufficiently prestigious. They expect the government to carry them, financially. I think this is human nature, and the Saudi excess of this trait is economic and cultural, not genetic. Perhaps the professor's claim is Islamic deception. ABBAS HONORS ARAFAT, FOR WHICH ZOA CONDEMNS HIM Abbas, head of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) led Fatah supporters in commemoration of the anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Arafat. The crowd chanted Arafat's slogans, such as "millions of martyrs are marching to Jerusalem," meaning to take it away from Israel by war. Bypassing negotiations [to which Arafat and the P.A. committed itself in writing), Abbas said the P.A. would appeal directly to the UN for statehood. ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "How can Mahmoud Abbas be claiming to seek a real peace with Israel when he honors someone who ordered the killing of thousands of Israeli citizens? We condemn this obscene ceremony held in Ramallah. "Yasser Arafat founded a terrorist movement, deceitfully engaged in negotiations with Israel while radicalizing Palestinian society with poisonous incitement to hatred and murder. He then responded to extraordinary Israeli concessions in a peace plan proposed by President Bill Clinton and accepted by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak with a wave of terrorism that claimed the lives of some 1,500 Israeli men, women and children and the maimed thousands more (11/16 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member, http://www.zoa.org/ ). No moderate, Abbas! Nor is he sincere about peace. Then why is the U.S. subsidizing his regime and supporting its acquisition of the sovereign right to import heavy weapons? A declaration of independence to cover Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria and part of Israel's capital would mean war to get it, ethnic cleansing if they succeed. If they succeed, they will have deprived Israel of secure boundaries. That means the P.A. would start another war, involving their committing genocide. Imagine, a group of people who never themselves had a country, demanding part of another country's capital! That, alone, would mean war. Now wasn't it foolish of Israel to let them advance to that stage and not to have scotched it years ago by annexing at least the nearby settlement blocs? What does this show about PM Netanyahu's policy of helping prepare the P.A. for statehood? How did he ever anticipate eventual peace from such fanatics? GLOBAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM & ISRAEL 10/28/09: Islamic terrorists murdered 100 in Peshawar, Pakistan 2008: Islamic terrorists murdered a couple of thousand Pakistanis 2008: Islamic terrorists murdered 1,391 Indians 2008: Jihadists trained indoctrinated and trained in explosives returned from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria to France. There they remain a menace, although France is pro-Palestinian Arab Britain has become a hub of terrorist activity. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007, Muslim terrorists set off three bombs in his country, which is pro-Palestinian Arab, too. Sunni Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorize Shiite regimes, while Iran-supported Shiites terrorize Sunni regimes in the Gulf region, Egypt, and Jordan, seeking Iranian domination of the Gulf. Yemen is a new center of both Sunni and Shiite terrorism. "Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century, in order to settle their domestic and inter-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with non-Muslims, irrespective of the Palestinian issue, Israel's policies and Israel's existence?" U.S. DID NOT DESTROY IRAQI ARTIFACTS During the Iraq War and before the insurgency, media reports accused U.S. forces of destroying ancient Iraqi artifacts or letting them get stolen; those reports were false. "A Jan. 15, 2005, BBC report, for example, began...'Coalition forces in Iraq have caused irreparable damage to the ancient city of Babylon, the British Museum says.' It continued with such details as 'sandbags have been filled with precious archeological fragments and 2,600 year-old paving stones have been crushed by tanks,' and that long trenches were dug 'through archeological deposits.'" Another claim was that a coalition helicopter base cracked the animal bas-reliefs on Babylon's original walls. In truth, Iraq's National Museum retains its great treasures, many having been kept locked in vaults. What happened? Saddam's regime looted the Museum of some of his country's national heritage. It even substituted fake items for genuine ones. Western Archeologists, including critics of the U.S., inspected the important, southern fifth of Iraq. They found that the archeological sites suffered almost no damage since Saddam. Saddam had damaged the ancient Babylon site by building a palace in it, removing ancient remains clumsily, deploying a tank regiment there, etc.. Marine Chaplain Emilio Arrero, records arriving early and finding the murals and other parts of the site already damaged. He described "how they worked conscientiously to protect the site, ejecting looters, undertaking repairs of the perimeter and establishing ground rules for the war's duration." The helicopters were too far away, and rise too vertically, to have damaged artifacts, far below ground. Iron railings, still in place, indicated that allied tanks had not crushed sensitive areas. The allied trenches reported by UNESCO had been dug and sandbags filled beyond the site. The earlier reports were defamatory. Some of the same archeologists who sponsored them have begun acknowledging the truth, but too slowly and softly (Wall St. J, 11/14, A15). IRAN DEMANDS SANCTIONS END IN ADVANCE Iran is demanding that sanctions on it be rescinded before it agrees to a nuclear fuel exchange. That is the plan for its fuel to be enriched outside Iran, to less than weapons grade. Iran explains that the West needs to show goodwill (www.imra.org.il, 11/16). Iran is a proved nuclear scofflaw. If any party can reasonably be asked to show goodwill, that party is Iran. The plan is phony, especially as Iran amended it after having said it accepted it. The amendment is that some fuel would stay in the country. Iran could turn it into weapons grade, itself. The original plan was a snare, too. The foreign country would enrich the fuel almost to minimum weapons grade. Iran then could all the more easily upgrade it the rest of the way. The notion of a promise-breaking miscreant demanding that punishment be removed in return for a promise, is ridiculous. Iran is acting like the Arabs, in making agreements that it breaks but insisting that the other party keep its commitment. For more on this, click here http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d14-Ahmadinejad-declares- victory-on-Irans-nuclear-program For an earlier article on whether Iran is reputable, click here:
ISRAEL REACTS T ABBAS THREAT TO DECLARE STATE The government of Israel reacted to Abbas' threat to declare a state, by threatening unilateral actions of its own. Those include annexing nearby settlement blocs, ending excise tax payments to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), and withdrawing from the Oslo Accords. The P.A. answered that its threat to act is not unilateral, because much of the world approves. It also scoffed at the Israeli threat, asserting that all the area it claims already is occupied (www.imra.org.il, 11/16). This is uncharted procedure, in a prejudiced and overly political world. If the P.A. succeeds, it would have evaded totally acting against terrorism and indoctrination in bigotry that it had pledged officially, yet be rewarded with sovereignty. The answer that most of the world approves does not keep the proposed P.A. declaration from being unilateral. It would be a unilateral change violating the Oslo Accords it signed, and which bars unilateral change in the legal status of territory. Most countries probably would approve. They would approve of a mendacious, terrorist state eager to cause more problems. Dozens would approve because they hate the Jews. What does that tell us about the moral fibre of the "international community?" The P.A. answer to the Israeli reaction about annexation is mistaken, too. The areas that may be annexed are not now part of Israel. If the P.A. held negotiations, as it is supposed to do, it might get some of those areas. As for the other areas, they are under P.A. control except that Israeli forces cull out some terrorists, a duty that the P.A. was supposed to do but does not. Also, the P.A. cannot control its border with Israel and Jordan nor import arms. Why will it have taken 16 years of P.A. violations of Oslo for Israel to take the actions it threatens only now? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT, MR. LERNER
Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 16, 2009. |
|
To the Editor, Mr. Lerner's letter to today's Post ("Mideast answers" 11.16.09) is a tragic example of how half-truths are far more misleading than lies. Lerner asserts that during the 1948 war, Jordan made a deal with Ben-Gurion so that Jordan would get the West Bank but not join other Arab states in war against Israel. Such an assertion is nonsensical. There is no evidence for such a deal. Moreover, Jordan did enter the war, slaughtered half of the Jewish population of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter, and proved the most formidable of all of Israel's Arab opponents. He quotes Dov Weisglas "..withdrawal would put formaldehyde on the peace process..." to show that Israel's unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 would guarantee no Palestinian state. Such an assertion is nonsensical. Weisglas did indeed say that Israel's withdrawal would bring the peace process to a screeching halt, and he was right. Israel pulled out and Hamas quickly slaughtered hundreds of Fatah supporters, took over, and re-started the qassam attacks and suicide bombers. Hamas' bald-faced aggression did indeed put an end to the peace process, just as Weisglas predicted. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal in this unilateral withdrawal was to show Israel's commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state living at peace with Israel. Hamas torched the olive branch. Lerner asserts that 200,000 Israelis cannot live in the West Bank because international law prohibits the transfer one's population to occupied territory. Such an assertion is nonsensical. He is apparently unaware that the law refers to forcible transfer. Israel has never forcibly transferred Israelis in, or Arabs out, of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Israelis have voluntarily chosen to relocate to ancient Israelite sites on the West Bank or to locations that enhance Israel's security. Contrary to Arab propaganda, these actions in no way violate the Fourth Geneve Convention (1949) prohibition on forcible transfer. Lerner does get one point right. Arab citizens of Israel are not first class citizens. They do suffer discrimination in a variety of ways. Of course, they are much better off in just about every respect than their brethren in Arab lands, and enormously better off than religious and ethnic minorities in Arab countries who suffer brutal discrimination and in some cases massacre and expropriation of land by government forces (think, for example, of Darfur in Sudan where nearly 2,000,000 black African Christians and animists have been genocided by the Arab Sudanese government over the past 25 years). Does Lerner simply not know the facts that he omitted, or does he just hope that your readers don't? David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: RESPONDING WITH STRENGTH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 16, 2009. |
|
The Palestinian claims continue: They're preparing their state for unilateral independence. Abbas has already spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. PA leaders have already approached the EU and they plan to take the issue to the Security Council. Etc. etc. ~~~~~~~~~~ But now we're starting to see our government's response to these threats. At yesterday morning's Cabinet meeting there was a stiffening of positions. Silvan Shalom (Likud), Deputy Prime Minister, who's been singing a less conciliatory song of late, said: "I think the Palestinians need to know that unilateral moves will not yield the results they hope for. Every action will receive an appropriate Israeli response." While Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) declared: "The unilateral Palestinian move is a hostile initiative. I think it is brazen. The initiative is meant to torpedo any chance for negotiations. It must be made clear that any unilateral declaration on their part that is meant to deteriorate the chances for negotiations needs to be accompanied from our side with annexation of territories in Judea and Samaria." ~~~~~~~~~~ Broadly, what he was referring to were the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria — not all of Judea and Samaria, which would include areas that are heavily Arab-populated. Within Jewish-populated Judea and Samaria are some major community blocs, a few cities, a scattering of smaller villages, and that small part of Hevron that we control, with Kiryat Arba immediately adjacent. Caroline Glick, in her column last Friday, made a similar suggestion. She said that — in response to the various pressures and attempts to diminish us that we currently endure — it's time to incorporate into Israel all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, plus the Jordan Valley, which is crucial for our security. Technically, the process would not be one of annexation, for these areas are part of unclaimed Mandate land. All we need to do is claim them, by extending Israel's civil law to these regions — just as we extended civil law to eastern Jerusalem and the Golan. (Communities in Judea and Samaria today are administered under Israeli military law.) While ALL of the land is ours from the river to the sea, extending Israeli civil law to areas such as Ramallah would be a "tad" difficult now. This could have, and should have, been done in 1967. But how marvelous it would be if we made it clear to the world that Gush Etzion, and Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, and Shilo, and Beit El, and Jewish Hevron (see below) and Kiryat Arba, etc. etc. are all fully under Israeli sovereignty. That there could be no expectation, ever, of our returning to pre-67 lines. And how wonderful for the residents of these areas, finally and at long last, to be governed under the same laws that govern residents of Tel Aviv. What Landau was suggesting was something that would be done only in response to a unilateral Palestinian action. But to have this mentioned in a Cabinet meeting... a move in the right (double entendre intended) direction. ~~~~~~~~~~ That Prime Minister Netanyahu was thinking roughly along the same lines was made clear later in the day yesterday. For the past two days a major Forum has been held here in Jerusalem, run by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy (which is part of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC and is directed by Martin Indyk). Last night Netanyahu addressed the Forum. His talk included this: "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel." ~~~~~~~~~~ 
Today, Landau, in cooperation with Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, has carried this one step further, proposing legislation with regard to extending our sovereignty. The full content of that proposed legislation has not been spelled out (if indeed it is even worked out), but what seems clear is that it is conceptualized as a response to a Palestinian unilateral move. But now Landau was a bit more specific, and a great deal more expansive, in terms of what areas he is talking about: "Israeli sovereignty over all of area C." (Citation from the Post.) This refers to the division of Judea and Samaria agreed upon with the Oslo Accords: Area A = full PA control, Area B = PA civic control and Israeli military control, and Area C = full Israeli control. This encompasses an area far greater than that of all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria combined — which comprise less than 5% of the whole. Designed as it would be to counter Palestinian unilateral action, it would render a Palestinian state an impossibility. I hasten to caution, however, that unless we're pushed a whole lot harder, something like this is not likely to go very far in the Knesset. In fact, it's most likely to go nowhere. More's the pity. But I like it that this is entering the political discourse. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like here, in this context, to recommend an article by Timna Katz, "Love of the Land: The Testing Ground of Shdema": "The lesson of Oslo is tragic but profound. Oslo turned the 'peace process' into the country's supreme value and goal. To keep this process going, the Israeli leadership was prepared to sacrifice almost every Jewish and Zionist truth. It exchanged the old values and ideals for a realpolitik that served the enemy's narrative and goals. Even when the results of Oslo proved to be the polar opposites of its intended goals — war instead of peace, increased Arab rejectionism instead of increased Arab acceptance, international isolation instead of international normalization — Israel continued down the same disastrous path. The one and only justification against total capitulation to Arab demands that Israel mustered was the 'security' card: Israel can't immediately relinquish all of Yesha because she has no choice but to defend herself against 'terrorism'. ~~~~~~~~~~ Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has predicted that the chances that a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state would receive Security Council sanction are very low. In addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today, he said: "...the Americans also understand that unilateralism buries any chance for peace. They will be very uncomfortable with such a move." And indeed, US senators visiting here today expressed displeasure with PA intimations of unilateralism and the expectation that the US would veto this. Leiberman then reiterated the government position: "Any unilateral move will be met with a unilateral move on our part. We have a lot to do in response." And he made a very significant point: "Unilaterally declaring a state is a violation of the agreements [the PLO] signed with Israel, and Israel will also be freed of its obligations." ~~~~~~~~~~ What irks me the most is the way in which the PA continues its eternal role as victim — in this instance painting itself as the negotiating partner ever-eager for peace that has had to confront an intransigent Israel. Consider this statement today by Ahmed Qurei, member of the PLO Executive Committee and former PA prime minister: "So far we have made negotiations our top priority, but this has led nowhere apart from additional settlements, creating facts on the ground and reinforcing the process of Judaizing Jerusalem." ~~~~~~~~~~ I will remind one and all that: [] The PLO is still committed to Israel's destruction, having never amended its charter. Note: The PLO is the over-arching umbrella organization that ostensibly speaks for all Palestinians; it negotiated the Oslo Accords. The PA is the (theoretically interim) administrative entity established by Oslo. In reality the two are broadly overlapping. ~~~~~~~~~~ Former president Bill Clinton also spoke at the Saban Forum. He talked turkey to the Palestinians, telling them, "Take where we are and the reformulation of the settlement issue and find a way [to move forward]," by which he meant it was time for them to stop making a federal case about the fact that Obama had insisted on a settlement freeze and then backed off on that. But he also threw statements at us — in an attempt to push us along — that were either inaccurate or unreasonable. First, he used the demographic card, telling us that because Palestinians are having children at a faster rate, our Jewish state is at risk. But this argument has been disproved by statistics in recent years. And then he said that it was only a matter of time before Hamas would be able to put a GPS system on its rockets launched into Israel. "The trajectory of technology is not your friend, ... you need to get this done and you do have partners." This facile warning, this attempt to frighten us into an agreement, on the face of it is nonsense, because we're currently supposed to be negotiating with the PA in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza is outside the loop in any event. Why do ostensible leaders (or former leaders) persist in ignoring this elephant in the room? ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" This past Shabbat we read "Chaye Sarah" as our Torah portion. It tells of the death of Sarah and the purchase by Avraham of a field, which held a cave, for Sarah's burial. This was in Hevron, and Avraham paid Ephron the Hittite 400 silver shekels for it. (Bresheit 23:16) All of our patriarchs and matriarchs, with the exception of Rachel, are buried there, in the Ma'arat HaMachpela. (The original double cave is hidden way beneath the current structure.) It is customary in recent years to visit Hevron during the Shabbat of this reading. But this year was incredible: 20,000 people came. They were hosted by families in Hevron and in adjacent Kiryat Arba. They slept in yeshiva buildings and in tents. Surely this is something akin to a miracle, and echoes the theme of the awakening of our people that is emerging slowly now. For more about the Machpela: http://www.machpela.com/. Enter the site, take the tours.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
COMMEMORATING THE MARTYRDOM OF IMAM ALI
Posted by Benami, November 16, 2009. |
|
This was sent by J. Doron on the "peaceful commemoration by the tolerant majority of Muslims." |
|
From a friend in Houston .. Today I went to the Harwin Central Mall to pick up some crystals. The very first store that you come to when you walk from the lobby of the building into the shopping area had this sign posted on their door. The shop is run by Muslims. I couldn't stay in the building, it made me so sick. 
Imam Ali flew one of the planes into the twin towers.
Contact Benami by email at farme@012.net.il
|
|
IT IS TIME TO ERECT A NEW STATE AND HOMELAND IN PALESTINE FOR PALESTINIANS!
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 16, 2009. |
|
Friends, I have at long last come to a realization. The only way to create stability and peace in the Middle East is through creating a new independent state and homeland in Palestine and moving all of the Palestinians into it. I am of course referring to Palestine, Texas. Yes, there is a town in Texas named Palestine and frankly I think it would be a wonderful place to erect a homeland for Palestinians. The weather is not all that different from that in the area of the Land of Israel referred to incorrectly by some people as Palestine. Moreover, there are oodles of advantages to moving all of the Palestinians to Palestine (Texas). First, their water problems would be solved. Palestine, Texas is home to the lovely Lake Palestine. Second, the largest employer in Palestine is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. I guess that means the prison authorities. And who better to host the large number of Palestinians moving in to town and making them feel snug and comfortable! Moreover, Palestine has a rich cultural and historic heritage.
The town's web page claims there are more than 1800 historical sites
in the town. It even has its own "Old City," its own 'Ir 'Atika,
called, well "Old Town." (See this photo of it at
Palestine was where the Space Shuttle crashed. It also has a wonderful history of accommodating itself to those with strong religious beliefs. David Koresh, the whacko who ran the religious cult calling itself the "Branch Davidians," set up his first religious camp in Palestine, Texas. The Palestinians could name the site "Al Aqsa," if they wish. After all, they have as much bona fide theological connection to that site as they do to East Jerusalem! The founder of the "Branch Davidians," a flake named Victor Houteff, wanted to set up the new Kingdom of King David there in Palestine, Texas. And he was into having dozens of virgins as his reward also! Palestine has parks and a library and a YMCA. Just like Jerusalem!
There is a nice branch of the University of Texas at Tyler that
operates in Palestine. I am sure it could be renamed Bir Zeit or Ben
Gurion University. It even has a gazebo. Take a look at downtown
Palestine here at And best of all, it really is not too far to commute to Fort Hood in case any Palestinian still wants to protest occupation! Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER DOES IT AGAIN!
Posted by Saul Issroff, November 16, 2009. |
|
This man should be appointed King of the World. Truer words have never been spoken. It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Austrilia's beliefs. Whole world Needs A Leader Like This! This is his speech below. 
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths. If you agree please SEND THIS ON and ON to as many people as you know. |
|
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.. Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.' 'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom' 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!' 'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.' 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.' 'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
|
|
THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY IN BRITAIN
Posted by Boris Celser, November 16, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Tom Gross and is archived at
|
|
Tomorrow evening, Britain's Channel 4 will broadcast a one-hour documentary, called Inside Britain's Israel Lobby hosted by Daily Mail journalist Peter Oborne, a well-known critic of Israel and America. The preview of the program on the website of Channel 4 (a channel which is more highly revered among many in Britain's intelligentsia than even the BBC, despite it having invited Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver its annual Christmas message last December 25) reads: Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel. If only. Whereas there is a pro-Israel lobby with some influence in the U.S. (though not the kind of influence ascribed to it by anti-Semites), contrary to what Channel 4 and others think, there is no effective pro-Israel lobby in Britain. The complete lack of any effective pro-Israel lobby in Britain (as opposed to well-organized anti-Israel groups) helps explain why some of the coverage of Israel in the British media is among the worst in the world, and sometimes rivals the Iranian and Egyptian media for its sheer nastiness. It also explains why Britain failed to back Israel last week at the U.N. General Assembly vote on the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes, while other democracies — including the U.S., Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Macedonia, and the Czech Republic — voted with Israel. NEO-NAZI WEBSITES PROMOTE CHANNEL 4 PROGRAM Interestingly, the makers of the program contacted the Community Security Trust (CST) for interview. The CST has got nothing to do with lobbying for Israel. It coordinates security activities with the British police to protect Jewish schools, synagogues, and other institutions from attack. Physical attacks on British Jews are running at near-record postwar highs. Per capita, British Jews have in the last couple of years been attacked more than any other religious or ethnic minority in Britain. The makers of Channel 4's program, Hardcash Productions, wrote last week to the CST's chairman to inform him that they "will be looking at a number of groups and leading individuals who collectively make up the pro-Israel lobby, including the Community Security Trust," and to ask him for an interview. When one looks at the advance wording about the program that Channel 4 has placed on its website, it is hard not to conclude that they have been influenced by the many virulent anti-Zionist conspiracy theories spread around the web. Already the readers' comments on the Channel 4 website contains many anti-Semitic notions about secretive all-powerful Jewish conspiracies "to undermine Britain and the human race." "The agents of a foreign power embedded at all levels of our government and politics need flushing out," writes one reader. Predictably, the program is being promoted on the Internet message board of the far-right British National party and various neo-Nazi websites. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
FT HOOD MASSACRE, MEDIA AND AFGHANISTAN; IRAN'S INTERNET POLICE; PERES: NETANYAHU AGREES TO CEDE JUDEA-SAMARIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 16, 2009. |
|
FT. HOOD MASSACRE, MEDIA, AND AFGHANISTAN What do the media make of the Ft. Hood massacre and its relationship to Afghanistan? NY Times columnist Frank Rich wrote, "The dead at Ft. Hood had not even been laid to rest when their massacre became yet another political battle cry for the self-proclaimed patriots of the American right." "Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the defense Dept., the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration. All these institutions had failed to heed th warning signs raised by Hasan's behavior and activities because they are blinded by political correctness toward Muslims, too eager to portray criminals as sympathetic victims of social injustice, and too cowardly to call out evil when it strikes 432 innocents in cold blood." "The invective aimed at these heinous P.C. pantywaists nearly matched that aimed at Hasan. " Later, Mr. Rich admits, "And it's quite possible that some of what this crowd says is right." (11/15, Op-Ed.). If his targets of sarcasm quite possibly are correct, what justifies his sarcasm? Nothing. But he writes, as more and more of the supposedly staid "grey lady" at Times Square does, with liberal invective. Hysteria should be omitted by both liberals and conservatives. Consider the emotional opening, about the dead not yet buried before right-wingers find lapses in national security. It is a false emotion. One justifiably seeks to plug a leak while it is leaking. Rich calls them "self-proclaimed patriots of the right," but they quite possibly are correct? That is both nasty and a cover-up for the liberals having become less patriotic than during the Cold War. Many call themselves citizens of the world. Their political correctness has helped prevent a proper assessment of the menace from radical Islam. I don't know what right-wing hysteria Rich came across, but I read the conservative Wall St. Journal, besides the liberal NY Times. The Journal has a sober assessment. It weights the evidence as it comes in. Indications of ever greater security lapses have been coming in. A fair question is, has the F.B.I. failed to reform its notorious failure to share evidence of crime? The Journal does not accuse government agencies of being conspirators, that is hyperbole. Rich should admit that it is too soon to reach conclusions, but a Senate investigation of some agencies may be warranted when the Army finishes its own. Rich accuses right-wingers on the warpath against the shooter and his possible Islamic motive and association of opposing the proposed new Afghanistan war strategy. That strategy calls for more troops, partly in order to be able to win the friendship of the people of Afghanistan, who are Muslims. I do not see the self-contradiction Rich does. I think that if we can prevent Islamist terrorism here, we should, even while trying to win friendship abroad. They and we have the same enemy! How we handle ourselves, whether with professional objectivity or with hysteria, is the key. I don't know whether Afghanistan is too corrupt for us to save it, or whether American has the staying power. We need to study the issue and combine our talents, not be partisan about it, the way Rich is. The Journal is conducting itself the right way about this, at this stage, in asking questions. COMPETING ARAB-JEWISH CLAIMS IN JERUSALEM A new book on competing religious and ethnic claims in Jerusalem was co-authored by people on different sides. It is an unusual collaboration. One co-author is Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al-Quds University. He usually is portrayed as a moderate, the label lending him credibility. Not mentioned was a way of assessing his decency, for example, his having let Al-Quds U. use its chemistry classes to teach bomb-making. Another misinterpreted statement is that the visit to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon, "set off riots that heralded a Palestinian uprising." The riots were prepared for Arafat by Barghouti, who exploited and distorted Sharon's inoffensive visit into a religious affront. Sharon did nothing wrong. It hasn't occurred to the Times that Palestinian Arab leaders are rabble-rousers, and their rabble too easily roused, possibly because of their religious notion of superiority. A co-author hinted at that by explaining that Muslims consider the whole compound a mosque. They think they should have exclusive religious access. The article: "More recently, the authorities on both sides have accused both Jewish and Islamic extremists of incitement, and there have been sporadic clashes between the police and stone-throwing Muslim protesters on the mount this fall." The NY Times should not resort to the question-betting, vague Israeli terms, "incitement" and "extremists." For decades, the Palestinian Arab leadership has fomented violence and even war. Certain religious Jews want to pray on the Mount, but do not incite to violence. Again, the article: "The lack of archaeological evidence of the ancient temples has led many Palestinians to deny any real Jewish attachment or claim to the plateau." Attachment need not come from archeological evidence. Otherwise, why wouldn't the Times point out that there is no archeological or any other evidence to support the Muslim claim of the site's holiness to them? But there is archeological evidence of the Second Temple and archeological evidence of the Jewish presence at the time of the First Temple. Ironically, while claiming no evidence for them exists, the Muslim Waqf destroyed much of it. Also, the Second Temple existed in historical times, and the record shows it. Mr. Nusseibeh urges a stoppage by "Israeli-led archaeological excavations near the mount that threaten Muslim relics" that "totally flout what is divine!" Why doesn't he urge stoppage of illegal Arab construction that could have collapsed the whole Mount down and that destroys Jewish artifacts? By contrast, Israeli excavation endangered nothing, despite malicious rumors spread by Muslim leaders. Israeli archeologists to not threaten the few Muslim relics they find — they are professional, not political. BILL CLINTON THINKS RABIN COULD HAVE MADE PEACE Commemorating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rabin, Bill Clinton remarked that if Rabin had lived, he would have made peace within three years. Not true. The polls showed his opponent, Benjamin Netanyahu, well ahead. Rabin's assassination caused Netanyahu, whom Rabin's Labor Party smeared for the assassination, to drop in the polls. He barely eked out a victory. If Rabin had lived, his party would not have gotten a sympathy vote, and he surely would have lost (www.imra.org.il, 11/15). Clinton is mistaken for another reason, too. He assumes that peace is up to an Israeli leader. He supposes that such a leader need only make more territorial concessions. Actually, PM Barak did, but Arafat spurned them. In any case, the cause of war is not territory but religion, specifically jihad. No Israeli leader can reform Islamic approval of jihad. It is not up to Israel to make peace, when the Muslim Arabs do not want genuine peace. Implied by Clinton is criticism of Rabin's successors for not having made peace. That shows that, at least publicly, Clinton does not understand the jihad-Israel conflict. IRAN TO SET UP INTERNET POLICE Iran plans to set up Internet police, to deal with crimes via Internet. Iran's police chief attributes 26% of crimes to slander and lies (www.imra.org.il, 11/15). When a totalitarian regime gives a reason for its action, there is no reason to give it credence. What Iran refers to as slander and lies may largely be accuracy and truth. But when the Internet statements criticize either the regime or anything Islamic, truth in an Islamic country is not a defense, they want to ban it. Notice that mere protests caused police to beat, arrest, torture, and murder Iranians. ARAB PROTESTORS BREACH ISRAELI SECURITY WALL Arab protestors broke through a gate in the Israeli security wall [probably just a fence, there] near Tulkarem. They rioted, but Israeli police arrested some. The arrests were noted by Anarchists Against the Wall, an Israeli group. The protestors claim that the fence cut off Arab farmers from some of their fields, and they did not get permission to enter them (www.imra.org.il, 11/15). Jews often lead Arab protestors, though the article was not clear about that. The route of the fence has been greatly changed by court appeals. Israel tried to place many openings in the fence and arrange for Arabs to pass through, so why violence? The article did not state that violent protests are staged almost every week, about the fence in general. Where are the protests against Arab terrorism that caused Israel to erect a fence? CALIFORNIA-ISRAEL RENEWABLE ENERGY ALLIANCE California Gov. Schwarznegger signed an alliance with Israel on renewable energy. Both parties have companies specializing in the new technology, into which the U.S. is pouring billions of dollars. The companies will pool their research in order to produce results (www.imra.org.il, 11/15). PERES: NETANYAHU AGREES TO CEDE JUDEA-SAMARIA Israeli President Peres, speaking in Brazil, said that Israel should relinquish Judea-Samaria, and get peace. He claimed that his statement was coordinated with PM Netanyahu. National Union Party head MK Yaakov Katz believes Peres. He cited Housing Minister Ariel Atlas, who said that Netanyahu ordered him not to approve any new housing in the area. Katz asserted that voters are getting disillusioned with the Left, including Netanyahu. Many voted for Netanyahu, because they believed his professing to have learned from his [appeasement-minded] concessions. But he has not changed. Netanyahu also gained votes from the efforts of Moshe Feiglin, a religious right-winger who urged his own followers to try to gain influence in Likud and therefore voted for Likud. However, since he was a rival of Likud, Netanyahu had the part switch Feiglin to a place on the candidate list so far down, that Likud did not get enough votes to elect him. Katz hopes that all these votes will accrue to his party, staunchly nationalist (IMRA, 11/15). U.S. TO SEIZE IRAN'S MOSQUES & TOWER IN NEW YORK Claiming that the Alavi Foundation is a terrorist front for Iran, the U.S is moving to seize four mosques, an officer tower in New York, and other Alavi assets. The Foundation lawyers will contest the action. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
FOUR MOVIES IN REVIEW
Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, November 16, 2009. |
|
Four films this week merit consideration as related thematically. They concern killing, death, genocide and the future of mankind in surviving these scourges. WORSE THAN WAR, by the noted archivist and nazi-era historian, Daniel Goldhagen; Florence Berkowitz Siegelberg's THE ROAD FROM DESTRUCTION; DEFAMATION, by Yoav Shamir; and the uplifting cheer of Andrew Jacobs' FOUR SEASONS LODGE. |
|
WORSE THAN WAR Directed by Daniel Goldhagen
Historian Daniel W. Goldhagen (HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS) and his documentary, Worse Than War, treats the why of genocides the world over. His less-inflammatory term for the concept is eliminationism. "Genocide" lives among tricky definitional thickets. Goldhagen states resignedly that, on this issue, "The UN is absolutely useless," and cannot — and will not — do a thing to stop leaders from underwriting and designing the planned extermination of the minorities and populaces they choose to eliminate. Goldhagen says the conundrum is that, were these murderous leaders (Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Montt, al Bashir et al.) to have attempted to destroy outliers, people from beyond their borders, they would have been stopped. But inside a sovereign land, the thought goes, they cannot be stopped because it is an "internal matter," though it is not. We asked why decent colleagues could not fix their heads around the glaringly obvious that the Fort Hood massacre was a deliberate planned attack over many months of prep, buying guns, giving away household goods and food, giving away that book that encourages murder of all of us who don't bow to the pederast thief illiterate prophet. Intoning as he killed the magic suicide killer refrain, Allahu Akhbar. His personal card says on it: SOA = Soldier of Allah. Not a secretive sort; a man who wanted to kill as many of us as he could. Goldhagen, the historian struggling to master his disgust as he spoke with mass murderers in the fields of Rwanda, and to the mass murderer in Guatemalan public administrative offices where 25 years ago he slew so many, getting away absolutely Scott free, who genially smiled and denied the public record of his thousands upon thousands of murdered Maya tribesmen for no reason at all except inconvenience, smiled wanly at my question and explained that people fear the implications of such clear signs of endless desire to kill. Goldhagen's elderly and uber-articulate father (who has lectured at Harvard with courses on the Holocaust) accompanies his son on a reluctant revisiting of the site where thousands of his villagers in Prussia/Romania/Poland were murdered in cold blood, into open graves. How his family survived is a miracle that protrudes in the moist eyes and laconic surrealism that afflicts the videographers and historians as they encounter the ghosts of the past. This film is harrowing — Serbia (Thousands of longtime muslim locals shot to death), Germany (6+ mm Jews, other white Russians, Gypsies, and more), Bosnia, Rwanda (450,000 Tutsi hacked to pieces with hatchets), Guatemala (200,000 maya slain), Turkey (genocide — 1 mm dead — against the Armenians, which the Turks deny still) — the dead from these countries and others mounts to higher than all the war dead in history — just in the 20th century alone. And the ongoing sore of the rape of millions of black animist and Christian blacks in Sudan, where al Bashir does not give a rap about the world's opinion, and blithely says "We have oil, so we don't have to listen to anyone." So the Janjaweed continue their decade-long massacre and vast rapine of their own countrymen (though non-co-religionists). I have worked on this Sudanese issue for more than a decade, and have participated in buying back slaves ($250-$500 per slave-life) from Sudan, many of whom now live in NJ, and are devout Christians. Goldhagen's suggestion remedy: "The calculus of greed versus loss has to be countered by the cost of their crimes." His recommendation: Substantial bounties on the heads of all mass murdering leaders. All survivors of massacres and eliminationisms in their countries, Rwanda prison, Bosnia, Guatemala and elsewhere — agreed that such an incentive would pretty much eliminate the casual fearlessness of these autocrats who murder masses because they know they will never be held to account.
FOUR SEASONS LODGE Directed by Andrew Jacobs A joyous hand-held documentary on the 60-year-long vacation resort up in the Catskills where some 100 Holocaust Survivors come together annually to dance, play cards, dine together, revel in each other's love and comfort. Having no relatives of their own from the Europe of WWII, they love each other as the families they lost forever under the Reich's plan to extirpate all Jews. A remarkable commonality among these Polish, Rumanian, Austrian and Hungarian Jews is that though they came to the US with nothing at all, they are now healthy, well-off, largely optimistic parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Their joy is palpable. This documentary could as well be called Triumph of the Spirit — and mean it.
THE ROAD FROM DESTRUCTION Created and Directed by Florence Berkowitz Siegelberg A documentary from the heart, with an even tighter budget that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, this 2-hour labor of love explores not only the overview history of European anti-Semitism in the past millennium in matter-of-fact voice-over accompanied by the bleeding of maps and country borders, but also itemizes the Nuremberg Laws, and the many restrictions on Jewish citizens' freedom to live, act, work or earn money in any profession as the 30s marched into the Night of Broken Glass, Krystallnacht, that signaled the brutal start of the hitlerian war against 'his' European Jews in earnest. What never fails to stab one in the entrails is the information that after the Stormtroopers and Gestapo and average Germans ransacked and burnt hundreds of priceless homes and synagogues, concert halls and schools to cinders, breaking the windows of every Jewish-owned business they could identify (these were Germans, so homework had of course been done long before 9 November 1938) It is technically rougher than most documentaries available commercially; with its in-depth interviews of some 10 Holocaust Survivors from Germany, Austria, Hungary, Rumania, Poland, Italy and Greece and elsewhere during the war years complementing the chilling historical and legal passages, however, viewers are treated to nearly astonishing true stories of escape by a whisker or eyelash. These are articulate men and women in their 80s and 90s, all living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, all attendees of the synagogue known as "OZ," Ohav Zedek (Love of Justice) all of sound mind and tearful memory, who detail for those who might not yet know how anyone made his or her way to Switzerland, over mountains and rivers, into France and the UK, oftentimes to Israel or the US. Most of these interviewees were fortunate in having been from privileged backgrounds. Indeed, had their families not been quick to use every particle of their considerable assets to obtain passports and papers, transit through unfriendly way-stations and "acquired" temporary religions and friends, we would not have them, and their grateful children and grandchildren, today. Why another documentary on what some might think they know, about a blood-drenched time? TRFD is an invaluable witness to what transpired 60 years ago. It captures stories not elsewhere told. It traces the path of grim violence and inconceivable brutality of the massively documented effort to kill every one of the world's 18 million Jews. THE ROAD FROM DESTRUCTION is a faceted, welcome addition to the historical cachement that we have no permission to forget.
DEFAMATION Directed by Yoav Shamir Director Shamir, a louche Israeli, asks: What is the measurable extent of anti-Semitism today: USA, Europe, the World? Shamir travels with Abe Foxman, controversial head of the Anti-Defamation League, on speaking engagements, and on accompanied tours to Israel, monuments to the Holocaust dead, and the Holocaust Museum in Israel. He does not stick to just those who would aver massive anti-Semitism alive throughout the world today: He ventures into interviews with well-known antagonists such a Norman Finkelstein, himself the son of Survivors, who is bizarrely antagonistic toward the commemoration of the damage and history of the Holocaust. He interviews scary "former" Nazis. He speaks with the Orthodox and the assimilated, not forgetting the ADL staffers themselves. His tracking of a busload of Israeli teenagers as they travel to Auschwitz and other camps for the first time is revealing for the gradual disintegration of their tough-guy Sabra exteriors, to unstoppable eventual weeping and grief as they come to feel and know the significance of those piles of baby shoes, those hillocks of shorn hair and bifocals. The film title cuts both ways. To some, it might represent just the defaming and caricaturing of a noble people who have been tormented beyond reason for centuries, and even now, in the US, is still the #1 recipient of hate crimes and attempted attacks in synagogue and elsewhere. To others, the film coverage itself produces an unsatisfying resolution at seeing and hearing the vile frothings of those who have some not-hidden agendae to spout, and some unwarranted personal attacks against those who work ceaselessly to soothe and delete the calls for killing even the Jews of today. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/536605/blogs/ view.php?id=625124#blogs_main
Contact Marion DS Dreyfus by email at mdsdm |
|
WASHPOST EDITORIAL: WAR UNCHECKED
Posted by Daily Alert, November 16, 2009. |
|
The U.N.'s Goldstone commission missed a chance to promote accountability on 21st-century battlefields. This was an editorial in yesterday's Washington Post. |
|
IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians. Was that toll "disproportionate" to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime? This is the sort of fraught question that the United Nations and its Human Rights Council, in theory, ought to be focused on. Asymmetrical wars, in which terrorists and insurgents deliberately mix among civilians, are the story of the 21st century so far — and there are no clear norms for managing the moral dilemmas they pose. Can a drone's targeter knowingly expose civilians to injury if a terrorist leader is in range? How should a civilized army respond when its soldiers are mortared, or its own civilians exposed to rocket fire, from a position inside a schoolyard? A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict. But Israel refused to cooperate — and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence. By pretending it did not know whether Hamas employed such tactics and by claiming that Israel's actions were driven by a motivation to kill civilians on purpose, rather than to defeat Hamas, the panel dodged the hard issues it should have tackled. It did not seriously attempt to balance civilian deaths against the threats Israel was targeting or to understand the real motivations for the destruction in areas from which rockets were launched at Israeli cities. As it happens, Israel is ahead of most other nations in managing these issues. In Gaza its forces used thousands of e-mails, phone calls and even non-lethal explosives to warn civilians away from airstrike targets. Its army's criminal division is investigating 45 complaints of abuses. A broader, government-sanctioned independent investigation is called for: a number of specific allegations in the Goldstone report, one-sided though they are, deserve a full answer. Not just Israel but the United States and many other nations ought to face more pressure to justify the means they use to fight insurgents and terrorists. Sadly, the only thing proved by the Goldstone commission is that the United Nations is incapable of performing that service. 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 MODERN MIRACLE CALLED HEBRON
Posted by David Wilder, November 16, 2009. |
|
Most people view miracles as 'one-time' events, such as the parting of the sea during the Exodus from Egypt, or the sun standing still at Givon. But I have news for anyone who so thinks: there are miracles that are continuous acts of G-d. A number of examples come to mind, but at the present, the phenomenon at the forefront of my thoughts is none other than: Hebron. A few months ago we marked the eightieth anniversary of the 1929-Tarpat riots and massacre which decimated Hebron's age-old Jewish community. A small group which returned in 1931 was expelled by the British in 1936. Who could have imagined that Jews would ever return to this holy city, especially following the Jordanian occupation during the War of Independence? Even in the midst of the Six Day War the Israeli government attempted to prevent Jordanian participation in the battles, but Hussein, carried away by is own propaganda, began shelling Jerusalem. The result was Israel's liberation of the Wall, Temple Mount and all of the holy city, as well as Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people. Who would have believed that an ancient city such as Hebron could be repopulated by Jews, a city left vacant of Jews following the horrid 1929 massacre? But it happened. At no time in the history of the world has a people been able to literally 'return home' following a 2,000 year old exile. No people has ever been able to gather in the exiled, from the four corners of the earth. No people has ever been able to reestablish an ancient language, the tongue of the sacred, the letters and words of the Torah. This is not only renewal. It is rebirth. It is a stage in the revival of the dead. But the miracle does not stop there. After all, an infant does have life, an infant can breath and eat, but little more than that. An infant must also survive, living long enough to grow, learn, and develop, physically and mentally. That can be more difficult than the birth itself. But so it has been. No lack of difficulties, acting as stumbling blocks, have stood in the way of advancement. A plague, a disease called anti-Semitism, an inbred hate of Judaism and Israel, struck immediately, attempting to stamp out the newborn life at its very inception. Yet that affliction was unable to wipe out the inner yearnings that had lived within the souls of the almost lifeless body called Israel. Israel's essence refused to yield, breaking through the eggshell of infancy to being a full-fledged global presence. Despite attempts, again and again, of that potentially fatal affliction, Israel overcame. And it was only natural that the sign of triumph not only be progressing forward, but also, no less important, reaching back to the beginnings of our existence, to the roots of our collective soul, from which we evoked the strength to keep alive for thousands of years, from which we were able arouse the inner fortitude to negate the deadly viruses attempting to destroy us. It was only natural that the Jewish people would return to Hebron, to Ma'arat HaMachpela, to the original city of David, to the cradle of civilization, to the foundation of our existence. Over the years attempts continue to cut off, or renounce those roots. To no avail. This past Saturday over 20,000 people compressed themselves into one huge body of Am Yisrael, in the holy city of Hebron, to take part in 'Shabbat Hebron,' when we read in the Torah how Abraham paid Efron the Hittite 400 silver shekels ($750,000 today) for a field and a cave at the edge of that field. It is no small feat to host 20,000 people for 24 hours, but residents of Hebron and Kiryat Arba, working together, did just that. And these 20,000 people joined the over 150,000 Jews and gentiles who visited Hebron during the holiday season. And these tens of thousands joined the half a million who visit Hebron each year. But the trials continue. We can never stop and rest, not even for a moment. The infectious bacteria are still at work. Next Saturday night Hebron's US affiliate, the Hebron Fund, is hosting its annual dinner event in New York. This year's occasion has taken a unique turn, being held at Citi Stadium in Queens, new home of the New York Mets. For the past few weeks germs have been eating away at the Mets front office, trying to convince them to cancel the event. However those courageous people refuse to kowtow to them and call off the dinner. But that is not enough. We must ensure that hundreds and hundreds
show up at Citi Stadium, next Saturday night (call 718-677-6886 now
for details!or go to
A friend asked me how we can associate with the Mets; after all, they are 'losers.' I had two responses: first of all, I remember the 1969 Mets, the Miracle Mets with Tom Seaver, Buddy Harrelson and all the others, who took the World Series in 5 from Baltimore. With them I can certainly relate. But much more importantly, the Mets have proven that they are the real 'winners,' denying attempts to prevent Hebron from celebrating at their stadium. Moral victories are much more impressive than 'games won.' The Mets have had their miracles, and so has Hebron. Together, with all of you, we will unite to continue to prove to the world: Hebron, Meaz u'leTamid — Hebron, Now and Forever. See you Saturday night at Citi Stadium! David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886. |
|
THE EIDELBERG PLAN: A BRIEF OUTLINE
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 16, 2009. |
|
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg. |
|
Conclusion The question arises: What about the so-called Palestinian Arabs, now that Netanyahu has endorsed a Palestinian state? I do not believe that a Palestinian state bordering Israel will come into existence, and for two reasons. First, if Abbas or his successor recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, he will be assassinated, as was Anwar Sadat. Second, a Palestinian state would entail the expulsion of 300,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria. This will not happen. But making Israel more Jewish will lead to a large emigration of Arabs west of the Jordan River. This means that what is needed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the establishment of a Palestinian state, but to transform the State of Israel into an authentic Jewish Republic. Critics will say my program for constitutional reform is unrealistic. But those who think Israel can solve its conflict with the Palestinians by economic means, that is, by making them comfortable bourgeois democrats, are living in denial. Consider Israel's own Arab citizens, whose standard of living and opportunities far exceed those of their kinsmen in the Arab world. Yet most of these Arab citizens are committed to Israel's extinction. I invite my critics to ponder the experience of the Children of Israel who wandered in the desert for forty years before a generation arose free from Egyptian idolatry. There is no short-term solution to a civilizational conflict. ________________________ *Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 16, 2009. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
UK ANTI-SEMITISM ALIVE, WELL & INCREASING
Posted by Boris Celser, November 15, 2009. |
|
This was written by Noam Schwartz and appeared in
|
|
When introducing Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) at a recent lecture [1], Professor Michael Cox said the school invites such guests to critically engage and debate the perspectives of the speaker. And as a university in a democratic society, he said, the LSE must uphold the principles of free speech, tolerance, and pluralism. However, the school's administration and student newspaper, the LSE Beaver, have collectively provided an environment that validates extreme, hateful views of Israel while failing to provide a competing perspective. This has provoked not a thoughtful debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict but instead a race to the bottom — of who can slur Israel the most. The LSE hosts hundreds of speakers every year from all political leanings and dispositions, but recently its record is questionable with regard to censorship. Last winter it uninvited conservative author Douglas Murray from chairing a debate on the grounds of security concerns, while in 2006 the school hosted members of al-Muhajiroun (who were later banned under the British Terrorism Act of 2006). And according to the Telegraph, in 1995 the school's Freshers' Fair featured extremist groups [2] promoting an Islamic state in Britain. But in this debate the school has not stifled freedom of expression. After all, it did not submit to the demands of professors who wrote to the Beaver [3] saying they were "shocked" and "appalled" by the mere invitation of the deputy foreign minister to campus. The letter, signed by over two dozen LSE academics, scorns the university for giving "extraordinary prominence" to Mr. Ayalon by alerting members of the university community to the event via email. Another professor went so far as to call for an investigation to uncover who invited Mr. Ayalon. Fortunately, the school's commitment to free speech is greater than that of some of its distinguished professors. But whatever prominence had been granted to Ayalon by hosting him surely was outweighed by the despicable actions of anti-Israel protesters during the minister's (attempted) one-hour lecture and the tacit approval of these disruptions by the chair. Introduced amidst a chorus of boos, Ayalon had scarcely delivered his eighth sentence when various students began shouting obscenities at him and delivering impromptu sermons on their view of Israel. Called a "racist," "baby killer," or "fascist" before he had even commenced his lecture, he was drained out by hostile, ad hominem attacks and struggled to utter consecutive sentences for the duration of the event. The event, entitled "The Situation in the Middle East: The View from the Middle East," turned into a showcase for angry students to vent their displeasure with Israel through vulgar and repulsive remarks. While Professor Cox attempted to limit the hostility of the crowd, he did not impart a neutral voice into the debate. He somewhat grudgingly welcomed Mr. Ayalon to the stage and admitted openly to disagreeing with him, thereby encouraging the protesters. Mr. Cox exuded a rather cold demeanor relative to his treatment of United States Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano a few days later. Ms. Napolitano was bestowed with a gift from Mr. Cox, who said he was "delighted" to present her. In stark contrast, Mr. Cox asked students to "boo if you want to boo" at the conclusion of Mr. Ayalon's speech. When it came to the Q&A session following the "lecture" portion, Cox fueled further ugliness by granting the microphone to the student who was singularly responsible for interrupting the deputy foreign minister more than any of the other three hundred individuals in the hall. The student had nothing more constructive to offer than incredulity that Mr. Ayalon conceived of Israel as a Jewish state. He shouted: "Where was your father born?" He argued (wrongly, as Mr. Ayalon pointed out directly afterwards) that Jews are a minority in Israel and had never inhabited the land prior to 1947. The refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist has of course been a common thread in the history of this conflict. Just days after the birth of Israel — or al-Nakba ("the Catastrophe") as it is known in the Arab world — Israel's neighbors lined up to eliminate it. To this day, Hamas calls for it to be "obliterated [4]" in its charter. How unconstructive for the chair to reward someone who had shouted obscenities and slurs for forty minutes to further expound this kind of abhorrent worldview. While audience members labeled him a "racist" from the start, in fact Mr. Ayalon's rhetoric represented views substantially closer to the center of Israeli politics than of his own party. He pledged that Israel would make "painful concessions," and preached moderation and negotiation as the keys to conflict resolution. He underrepresented the problem posed by continued Israeli settlements, but encountered little willingness on the part of the opposition to debate such issues. An advisor to the Israeli Knesset remarked to me that Mr. Ayalon would never utter such statements to an audience in Israel. The LSE Beaver made its editorial view on the topic quite apparent in its news story ("Outrage at 'racist' Israeli Deputy FM [5]"), which contained no evidence to corroborate the claim of racism. The paper mentioned that hecklers interrupted Mr. Ayalon's lecture, but devoted more space to the case of Mira Hammad. Ms. Hammad, who repeatedly yelled "Racist!" at Mr. Ayalon, was allegedly told to "f*** off" by a professor sitting next to her. At plenty of other venues, Ms. Ammad would have been shown the door, along with the rest of her hooligans. To the Beaver, she is simply standing up against racism. The paper also failed to recount that one audience member was encountered with a shout of "Jew!" when she tried to hush the protesters. That the Beaver was able to turn Ms. Hammad into a victim of "intimidation and aggression" is a true testament to the double standard at work whenever the topic of Israel is broached. Since Mr. Ayalon had no legitimate right to speak, it is the protesters, not Mr. Ayalon, who are the true victims. The Beaver also published several articles related to Israel leading up to this event. On October 6, it ran a story about the sad situation of Othman Sakallah, a Palestinian who was due to enroll at the LSE for this academic year but is currently in Gaza. Individuals quoted in this article as well as subsequent opinion pieces repeatedly blamed the "oppressive Israeli government" as solely responsible for the plight of Sakallah. The causes of the Gaza War are complicated, and stem originally from Hamas choosing to build up its terrorist capacity rather than build a state after Israel, under Ariel Sharon, withdrew from every last inch of Gaza in 2005. No piece in the Beaver explored any possible ambiguity as to the root causes of this conflict. Likewise, the appearance of Mr. Ayalon on campus did not spark a debate on his views. Instead, the debate was over whether the school should provide a platform for a "racist." The ability to hear first-hand from high-level, elected government officials is a privilege, but such events serve no good purpose when the atmosphere bears more resemblance to a sporting match than an exchange of ideas. Had anti-Israel protesters brought with them real arguments instead of empty slogans and obscenities, LSE students may have been persuaded one way or another. The only take-away from this event was that one side of the debate wants no dialogue with anyone but themselves. Footnotes [1] recent lecture:
Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
ANOTHER ACT OF STUPIDITY BY PRESIDENT OBAMA & ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 15, 2009. |
|
President Barack Hussein Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder may be the best friends of Muslim Terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks and other Muslim Terror attacks. Once they were safely locked up in Guantanamo Prison, Cuba — called Gitmo. But, Obama, in deference to the Liberal Left, had pledged during his presidential campaign to close Gitmo without any deep thought. He and his collaborators had one goal which was to get elected, no matter what the cost to America's well-being and safety. Many think that the Obamas are Muslim sympathizers who cannot be trusted with the safety of the American nation when dealing with Muslim Islamist/Terrorists. Now, instead of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in military court, the known, self-confessed organizer and planner of 9/11/01 in collaboration with Osama Bin Laden, is being transferred to New York City for a civilian criminal trial. This show trial is expected to take at least two years or more — with the possibility of release due to laws supposedly reserved for U.S. citizens. In the earliest days after his capture he asked to be tried in New York. He wanted to be tried and sentenced to death, making him a "Shahid" (martyr for Islam). But, before execution, he wanted a huge public platform to advance the cause of Islam. His goal was to urge more Muslim world-wide, especially American Muslims, to adopt "Jihad" (holy war for Islam). Now Obama/Holder have given him the platform to extend his Terrorist mission. Relatives of the 3000 dead victims of KSM are furious with Obama and Holder. This was a dumb, if not biased, political decision by a President who claims to be a Christian but, was raised and trained as a Muslim. One never leaves Islam. Representative Pete King of New York made the point that, where Sheikh Khalid Mohammed will be held in a lower Manhattan jail which is a block from Ground Zero, the Twin Towers, and a host of other high profile targets, inviting more Terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Should there be such an attack based on Obama and Holder's decision to provide a safety net for Terrorists within American civilian law, Obama should be driven out of office by the Congress with Holder fired. Never has America been so deeply cursed by a President and his ideological Leftist cronies. Even Jimmy Carter did not display the ineptness of Obama — although he came close. The pain Obama and Holder has caused to the survivors and families of 9/11 as well as the entire nation is unforgivable. You can tell how bad it is when the ultra-Left Liberal ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) cheers the decision to use American laws designed for American civilians and transfers these rights to foreign Muslim Terrorists to the American Justice system. Apparently, if Osama Bin Laden is caught, Obama would give him the privilege of also being tried as an American citizen and given all the protection that affords such a defendant. Regrettably, I do not believe the Obamas like America confirmed by Michelle Obama's original statement when she said "For the first time I am proud to be an American." While she was silenced by the Obama election committee, the family attitude regarding America was clearly an established agreement within that family. They seem to neither approve of America nor America's military — denials and ceremonies notwithstanding. What could have been an efficient, safe trial under military jurisdiction, with military secrets protected, far from exposure to risk of Terrorist attacks or rescue is now converted into a show trial, a circus of Media and controversy and danger that will benefit only the masterminds and 'community organizers' of 9/11. Obama wishes to trot out his now well-known apologetic policy so the world will admire his presumed fairness doctrine and outreach to Islam — including the anti-American Islamic countries. But, Obama has shown no fairness to the 3000 dead nor to those left behind. This clearly is a President who wishes to jut out his chin in his now infamous pose of arrogance and be applauded by nations who do not admire America. Til now America's enemies have mostly let America live in peace because they were afraid of America's strength of arms, strength of purpose in freedom and dignity for all whom America protects. Obama was given an unearned Nobel Prize for Peace by a radical Leftist Nobel Committee who thought that the Grandfather of Terror, Yassir Arafat deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama now wants to earn that false Leftist political prize so the nations will applaud America's descent into a Third World nation. For Obama and Holder to re-ignite New York as a target of opportunity for Muslim Terrorists, they should be driven out of office. Clearly, Obama ought to be impeached with Holder judged as complicit in an egregious miscarriage of Justice against all Americans. If the five 9/11 co-conspirators who pleaded guilty, are given opportunities to further encourage "sleeper Terrorist cells", then the Obama-Holder conspiracy will have joined their efforts to publicize Muslim requirements to commit Terror in the name of Allah. This duo, in their doctrine of false fairness, don't even deserve their office but, rather to be prosecuted themselves for endangering all Americans and cruelly hurting the direct victims of the Terror which Islam unleashed in America's Muslim Pearl Harbor. They are not worthy of their offices and they have shamed the American nation. But, let us look at the likely underlying selfish and self-serving political motives to eliminate a military trial in favor of transferring the confessed murderers to a civilian court blocks from where they perpetrated their heinous Terror. Obama and his obedient servant, Holder, knew that a military trial would be over comparatively quickly since the defendants had already confessed to their roles in the 9/11 planning. These confessions were heard in open hearings, in addition to being questioned in private. But, if they are transferred to a civilian court, experts in law have been estimating the time of such trials would be a minimum of two years, five years and a few have estimated a decade (10 years) of dragging the nation and the victims' families through more Hell. Clearly, Obama and Holder knew this and chose the lengthy civilian trial so whatever happened in terms of judgement and sentencing (if any) would occur only AFTER the campaign to re-elect Obama for his second term was over. In politics, timing is everything! This calculated timing also bypasses mid-term elections November 2010 in which many Democrats are expected to lose office. As Obama's ratings plummet, his coat-tails shrink because the voters are disgusted with the "Change" he brought. Most of the American people wanted swift justice in what should be an open-and-shut case. But, Holder (on Obama's orders) did NOT want a death sentence to be declared within the year in a military court. Playing for time in the hope that this blunder of his decision to close Gitmo would fade away and the impact on the victims' and the nation of transferring hundreds of imprisoned Terrorists to places in America, including the 9/11 Terrorists will evaporate before elections. Be assured, the Chicago politicians, including Obama, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod were burning the midnight oil to minimize the negative effects of a swift trial. Wasn't it Rahm who said something like: "Take advantage of every crisis"? Bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others here to America for a show trial would normally be considered a stupid, political move — unless an early trial and judgement in a military court would be considered politically worse for Obama and the Democrats. Obama and Holder knew that, under American (civilian) law, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other four could be freed on a technicality — namely that damning evidence was gained under duress. Additionally, Obama/Holder knew that state secrets on Intelligence gathered on the battlefield and from Gitmo itself, would have to be disclosed in open court — exposing American methodology to current and future Terrorists, putting the entire nation at risk — again. I believe this is a political scam that will hang around Obama's neck like a smelly albatross — as the saying goes. But, then again, such crass manipulation works for native African Chieftains, like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, et al — so, why can't it work here in America for Chieftain Obama and his spear carriers — the Chicago manipulators? We don't expect elected or appointed Government officials to adopt roles equal to moles who sell out the nation they ostensibly work for. Besides, if you were a Chicago politician, a stretched-out trial fits Rahm Emanuel's doctrine wherein every crisis is an opportunity. In this case, Obama can give lengthy orations about how, what is being done demonstrates his fairness as our messiah just arrived to set things straight. I wonder how many glorious speeches Obama will make during the coming years of the trial(s) and how the Leftist Media will, thereby, give him free air time as it was — "because it's news — not a political ad." For Obama, his Chicago thugs and his 35 or 45 Leftist Czars and Czarinas, this is the grand opportunity to trumpet his Leftist doctrine of Fairness all through the years of trial. They relish the opportunity to castigate America for squeezing the truth out of Muslim Terrorists for the 9/11 Massacres and all the other Muslim Terrorist attacks — wherever they gathered and executed their diabolical bloody schemes toward their ultimate goal: a Global Caliphate for Islam. In addition, Obama can continue to plead with the nations to "forgive us'" for the aid and the thousands of American soldiers killed on the battlefield on behalf of Global Security. This was the grand opportunity to plead for forgiveness for the many times Americans have been called upon to rescue these other countries who so easily caved in to conquering enemies. How they hated America for the Marshal Plan and all the free aid to re-build their economies — through to the present. Look at the Leftist subversives Barack Hussein Obama has chosen as his advisors and know that they are only a minor reflection of his ideology: "Spread the wealth"...."Bow down to Islam"...."Reach out to violent Muslim countries"...."Weaken America's connection and support of stalwart allies"...... And so America must endure endless, needless trials for several years with Muslim Sleeper agents using every moment to launch more Terror. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
THE WORLD SITUATION — A LETTER TO MY SONS
Posted by Susana K-M, November 15, 2009. |
|
This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004. |
|
This WAR is for REAL! To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001 with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter. 3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims. 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%. 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that
the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but
under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian),
that made no difference. You either went along with the administration
or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by
the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world — German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way — their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question — What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned — totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are > defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but ourchildren, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. The cartoon is by Dry Bones, and is not part of the original article. |
|
THINK TANK: "U.S. AIDS TERROR GROUP AT WAR WITH ISRAEL"
Posted by Israel Behind the News, November 15, 2009. |
|
This was written by Samuel Sokol and it appeared November 12, 2009 in Israel Behind the News. |
|
A new report released by the Center for Near East Policy Research, a Jerusalem based think-tank, discusses the possible connection between American military aid and Palestinian terrorism.
It is available at
The report, "Implications of U.S. Military Training of Palestinian Security Forces," was authored by center chairman David Bedein and deals with the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC), run by Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton. Established in 2005, the USSC manages a multinational team of advisors, whose role is to restructure the PA security forces and train personnel. American tax dollars pay for advanced military and constabulary training for the Palestinian security forces at bases in Jericho in Israel and Giftlik in Jordan. The cost of training an entire battalion of National Security Forces (NSF) troops in Jordan is $11 million. Since 2008 approximately 2,100 troops, enough to make four battalions, have been trained by Americans in Jordan. The American government utilizes advisors from the DynCorp International Corporation for training Palestinian forces. Soldiers enrolled in American training programs are vetted for terrorist links by the Palestinian Authority, American intelligence and the Israel General Security Services (Shabak). However, there is evidence that many people in the Palestinian security apparatus are also members of banned terror groups. The report elaborates. "Salam Fayyad, PA prime minister, reached an agreement with the forces of Al-Aqsa Brigades...not to arrest them as long as they maintained a low profile. Al-Aqsa people are sheltered and receive salaries from Fayyad. When PA security troops were deployed in Nablus, Al-Aqsa people who had not been trained in Jordan and were not vetted received command positions. This included one individual who had engaged in extortion." Some members of the Israeli political and military establishment have expressed their support for General Dayton and his program, citing a decline in terror in Judea and Samaria. In contrast, Bedein writes that the willingness to work with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades indicates that the Palestinian Authority is not, in principal, opposed to the use of violence. Operations mounted by PA forces are most often aimed at destroying Fatah rival Hamas, rather than in reducing terrorism. Bedein told the Five Towns Jewish Times, "The reduction of terrorism from Judea and Samaria is because of the success of Operation Defensive Shield, launched in April 2002, which placed IDF troops in strategic positions to patrol and surround every possible Arab terror stronghold, so as to prevent terror attacks." "Ever wonder why the shelling stopped from Beit Jalla on Gilo in Jerusalem? For only one reason: Simply put, the IDF took back Beit Jalla, quietly and without fanfare." Fatah recently has been attempting to reconcile with Hamas, creating the possibility of American trained forces being merged into joint units with Hamas fighters. There is also a risk of American trained forces turning on Israel. As Abbas stated, he "reserve[s] the right to resistance" if negotiations do not turn out the way he likes. This occurred during the second intifada when Yasser Arafat had failed to gain his demands by negotiations. During that period, American training was also used against Israeli civilian targets... In the report, Bedein commented that human rights have not improved in the Palestinian Authority since the inception of the program. "Palestinian and other human rights organizations report brutality, torture, and arbitrary arrest by those PA security forces trained by both the United States and European Union." General Dayton looks on his Palestinian charges with pride. During a military ceremony, he announced to Palestinian forces that he "couldn't be more proud of the fact that you stepped up to be the founders of a Palestinian state." However, the nature of that state remains to be seen. A new plan for Palestinian statehood, written by PM Fayyad, discusses restoring unity with Gaza [Hamas] and of implementing Sharia law. The report quotes a "prominent Palestinian journalist" as saying that the association between the Americans and Fatah could give Hamas a boost in the polls in the next election. This would certainly prove detrimental to efforts to create a demilitarized Palestinian state as envisioned by Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, every officer in the Palestinian forces is required to swear an oath of allegiance to Fatah. This had led to "elite PA forces trained in Jordan [being] unwilling to stop Fatah militia operations, including extortion and abductions." Israeli Maj. Gen. (Res.) Ya'akov Amidror commented regarding the Palestinian security forces' efforts to reduce terror. "There is a huge difference in the Palestinian view between law enforcement, which is seen as legitimate, and anti-terrorism, which is not seen as legitimate...The U.S. confuses the two." In the report, Dr. Mordechai Kedar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University is quoted as saying that American trained forces cannot be expected to fight against terror when members of their own clans participate in terror organizations. "...When (not if) there will be domestic problems in the PA/Palestinian State these people will be loyal primarily to their clan [Arabic: hamula] rather than to the state, since they will never shoot their brothers or cousins... you can surely say that their loyalty will be according to the context of the event in which their participation will be required." Dr. Kedar spoke with the Five Towns Jewish Times regarding the USSC and its role in the peace process. "On one side, it [the USSC] is good because it strengthens those sectors that might work with Israel, especially the security forces. But on the other side, no one can guarantee that these weapons which the Americans are giving those Palestinians will not be turned against Israel," Kedar stated. When asked about the unwillingness of American trained forces to act against the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Kedar responded by saying that the PA forces "can become very easily a terror group against Israel...with all respect to Dayton and his efforts, this is a mine which is being implanted in this area...I'm pretty sure that they will be the front power against Israel when the day comes." Asked if he believed that American training will be used in a war scenario against Israel, Kedar responded in the affirmative. Bedein's research indicates that current aid to the Palestinian security forces is in direct contravention of American law. Congress, in making appropriations for Palestinian training, instituted a caveat, "None of the funds appropriated by this act may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that...the elected governing entity of a new Palestinian state...is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling of terrorist infrastructures..." Continued Palestinian Authority support for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades means that it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to honestly certify that this provision has been met. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, "Congress wants to ensure that U.S. assistance is used for legitimate humanitarian projects and that no U.S. aid is diverted for military or terrorist use against Israel." Bedein recently traveled to Washington to present his report's findings. He spoke with staffers of 25 key members of the U.S. Senate and House and presented copies of his report to make them aware that, in his words, "U.S. military aid to Fatah may backfire." Despite being cleared for terrorist ties, some recipients of American training are former leaders of banned terror groups that have received amnesty from Israel as a gesture to build up Mahmoud Abbas... |
|
IDF CONDUCT IN GAZA; DISTORTING POLL FINDING; ADALAH-NY AGAINST JEWS IN JUDEA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 15, 2009. |
|
ISRAELI DRAFTEES' ATTITUDE In 2005, a high proportion of Israeli draftees volunteered for combat units, indicating a patriotic attitude. It was 69.6%. Now it is 73%. Of the November 2009 people considered for a draft, exemptions were issued to:
11.5% Yeshiva study
The bulk of Israelis drafted want to feel they are actively protecting their people. IDF CONDUCT IN GAZA — Update Before the Goldstone report, the IDF began investigating its troops' conduct in Gaza. It provided a venue for Arab organizations to submit complaints. 100 complaints received. Arab witnesses were interviewed. 45 complaints have been investigated. Investigators found no problem with the general offensive but some individual mistakes. Some of those mistakes got Israeli troops killed. No Israeli troops deliberately killed an innocent civilian (www.imra.org.il, 11/13). In recent years, Israeli officers who break the IDF rules of engagement, or make mistakes in judgment lose their commands. That policy was not applied to Yitzchak Rabin in the 1948 war nor to Ehud Barak and other blundering generals in the first Lebanon war. Incompetent leftist officers, some of whom were groomed by the Labor Party for political leadership, were shielded. THE SAUDI WAR IN YEMEN — Update Saudi Arabia is winning its war with the Yemeni rebels, but may not be able to extricate itself from it. S. Arabia announced an arms blockade of northern Yemen. It stated that unless the rebels retreat further from the border, it would pursue them on the Yemen side. The rebels were called Shiite, but their doctrine really may be closer to Sunni. That mistake, and Iran's natural inclination, may prompt Iran to furnish military aid to the rebels, in order to tie Saudi Arabia and Yemen down in a proxy war (Robert Worth, NY Times, 11/13, A4). Saudi Arabia created a Frankenstein monster when it set out to radicalize Muslims all over. The monster is turning on its creator, just as in fiction. The Arabs in general hypocritically said they oppose terrorism, but excuse the same criminal methods when used against Israel. Gullible Westerners noticed only the Arabs' headlines against terrorism. The chickens are coming home to roost. The Arabs created this problem in their Peninsula. It has nothing to do with Israel. Israel could disappear, without peace arriving in the Mideast. HOW THE LEFT DISTORTS POLL FINDING Haaretz poll question A: "Who is to blame for there being no
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians?"
Question B:" Do you support that Israel in the future negotiates with Hamas?"
Headlines misrepresented the responses to Question B as "57% of the public supports the plan of Shaul Mofaz for negotiations with Hamas." The question did not ask whether they support the Mofaz Plan, which had more to do with what to negotiate for than whether to negotiate. The headlines reflect unsupported assumptions. At Mofaz' press conference, he mentioned talking with Hamas only if it recognizes Israel and steps terrorism. That is a big "if." Polls show that most Israelis do not believe that the Palestinian Arabs will recognize Israel and cease terrorism. I find that poll questions predicated upon such a condition are a trap. If terrorists become angels, voters might make certain concessions, but since voters doubt such a transformation, they really don't want to make those concessions. Nevertheless, the appeasement-minded Left then proclaims a popular mandate to make the concessions. Those who proclaim it are manipulating those who are naïve enough to believe them. POLLS OF ISRAELIS SHOW NATIONALIST TREND Haaretz took a poll of Israelis, including Arabs. It shows a nationalist trend. What is called the "nationalist camp" would get 76% of the vote, Kadima would get 29%, Labor, 6%, and Meretz 3% (www.imra.org.il, 11/13). That poll may be accurate within 4%, but its conclusion is dubious. Not its conclusion about the voters, but about the net result. The net result is based on the assumption that since the voters for Netanyahu's and Lieberman's parties are nationalist, and they are the majority, they will get nationalist policies. Some of my readers assume that since Netanyahu talks about being firm, and Lieberman talks as if Israeli Arabs are a fifth column, they would be tough. Those assumptions are based on underlying assumptions of Israel being democratic and its leaders having integrity. Neither underlying assumption is valid. Netanyahu is not corrupt, but he broke away from several nationalist or Zionist policies. He gave in to U.S. demands. Terrorism resulted. [So much for U.S. demands!] Lieberman covers his appeasement with bombast. The bombast provides a pretext for anti-Zionists to express indignation, but his bombast does not get implemented. Netanyahu has proved weak under pressure. He does not campaign hard for nationalist issues that he can explain well. He is not trustworthy. But he runs Likud! It doesn't matter how nationalist its voters are, he makes policy. It is an unfortunate fact of life that false labels are give to politicians, parties, and movements, in order to steer people to desired conclusions. People need to become more sophisticated about labels. Political issues can be much more simple or complex than people realize. There may be more than two points of view. An amusing misunderstanding by some of my readers is that I am an agent of Israel. After the faults I have found with the policies and character of Netanyahu and Lieberman as well as their predecessors? ADALAH-NY AGAINST JEWS IN JUDEA Adalah-NY petitioned the renter of space to a Hebron Fund event cancel its contract. The Adalah-NY website contains the text it sent to the landlord, making that, so far unsuccessful, attempt. The letter has too many details for me to discuss in detail here. The overall case Adalah-NY makes against the Hebron Fund is that it supports Jewish development in Hebron, whose Jews ethnically expel Palestinian Arabs, and do so for racist reasons. That case misrepresents the issues. The overall fallacy in that case: (1) The Hebron Jewish community has been the victim of ethnic cleansing by the Arabs in the past; (2) It has suffered Arab riots (and diplomacy) attempting to drive it out; and (3) Palestinian Arabs have committed many terrorist and sexual assaults in recent years; and (4) The Palestinian Authority bars Jewish residency and imposes capital punishment upon Arabs who sell land to Jews. All this ethnic cleansing and racism — Radical Muslims depict Jews as inherently evil, which make it an alleged racial trait) — goes unmentioned in Adalah-NY's case. Indeed, Adalah wants Jews out of Judea, their homeland. Now there is ethnic cleansing! The letter offers what seems to be much evidence. I notice that it all is one-sided and simplistic. It cites as respected authority organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, ACRI, B'Tselem, the State Dept., and the UN, whose bias I have exposed often. It boils down to Israel-bashing. Thus the letter states that Hebron's Jews, always in inapplicable pejorative terms such as "occupied" and "settler," as people "...who are regularly described, both worldwide and among Israelis, as violent racists." Described, that is, by the Israel-bashers mentioned above. The Hebron Jews are accused of violating international law and promoting ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from their homes in Jerusalem. Let's discuss ethnic cleansing in Hebron. Jews had lived in Hebron for about three millennia. In 1936, the Arabs there rioted, murdered, and drove out the Jewish community, for reasons of religious bigotry. That was ethnic cleansing. That was violent. That was bigoted. When Israel liberated the area, it did not restore the houses to the families of the Jews from whom they were confiscated. Gradually, relatives or other Jews sought to regain those properties. They paid for the property a second time. That is unjust to the Jews, but one cannot say it is unjust to the Arabs paid for relinquishing stolen property. Since Arabs get murdered for selling property to Jews, some of the paid Arabs claimed they didn't sell the property. In such cases there and in Jerusalem, the courts have found the Arabs' documents false and the Jews' evidence sound, in once case by videotape. The letter puts this in an inflammatory way, "Taking over homes, terrorizing and expelling Palestinian residents." The 150,000 Arabs in the Arab zone are not bothered, only a few living in houses owned by Jews. Adalah-NY indignation against Jews is misdirected, it should be against fraudulent Arabs. Unfortunately for the rightful Jewish owners, organizations similar to Adalah-NY misrepresent court evacuation orders as ethnic cleansing. Israel's governments, being appeasement-minded or anti-Zionist, hesitate to enforce the law, the orders, and contracts. These cases drag on, and become the scene of Arab and Jewish leftist protests, sometimes violent. But if Jews are to be denied enjoyment of their own property, because they are Jews, then the government is biased, but against Jews, like Adalah-NY. Adalah-NY makes a broader argument, against the whole Jewish community of Hebron, as well as the Hebron Fund. It cites some State Dept. official's misrepresentation of the Geneva Conventions to call Judea-Samaria "occupied" and Jewish residency there illegal. As I have explained before, the area is not occupied, because they were not part of a sovereign country. Ask whose country is being "occupied?" Judea and Samaria are unallocated territories of the Palestine Mandate, to which Israel is the paramount heir. Therefore, Jewish communities in it are allowed. Interested in legality, Adalah-NY? Complain about the thousands of illegal Arabs' houses, often built on land the Arabs don't own and without permits where required. Adalah-NY uses the erroneous claim of Jewish residency being illegal in Hebron, to support complaints about the tax-exempt status of the Hebron Fund. President Obama's new stance on Jewish communities is also part of Adalah-NY's appeal to the fundraiser's landlord. The landlord now is supposed to take a politician's word about what is the law, though other politicians have said otherwise? The letter also claims that the Jews commit violence against the Arabs. It then claims that the Hebron Fund, by subsidizing housing there, indirectly supports violence. What a weak connection! I find the charge irresponsible. Sometimes, streets in the Jewish sector are closed to Arabs. Adalah-NY calls that racist. No, it is not. If anyone were racist, it would be the Arabs, whose frequent acts of terrorism against the tiny Jewish community prompted the administration to close off Arab access. Jews could not pass on those streets without being accosted by Arabs. Why doesn't Adalah-NY acknowledge those many Arab attacks? A similar misrepresentation is made of the closing of the old Arab market. Arab terrorists used the market, which adjoins the Jewish neighborhood, as platforms or staging points for attacks. A superior new market was built for the merchants. The Palestinian Authority ordered merchants to stay in the old market, so as to keep confrontation going. There has been so much Arab terrorism over the years, and so little Israeli government protection. This includes riots, snipers, attempted rape, etc... No justice for the Jews. What should they do? Perhaps now some Jews do react to the Arab population as the enemy. Indeed, the main instances of violence cited were reactions to Arab violence. One is the rampages by the late Rabbi Levinger. I didn't like his style. In reaction to terrorism, he led some followers to car-smashing expeditions into the Arab sector. Adalah-NY omitted this motivating factor, painting the Palestinian Arabs as innocent victims. Another event was the Hebron massacre. The evidence allowed into court does not fit the government's explanation. The government acted as if a major pogrom were coming. Perhaps the Jewish doctor accused of the massacre were trying to head it off. That is what my Israeli colleague, who knows the locals, tells me they are grateful to him for, not just for violence against Arabs, as Adalah-NY claims. It also is possible that he was set up by the government. It did have a dirty tricks section of agents provocateurs. They committed violence against Arabs. Their goal was to blame Jews and defame the whole religious and settler movement. Anti-Zionist organizations have been accusing settlers of violence for years. Most of those charges either are frame-ups by the government or non-existent. I've reported many cases of Israeli leftists leading Arabs into Jewish areas, to destroy their crops, and to get the government to arrest the Jews if the Jews defend themselves. The numerous documented cases of Arab terrorism, however, are real. They took a big toll. If terrorism is a justification for removing people, start with the thousands of Arabs who committed terrorism! Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
TWILIGHT ZONE; WOOD AND THINGS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 14, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to to see more of his graphic art at
|
|
THE CHURNING OF HISTORY: REAPING THE CONSEQUENCES OF FORGETTING THE PAST
Posted by Mike, November 14, 2009. |
|
Once again Islam makes the news with terrorism on Americas soil. The deniability factor is raised to nearly 100% by the media purposely looking elsewhere for the cause as they exhibit their cerebral condition of "political correctness." Soldiers who witnessed the shooting at Fort Hood reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire with a hundred bullets hitting 54 people. 13 people are dead as a result. What's so great about a god who approves of killing innocent people in cold blood? The 39-year-old Hasan was an Army psychiatrist trained to help soldiers in distress whose own distress was overlooked. The public statement is that he was not known to be a threat or risk as many are trying to piece together what pushed Hasan to do this horrendous massacre. While they psychoanalyze this by their own predilection, the answer is simple — "Islam." Yelling "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire settles the question of whether or not it was about Islam. But the media and the administration cannot state the obvious. We are being led toward Islam by not resisting it. On his business cards found in his apartment he had SOA printed which means soldier of Allah. His life was wrapped in Islam. Some of those in the Army feared reporting of Hasan's expressed radical views because of what people would think of them, or the possibility of losing their job. In the aftermath we can see it matters more to do the right thing for the innocent than to protect the guilty. U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major
Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people
associated with al Qaeda (he tried 20 times). His name even appeared
on radical Islamic websites.
Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales told Fox News the massacre did not
appear to be the act of a mentally ill or extremely stressed person.
"This was a deliberate act of execution."
He was filmed in Islamic garb that is used in Jihad only a few hours before his insidious attack. Obviously the thought of being shipped out to Iraq to possibly kill his fellow Muslims did not sit well with him, he would rather kill the real enemy of Muslims. Hasan went beyond his religious duty as he lived in poverty despite a 6 figure income, supposedly sending his money over to Pakistan — as Moolah for Allah. We now know Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers did when a radical Imam leader was there (whom he was in contact with). After the attack He was called a Hero by the Imam (Anwar) who was at the Mosque. The red flags were there all the way through his career but were
ignored because of political correctness. He listed his nationality as
Palestinian when he was born in America. He gave presentations at
Walter Reed on Islamic justice against infidels. "He expressed
happiness about the shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim convert
outside an Arkansas recruiting center in June. Hasan's comments were
reported to Army command, Lee said, but the report fell "on deaf
ears." Nov. 5, 2009
It is reported Hasan once gave a lecture to other doctors in which
he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured
down their throats, that Infidels Should Have Their Throats Cut. Fort
Hood murderer repeatedly Told Military Colleagues He was a "Muslim
First, American Second."
A number of years ago when I was interviewed on a radio program in a discussion with Muslims present in the studio: I posed this question– we have Muslims that claim to be American but are they Muslim Americans? Even the host did not like my insinuation that one cannot be both. But the fact is, the more serious a Muslim becomes at his religion the more he alienates himself to American society and everyday living. Certainly there are nominal Muslims whose religion is westernized and fit into society, but this is not the majority. Those who promote Jihad for Islam go into jails and the Armed forces and convert others to join their Islamization. "Muslim Mafia" co-author Paul Sperry says Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating inside the U.S. military — which is too blinded by political correctness to see the internal threat. This would not have any merit except for the fact WND.com reports At least a dozen other Muslim soldiers have been convicted of terrorism or espionage since 9/11. Consider Sgt. Hassan Akbar from Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait killed two Americans. He was influenced by the MSU (Muslim Student Association), also Ali Muhammad a double agent that worked for the FBI and collaborated with Al-Qaeda. There are numerous stories that have made the news. There has been enough information circulation on how the government agencies have been infiltrated with sleeper Muslims (no different from the Marxists and socialists we now know of in the administration). Former terrorist, converted to Christianity, Walid Shoebat has been warning of Islam, he contends that the US Army, Navy, Air Force, FBI, CIA, Dept. of Homeland Security are all infiltrated with Muslim Extremists. Some very serious decisions need to made when it comes to having Muslims protecting our country, as it is impossible to know whether they maybe honorable or foxes in the hen house." Hasan, as a Muslim was given the opportunity for a better life. American tax payers funded 500,000 for his education as a doctor but it did not stop him from spreading hatred of the country until he finally decided to turn his gun on his fellow soldiers because of his religious views. Why? An intentional failure to recognize the ideology that accompanies the Islamic religion. They media and military quickly went to his (Islam's) defense and tried to shift the blame on anything else but his religion. If they finally blame it on his religion it will be called "radical Islam," not Islam itself. There are over 100 verses in the Qur'an that are always interpreted as violence, outright murder against those who are not Muslim, these verses are not ignored in the Mosques. He was known to say we love death more than you love life (standard statement of terrorists). In the book of Proverbs God says, "all those who love death hate me." There have been numerous killings by Muslims in America that are
considered Jihad but this is the first on an army base. Remember the
DC beltway sniper that killed 10 (gone now in history). Muslim
convert, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad was against the U.S. military
shot two soldiers and killed one of them outside an Arkansas
recruiting center.
Many more examples can be cited: don't let the media tell you that
terrorism is not taking place on our countries soil.
Another disturbing aspect of all this is that Hasan had a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.he Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled "Thinking Anew — Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 — January 2009," in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant. If they blamed Bush administration because of negligence, can this administration be blamed; especially when he was already being investigated and was ignored! It's as if 9/11did not happen in recent history. But this administration no longer uses the word terrorism. The FBI immediately said it was not terrorism. So what does it take to be terrorism, is there a certain amount of people needed to be killed? Does there have to be a group instead of a single person. Ignoring his religion's influence will only deepen the diaprax that is deluding people into complacency. Action must be taken to prevent this attack of happening again in the military. Sharia Law mandates that Muslims cannot fight Muslims. If one is a practicing Muslim living by the Qur'an how can he serve faithfully in the military? Obviously, the thought of being shipped out to Iraq to possibly kill his fellow Muslims did not sit well with Hasan; he would rather kill the real enemy of Muslims. Political correctness in our agencies that are there to protect us puts us all in jeopardy. It relaxes our guard; and shifts the blame. Along with the new hate crime laws we have become sitting ducks not asking the critical questions that are needed to be asked. It's not why he did it (we already know why), but how. If we ask this question we find that someone is at fault for negligence in preventing it. This event is of greater significance to our safety because this is post 9/11, and we are supposed to be more vigilant. Is this only PC-political correctness or should we consider a 5th column in high places? Internal corruption is always far more dangerous than the enemy from outside. Walid Shoebat a former Muslim terrorist converted to Christ has this insightful statement "The argument that most Muslims are peaceful is irrelevant. In Germany, most Germans were not Nazis but that did not stop the Nazis from taking control and terrorizing its non-Nazi population. Even if the majority of Muslims are not terrorists or do not support terror, they have shown neither the ability nor the desire to reign in the terrorist element. Because Islam is classified by ignorant people as just a religion, they cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Islam is also a movement that is political, ideological, and all-encompassing. It is the same as Nazism but worse because in this politically correct culture, we focus only on its religious component but fail to study its political and aggressive militaristic nature in history as well as what is happening today. We also deny or ignore the atrocities and genocides committed by Islam in order to dominate its empire as well as spreading itself through its military plunder" (Newsletter Nov.10, 2009 Fort Hood Massacre should be a wake up call for the people and leaders of the USA By Walid Shoebat) A Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book exposing Washington-based CAIR's inner workings. Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: "Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad." What has been openly taking place in England is now coming to our
country. America is not accepted by the majority of Muslims that live
here. A Muslim group was videotaped condoning the massacre at Fort
Hood because it was a military target. "America's chickens have come
home to roost," shouted a representative of the group. Just like Rev.
Wright who was a "former Muslim" turned Black liberation theologian.
WND.com reports a website run by a Revolution Muslim is also honoring
the man accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, as an
"Officer and a Gentleman," saying his actions should not be
denounced." I guess he should get the medal of honor, in Islamic
circles his cowardly act is esteemed.
Considering that naïve and gullible Americans were misled to elect
a former Muslim to be president (assuming he is former) who has proven
time and time again that he is soft on Islam and a friend to them more
than he is to his own countrymen that disagree with his policies. (See
this video summary of Obama's personal feelings displayed about Islam
It appears the so called hate crimes bill was passed only for leverage against Christians, because it never seems to be used on Muslims who exhibit hatred in terrorist acts. But unless we exhibit some backbone and correct our political correctness we will begin to see these terrorist incidents escalate.
THEN WE HAVE THE ONGOING DRAMA OF RIFQA BARY a 17-year-old Muslim girl who converted from Islam to Christianity. Her Muslim family considers what she did an apostasy and she believes they would kill her by obedience to Sharia law. She sought safety from her Muslim parents and ran away to Florida because her Muslim father threatened her life after she converted to Christianity. She tried to speak out, but has been ignored. Many believe they can be sending Rifqa to her death by returning her to her family. Rifqa is now getting blatant online threats on her face book page. The fact is, her situation is not an isolated one. There are Muslim
parents threatening and killing their children (often daughters) in
America and elsewhere for what they call 'disgraceful dress and
behavior. Recently an Iraqi father drove a two ton jeep over his
daughter for being "too westernized" The prosecutor has described this
as an "attempted honor killing." At a court hearing in Phoenix
Arizona, county prosecutor Stephanie Low told a judge that Almaleki
admitted to committing the crime." By his own admission, this was an
intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame
on him and his family," Low said. "This was an attempt at an honor
killing." Another "Taxi boss jailed for threats against daughter"
Wikipedia definition: "An honor killing (also called a customary killing) is the murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonor upon the family, clan, or community. This perceived dishonor is normally the result of (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to the family (b) wanting out of an arranged marriage or choosing to marry by own choice or (c) engaging in certain sexual acts. These killings result from the perception that defense of honor justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonors their clan or family."
The church is also under attack from within from those who want to change its nature and mission. Yoga and unbiblical meditation are becoming popularized in the church. A growing Green movement has churches joining with the new age movement on environmental issues disregarding that we are headed for a Tribulation. Instead, they want to save the planet from a non — existent global warming threat that is a proven hoax. Even the health care issue has churches getting politically involved. Contact Mike at administrator@letusreason.org |
|
"PEACE" PROCESS UPDATE
Posted by Tsvi November, November 14, 2009. |
|
The "peace" process, as we all know, supposedly aims to resolve the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict. However, there is a powerful rejectionist camp whose objective is the total destruction of the Israeli state. The "peace"-promoting media minimizes its coverage of the rejectionists in much the same way we usually ignore unpleasant facts in our lives. The Arab anti-peace camp includes Hamas which rules Gaza, won the last Palestinian elections in 2006 and is generously supported by Iran. Iran also backs Hezbollah which adamantly strives for Israel's demise and points tens of thousands of missiles at Israel. It fields a well-trained militia that drove Israel out of south Lebanon in 2000 and also inflicted serious damage on the IDF in 2006. Within the allegedly moderate Fatah organization Mahmoud Abbas has his own internal rejectionist lobby. Fatah also operates the al-Aqsa Brigades; many of whose terrorist members are now being trained by US general Dayton as the nucleus of a future Palestinian state's military. Other actors in the rejectionist front include the PFLP, DFLP, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda. In one way or another (materially, financially and morally) the Arab and Moslem worlds support one or more of these aggressive groups. Obviously, any negotiations with Palestinian President Abbas whose term of office actually ended in January 2009 (He gave himself a one year extension) is useless and worthless because he really does not represent many people. In view of this situation, it is not surprising that Abbas recently announced that he won't run for office again in January 2010. He was probably influenced by Hamas' declaration that they (Hamas) will not allow any election activities in Gaza and violators will be punished. When I think about the "peace" process I think about Santa Claus. Every year from around December 1st we meet Santas in department stores and on television. We listen to songs about Santa, view animated films and parents tell their children stories about Santa. Young people, up to the age of 6 or 7, firmly believe that Santa Claus will bring them marvelous gifts on Christmas. The truth is that toys are manufactured in China and not at the North Pole. Likewise, no real peace process can emerge until Hamas, all the other rejectionists listed above as well as Syria and Iran and even Abbas recognize the legitimate rights of the Jewish people. Indeed, on 10 November 2009 the Palestinian newspaper Al Hiyat Al-Jedida carried a statement (translated by MEMRI) by Fatah Central Committee member, Azam al-Ahmad declaring that Fatah never recognized nor will ever recognize Israel. And this is the most fundamental issue in the conflict which is generally overlooked by Obama and Israeli spokesmen and women hell-bent on ending the conflict once and for all. A real peace process would have to include the following:
Of course, no normal self-respecting Arab statesman could possibly agree to these measures because they are beneficial to Israel. Put another way, the implementation of these points would result in peace and remove the threats to Israel's existence. What would the Arabs do without an Israeli enemy in their midst? Reform Islam? Solve socio-economic problems? Tsvi November is author of "Israel in Reality: Multicultural Discord and Love in the Holy Land." (Trafford Publishing)Contact him tsvinov@gmail.com. |
|
WHAT OBAMA SHOULD SAY TO IRAN
Posted by Debi Ghate, November 13, 2009. |
|
Thirty years after the hostage crisis, Iranians are bravely challenging their government. Despite the theocracy's attempt to crush these protests, Iranians have once again taken to the streets. Imagine what might happen — the potential benefit to us and to Iran — if instead of declaring that we seek "a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," President Obama had said the following on November 4th, 2009. "Thirty years ago today, the American Embassy in Tehran was seized. The 444 days that began on November 4, 1979 deeply affected the lives of courageous Americans who were unjustly held hostage. Rather than atone for this, Iran's theocratic regime has clenched its iron fist to retain power. Once again, we have witnessed the beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime. Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens — a foreign policy of principled self-interest and justice — would take this stand. Debi Ghate is VP of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand — best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism. |
|
SYRIA DEFINES "PEACE PROCESS"; OBAMA AT UN MISSTATED MIDEAST
ISSUES; ADALAH NY TRIES TO BAR HEBRON FUND FROM NEW YORK
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 13, 2009. |
|
JORDANIAN CONFERENCE ON JERUSALEM EXTREMIST "Amman, Nov.11 (Petra — Jordan news agency) — Activities of the Global Forum for Moderation's sixth international conference titled: 'Jerusalem: Religion and History' kicked off here today with wide participation of notable Jordanian and Arab intellectuals, clerics, thinkers and politicians." Jordan's Minister of Culture called the relationship of Jordan's leadership and people with Jerusalem an historical one. The King declared Jerusalem "a red line." One of the topics was the "Hashemites' effort in building the holy places in Jerusalem." Another official reminded Arabs and Muslims of their duty of protecting "the holy city from Israeli attempts to Judaize the city and change its Arab identity." (www.imra.org.il, 11/11.) Expelled from Saudi Arabia by the present dynasty there, the Hashemites retained supervisory privileges over the mosque on the Temple Mount. The people of Jordan, however, do not have an historical relationship with the Mount. Early last century, there were a few Bedouin in Transjordan, when a couple of thousand followers of Emir Abdullah fled there from Saudi Arabia. Jerusalem was not of much important to Muslims when they controlled it. A couple of times they gave or offered to give it away. When Jordan conquered it at the end of the 1940s, it meant so little to the Hashemites, that they did not visit the Temple Mount. They let trash accumulate around it, impeding access to it. The crocodile tears they shed over Jewish control of it water their effort against Israel. The mosque needs no "defense." Islam does not separate religion from government. Both are expansionist. Hence, the Jordanian rulers, riding on their religious duty, slide into an imperialist role seeking to take over the Old City, the whole city, the whole country, as Jordan attempted by invasions. The regime and other Arabs fabricate Israeli plots against the mosque on the Mount. These plots have been alleged for nine decades, but never materialized, because they never existed. It does not occur to the Arab masses that their agitating leaders have been raising false alarms for almost a century, against a people that conquered its enemies in six days without harming the mosque. What about the city's identity? The Old City, built largely by the Israelites, has acquired Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Arab characteristics. The New City was built by modern Jewry. The governments of Israel do nothing to erase the other faith's sites, extremist hysteria by the "moderation" conference notwithstanding. The Arabs have resumed their efforts to take over Israel, which reached its first culmination in 1947, and the conference was concentrating on Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a capital city, modern, dynamic, growing, and changing. One of the changes is a steep rise in real estate prices and yet another is an influx of Arabs fearing being left behind in the dreaded Palestinian Authority, should it get sovereignty. Hence there are efforts by foreign Arabs to build more houses for Arabs there, legally or illegally, and some Jewish efforts, mostly private, to buy or build houses there for Jews. Despite anti-Zionist paranoia about a powerful "Zionist propaganda machine," most of the word is uninformed or misinformed about this, and condemns much of the Jews' building, which is legal, and none of the Arabs' building, much of which is illegal. People don't even realize they have a double standard. Fact is, illegal Muslim construction on the Temple Mount destroyed archeological sites on it, including many ancient Jewish archeological treasures. (There are very few Arab ones.) The Palestinian Authority leaders claim there never was a Jewish presence on the Mount that they are trying to eradicate it from. Self-contradiction is a characteristic of their imperialist efforts. The Arabs turn many occasions, whether at the UN or an academic forum or even interfaith conferences into agitation against Israel or isolation of Jews. They misuse opportunities for reconciliation or peace. They abuse vocabulary, to post labels that deny legitimate enemy claims and assert false Arab claims, such as that the conference was "moderation." People need to become sophisticated to recognize the Arab abuse of vocabulary as part of their drive for conquest. SYRIA DEFINES "PEACE PROCESS" Syria's President Assad defined "peace process," at the "Arab Parties Conference" in Damascus. He said that it includes not only diplomacy, but primarily "resistance," including violence. He said that victory requires Arab unity in conjunction with allies such as Turkey and Iran (www.imra.org.il, 11/11). Arab statements often require a double translation for Western audiences. The first transaction, the one into English, may be difficult enough, if not fluent usage. A second translation is required, because Arabs think differently from Westerners, having a different language root, culture, and values. Assad's definition of "peace process" is an example. He defines it the way I have explained the Arabs view it, as combining diplomacy, war, and other means, and ending in conquest rather than genuine peace. Another example is his notion of Arab unity. Iran is dividing the Arabs. Iran and Syria are trying to dominate the other Arabs and bend them to their more bellicose stances. Iran's seeks religious and national domination, Syria seeks power and influence. Experts find that Assad's minority sect, Alawite, is akin to Iran's major sect, Shia. Apparently, the Syrian majority sect, Sunni, concurs. SINAI-GAZA SMUGGLERS AMBUSH EGYPTIAN TROOPS An Egyptian police convoy of two armored cars and 12 vans seized 200 tons of contraband cement in the mountains of Sinai, from a Gaza smugglers' warehouse. Later, the convoy was ambushed. Six troops were wounded. No further details in this news brief (www.imra.org.il, 11/11). Many of the smugglers outside the town of Rafiah, whose tunnels are hidden by houses, are Bedouin. For many Bedouin, smuggling (and raiding) is a traditional occupation. They can be fierce about defending their livelihood. LEBANON'S NEW REGIME, HIZBULLAH, & THE UN Lebanon has a new regime, including Hizbullah Ministers. The regime was asked whether it would consider disarming Hizbullah, as required by the UN Security Council Resolution. The other parties agreed to disarm, but Hizbullah does not. It claims it needs its arms to defend against Israeli "aggression." The Prime Minister replied cryptically that he would continue his predecessor's agenda. That agenda did not include disarming Hizbullah (www.imra.org.il, 11/11). Since there has been no Israeli aggression and much Arab aggression, Hizbullah obviously wants to retain its forces for aggression, domestically and abroad. Being Islamist, it seeks to help impose a Muslim caliphate upon the world. It is Iran's agent in regional destabilization and conflict. OBAMA AT UN MISSTATED MIDEAST ISSUES President Obama gave an inspirational speech at the UN, but misstated or omitted major Mideast issues. He failed to mention jihad, the main reason for regional instability. He ignored the Arab refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of their own. He misled people by claiming that the goal now is "ending the occupation that began in 1967." That last statement insinuates that Israel is the source of the problem, whereas Israeli control over the Territories is a result of the problem. The problem is Arab aggression. Arabs committed aggression a number of times before Israel acquired the Territories. The PLO was founded in 1964 to destroy the Jewish state. What led to the 1967 war? On May 13, 1967, Egyptian President Nasser announced that two Egyptian divisions would deploy in the Sinai. The move violated international agreements, U.S. commitments, and UN guarantees. The UN removed its peacekeepers. The Egyptian divisions started moving toward Israel. Then Egypt announced a blockade of Israel's port, Eilat. Egyptian warplanes began flying over Israel. Syrian and Iraqi forces were ordered to prepare to invade northern Israel. On May 30, Jordan's King Hussein, supposedly a moderate, placed his Army under Egyptian command, and let Egyptian and Iraqi forces into Jordan, which, especially its having seized Judea-Samaria, borders Israel, its main population centers, and its international airport. Combat began on June 5 [but the war began with those earlier Arab acts of war]. Jordan invaded, but was beaten off. In self-defense, Israel removed from the control of Jordan and Egypt the Territories they had seized in 1948. "The non-Arab, non-Communist world acknowledged all that at the time. Successive American leaders declared that Israel should never be asked to go back to its former vulnerable borders, while the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which specifically linked any Israeli withdrawals from "territories" to achieving secure borders." This is what 1967 is all about: not "Israeli occupation" (Zalman Shoval, Jerusalem Post, 10/4 in Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 10/8.) Jordan and Egypt were very oppressive in the Territories. They were not criticized notably for it. Egypt didn't let the Gaza Arabs work much except as terrorists. Jordan refused to invest in Judea-Samaria nor find any religious significance to Jerusalem. ADALAH-NEW YORK TRIES TO BAR HEBRON FUND FROM NEW YORK Adalah-New York tried to bar the Hebron Fund from holding its annual U.S. fundraiser, in the Mets' Citi Stadium, Queens, New York. The Mets refused to cancel it. The event is to be on Saturday, November 21. (Reservations and info at www.hebronfund.com or at 718-677-6886.) The Hebron Fund helps support the Jewish community in the Israeli sector of Hebron. Judaism considers Hebron its second holiest city. It was the capital where David founded the first Jewish kingdom. According to the Bible, its chief holy site, the Cave of the Patriarchs, was purchased by Abraham from a Hittite almost 3,000 years ago, for 300 silver shekels. That sum would be $750,000 in 2009 currency. [One of my critics, "BiasedReporter," called Abraham an illegal immigrant, an absurd concept to apply back then to Bedouin.] Why does Adalah New York oppose the Fundraising? According to my source, David Wilder, spokesman for the Hebron Jewish community, it is because they sense the holiness of the city. [I think it is just part of the drive to oust Jews.] What is Adalah NY? According to its web site, it is the "'Coalition for Justice in the Middle East' They 'began organizing actions in response to the escalation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip at the end of June and the subsequent [sic] Israeli war on Lebanon in July 2006. Adalah-NY has carried out numerous street protests and educational forums focusing on Israel's assault on Gaza and war against Lebanon, the US' threatened attack on Iran, ...It is a grassroots strategic alliance of concerned organizations and individuals in New York, formed to demand an immediate, unconditional, and permanent end to U.S. and U.S.-sponsored Israeli aggression in the Middle East. In response to the continuing injustices committed by the U.S. and Israel, which constitute gross violations of international law, Adalah-NY stands with the people of the Middle East in their demands for justice, equality, democracy, and respect for human rights." Adalah New York is not related to Adalah in Israel, which, according to NGO Monitor, is an organization that represents "former MK Azmi Bishara, who, it may be remembered, fled Israel while still a Knesset Member, for fear of being arrested and tried for treason, for having passed intelligence information to Hizbullah during the 2nd Lebanese war." [He acted like an artillery spotter.] "Most amazingly, according to NGO Monitor, in 2006 they [Adalah in Israel] were funded in the way of almost a half a million dollars by, none other than the New Israel Fund, an extreme left wing US Jewish organization." (hebron@hebron.com, 11/12.) Bishara, like other Arab MKs, violated Israeli law by visiting enemy states, where they encouraged the enemy to attack Israel. What does that tell you about the anti-Zionist political donations by New Israel Fund? My earlier articles explained that international law was violated by Hamas and IAEA treaty by Iran. Israel did not commit aggression and the U.S. did not sponsor its self-defense. AdalahNY claims to demand democracy, but we have not heard of its demanding democracy of those radical theocracies, Gaza and Iran, among others. It claims to champion human rights, but not the human rights of the Israeli civilians whom Hamas bombarded, of the Gaza people whose houses and mosques it stores arms in, drawing Israeli fire, and of the Palestinian Arab journalists whom it censors. Those Hamas acts violate international law. Neither does Adalah demand human rights for Iranians protesting against apparently fraudulent elections but beaten for it, nor for Iranians publishing independent journals. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
REGARDING THE FBI'S ACTION AGAINST MOSQUES IN THE US...
Posted by William Murray, November 13, 2009. |
|
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations stated."Whatever the details of the government's case against the owners of the mosques, as a civil rights organization we are concerned that the seizure of American houses of worship could have a chilling effect on the religious freedom of citizens of all faiths and may send a negative message to Muslims worldwide," There is no adverse impact on religious freedom or our separation of church and state providing our religious organizations comply with the nation's laws and do not attempt to integrate their religion or control government. Separation of church and state is a two way street. In the case of Islam that constraint apparently is not being adhered to. Contact William Murry at wmurray8@comcast.net |
|
FROM THE ISRAELI PRESS: NOT MADE IN ISRAEL
Posted by Elyakim HaEtzni, November 13, 2009. |
|
Snippet: A well known Israeli columnist[1] claims that when the Teitl story hit the press, the media played down the most significant factor: the suspect's American origins. The Ten Commandments read "Thou shalt not murder" — not "Thou shalt not murder Jews". No one, with no exceptions, is allowed to commit murder. Murder is murder, and terror — no matter who perpetrates it — is terror. Therefore, If Jack Teitl is found guilty, he can be called a terrorist — a Jewish terrorist — with impunity by everyone. That is, by everyone except the Israeli media, who are only permitted to call him an "activist", the term by which they denote Arab murderers and terrorists: e.g.a "Hamas activist", a "Jihad activist". No one has ever heard Israeli radio or television use the expression "Hamas terrorist" or "Jihad terrorist" for the same reason that no one has ever heard an announcer use the words "Barghouti, the murderer" as in the accepted media usage of "Yigal Amir, the murderer". That's our biased media for you. No sooner were they allowed to publicize the charges, when the same Israeli media confidently pointed out the contributing causes and motives involved: the forgiving attitude towards the original Jewish underground of 30 years ago; ideological crime, a la Yigal Amir; failure to learn the lessons of Rabin's murder; Rabbinic and other leaders' support for violent activities, and most important: the settlements (how could we leave out the settlements?) which serve as fertile breeding ground for misfits. However, the biased commentators skipped one contributing factor that any objective observer would not have been able to miss, the American background of the suspect: his connection with the Marine Corps, his first murder committed while a tourist, and most important: a style that brings to mind the behavioral patterns of other American fanatics, focused weirdly on one idée fixe. In the US, there is a grassroots passion for guns. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Owning a rifle and gun collection like the one discovered in Teitl's home wouldn't raise an eyebrow there. Four American presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy, and some people believe that another three, who officially died natural deaths, were murdered as well. There were 13 assassination attempts on the lives of presidents, including FDR, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, both Bushes and Clinton. Most of the attackers were characterized by a weird mixture of violent tendencies and shallow "ideology". Teitl's style, in the manner of the handbills he distributed saluting the "Holy Knights of the Lord" who sent "the black bear that killed two Sodomites" in a Tel Aviv bar, fits right in. The American "Unabomber", a genius who was an assistant professor of mathematics at 25, lived in solitude in a shack in Montana for 17 years during which period he sent 16 letter bombs to universities and airlines, killed 3 and wounded 23. The New York Times published his political agenda: the fight against limitations of human rights by powerful organizations that came into being due to modern technology. What fertile breeding ground would our media claim spawned him? He was only caught because his brother recognized his writing style. The FBI called him a "domestic terrorist" not a political terrorist. In the US, they didn't take advantage of insanity to reap political profits for any party. Timothy McVeigh, a decorated veteran of the Gulf War, blew up the Federal Government building in Oklahoma City: 168 killed (19 of them young children), 450 wounded. He was addicted to guns and owned several rifles and a handgun. What for? "In order to keep survival gear on hand for when the US is annihilated". He was also upset by the FBI's elimination of the "Davidites" in Waco, Texas. He reacted by committing that horrifying massacre. He did not express regret, and up until the day of his execution at the age of 33, claimed that he was sorry that he didn't flatten the entire building. President McKinley's assassin (1901) babbled anarchistic idiocies. Anti abortionist groups spawned some madmen who murdered doctors. Are we seriously going to lump them together as "ideologically-politically" motivated, or are we simply going to classify them as certifiable? Anyone really looking for a generic profile for the kind of person who does what Teitl is accused of, and not just another opportunity to bash the Right, will find it in his mental state and in the overseas breeding ground from which he immigrated, not at the doorstep of Rabbis and settlement leaders. Footnote [1]From Chaim Levinson in Haaretz: "Yaakov Teitel, who was arrested last month for suspected murder and a string of alleged murder attempts, was born in Florida in November 1972, the son of Mordehai (Mark) and Devorah (Dianne), American ultra-Orthodox Jews. His father was a dentist, who served a stint in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, and at some point was even placed in forward fighting positions. His mother worked as a medical secretary." EDITOR'S NOTE: Robin, a reader of the original article wrote, "Treat him like the rest of terrorists. FREE HIM." Elyakim Haetzni is a former member of Knesset. Contact him at ehaetzni@netvision.net.il |
|
OUR RESPONSE TO US STATE DEPT
Posted by Paul Lademain, November 13, 2009. |
|
Peace in our land, the peace of Jerusalem, our eternal capital, is one of our oldest longings, expressed in our Psalms and our prayers." Netanyahu We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We say: Romanticize longing, enshrine your yearning in your cultural poetry, and thou shalt forever stand frustrated, outside Jerusalem. Please do set aside your romance with yearning and immediately take what is yours: Jerusalem, or else see it taken from you by those who romanticize power and know how to use it. Those who have power and refuse to use it are powerless and most readily vanquished, but those who have power and refuse to use it for the sake of making a good appearance are fools and thereafter perceived and treated as such. Our former president, Teddy Roosevelt, knew this when he said: "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." His predecessor, President Jefferson, did not hesitate to use American naval power to vanquish the Somali pirates. Emulate them, not the peace processors of recent decades. Islamic culture is based on warfare and Jewish Wonderfulness can persuade only a handful of enemy warriors to abandon their dream of killing Jews. For that reason alone, we are dismayed by the bad judgment of some of Israel's worst politicians who chose to make Israel even tinier and less defensible than it already was and for no better reason than to receive air kisses and lies in exchange for Israel's land. And so they handed a piece of Israel into the hands of their known enemies. Worse still, these very same politicians turned truth inside out when they rationalized ("just give them what they want and we will have peace") that Israel's lands really ought to belong to the invading foreigners who nonetheless continued to truthfully tell them: "Thank you very much but we still intend to kill Jews and we shall take your Jerusalem for ourselves." Even though the following thought is too painful to be entertained by Jews, we who are not still think about what Israel might have become had Israel kept the Sinai and built Israel on a foundation of strength instead of the quicksand of peace-beggary. We still hope that the people of Israel will rise up to demand a strong leadership who won't wince at criticism and who will stand up to bullying and refuse to accept flattery and resist all bribery and therefore be and remain forever unwilling to piece away Israel for the sake of peace. We say: Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea the way it was once promised to be (by the British Mandate and the League of Nations.) Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
ISLAMIC TERRORISM: FACTS VERSUS MISPERCEPTIONS
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 13, 2009. |
|
This article is: Root Causes of Anti-Western Islamic Terrorism (5)[*] |
|
1. Contrary to the "Palestine Firsters" school of thought, Islamic terrorism is raging the Middle East and the entire globe, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of US-Israel friendship, Israel's policies or Israel's existence. The 1,400 year old Islamic terrorism is not driven by despair, but by local, regional and global religious, political and territorial ambitions, terrorizing Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews. 2. Fact: 100 persons were murdered in an October 28, 2009 bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan, the third largest Muslim-majority country in the world. 3. Fact: According to the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, 2,809 Pakistanis were murdered by Islamic terrorists in 2008, 2,120 in 2007, 933 in 2006, 511 in 2005, 619 in 2004 and 164 in 2003. 4. Fact: According to the Institute for Conflict Management, 24,879 Indians were murdered (mostly) by Islamic terrorists during 1994-2005, 1,492 in 2006, 1,413 in 2007 and 1,391 in 2008. 5. Fact: According to France's domestic intelligence service (DST): Jihadists from Afghanistan, Algeria, and Pakistan returned to (generally pro-Palestinian) France, trained and indoctrinated in handling arms and explosives. They constitute a grave threat for France (NYT, April 8, 2008). 6. Fact: (generally pro-Palestinian) Britain has become a focus of Islamic terrorism. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who opposed the war in Iraq and supports Palestinian demands, was inaugurated in June 2007 and was greeted by three (Muslim terrorists-engineered) car bombs in July 2007. According to MI5 British Security Service (The Guardian, August 20, 2008), "the most pressing current threat is from Islamist extremist groups who justify the use of violence 'in defense of Islam'... They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices... Nor are they 'mad and bad..." 7. Fact: Sunni Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorize Shiite regimes, while Iran-supported Shiites terrorize Sunni regimes in the Gulf region, as well as in Egypt and Jordan, in order to facilitate Iranian domination of the Gulf. 8. Fact: Yemen has become a center of Sunni and Shiite terrorism, logistically and operationally, agitating Yemen and the entire region. Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century, in order to settle their domestic and inter-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with non-Muslims, irrespective of the Palestinian issue, Israel's policies and Israel's existence?! [*] For further data on the root causes of anti-Western Islamic terrorism please see: Part 4: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/
reports.asp?reportId=220981
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 is #229. |
|
WRITING JEWS OUT OF JERUSALEM'S HISTORY
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, November 12, 2009. |
|
The whipping up of unrest around the Temple Mount is part of an insidious campaign to cast Jewish people as modern interlopers This was written by Jeremy Sharon and it appeared November
1, 2009 in The Guardian
|
|
The Temple Mount, or al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims, must rank as one of the most sensitive religious sites in the world. The sporadic riots of the past month at the site are therefore particularly alarming, as such incidents have the potential to ignite much wider unrest. For that reason, it would seem to be in everyone's interest to reduce as far as possible tensions and friction at the Temple Mount to an absolute minimum. But the statements and actions of a number of Muslim clerics based in Israel, Palestinian politicians and even foreign governments have only inflamed and exacerbated an already explosive situation. Of even greater concern is the underlying sentiment behind the recent riots, protests, declarations and denunciations. Whether or not "Jewish extremists" went up to the Temple Mount (and they did not) and irrespective of whether or not they planned to, the violent and vitriolic response to these rumours is indicative of a fundamental lack of tolerance for the religious beliefs of the Jewish people. And the incitement has been widespread, coming from both political and religious sectors. The Islamic Movement in Israel, in particular, has made strenuous efforts to inform its flock that Jewish groups were planning to "desecrate", "storm" or otherwise "endanger" the al-Aqsa mosque and arranged buses for worshippers to come and "protect" the site. Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch and one of the principal provocateurs, declared to a crowd, "We'll liberate al-Aqsa with blood and fire" and stated that Israel was seeking to build a synagogue on the al-Aqsa mosque. Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad told a meeting of foreign ambassadors that the riots were due to "an assault by extremist religious settlers on the Temple Mount compound". The Syrian foreign ministry decided to stir the pot too, stating "[Damascus] believes the Israeli security forces' invasion of al-Aqsa was part of Israel's scheme to Judaise Jerusalem and destroy the mosque." Not one shred of evidence has been presented to back up any of these accusations, the reason being that there simply is none. Such baseless incitement over one of the most sensitive places of worship in the world is incredibly irresponsible. The destabilising effect of this agitation undermines whatever small amount of trust there may be between Israeli and Palestinian interlocutors. Additionally, it further inflames wider Arab and Muslim opinion, which is similarly deleterious to the project of tolerance and coexistence in the region. Inventing wild myths about Jewish designs on Muslim holy places can only harm any prospects for the normalisation of ties between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbours. Aside from the agitation is the disturbing notion that Jews seeking to visit, or even pray at, their holiest place of worship (the Temple Mount and not merely the Western Wall) should be seen as provocation, desecration or in any other way unacceptable. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are an indelible part of the Jewish national consciousness. The very term for the movement to re-establish the Jewish national home, Zionism, derives from a synonym for Jerusalem, Zion. Every day, three times a day, Jews all over the world turn towards Jerusalem and pray for it to be restored to its former glory; they have done so for nearly 2,000 years. That Jews are actually banned by the Israeli government from praying on the Temple Mount is a quite astounding concession to the demands of the Islamic waqf that administers it. But preventing Jews from praying at the Temple Mount is not the only goal. A far more insidious campaign is afoot, one that rewrites history by arguing that there never was any Jewish temple at the site, thereby seeking to delegitimise any connection that Israel and the Jewish people may have to it, and by extension, the land as a whole. In a region in thrall to an epidemic of conspiracy theories, the irrefutable archaeological and historical evidence attesting to the Second Temple alone is sadly deemed insufficient. The failure to acknowledge the connection the Jewish people have to Jerusalem is symptomatic of a problem which goes to the heart of the political conflict; that the Palestinian body politic has never reconciled itself to the fact that the Jewish people have deep-rooted historical ties to the land and are not simply foreign invaders who wandered in a few decades ago. However politically expedient, Palestinian and Muslim leaders must desist from the incitement against Israel and the delegitimisation of the Jewish people's connection to the land, if there is ever to be any political accommodation between the two sides. If the Palestinian public never appreciates the depth of feeling Jews have for their holy places and their historical homeland, then the state of Israel, within any borders, will forever be illegitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians and will remain a target for eventual removal. Such an attitude poses a tremendous obstacle to the future prospects of peace between the two peoples. Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: NO CLOSER
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 12, 2009. |
|
...to understanding what is going on. Not happy about what I'm seeing. But also certain that what I'm seeing is not the whole story, and that until we know that story judgment is impossible. From Washington, PM Netanyahu flew to Paris, where he met with President Sarkozy. News reports today have it that Netanyahu delivered a message to Syrian president Bashar Assad that he would be willing to resume negotiations with Syria at any time and any place, without preconditions. Assad is supposed to be in Paris to meet with Sarkozy today and presumably will get this message. Huh? you may be asking. What? Assad is the one who has been putting out feelers regarding seeking "peace" in recent days, but has explained that achieving peace doesn't come only via negotiations, it also involves "resistance." Syria was the destination point for the horrendous collection of weapons confiscated on the arms ship Francop. Just as Syria has fostered the smuggling of weapons across its border to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in violations of the embargo on arms to Hezbollah. And Assad has declared how solid is his nation's relationship with Iran. Does Netanyahu really see it as constructive to have peace negotiations with Syria now? Does he think there may be the opportunity to reach an honest agreement that is beneficial to us? ~~~~~~~~~~ I may be one of the last hold-outs on the right. It's possible that Netanyahu has flipped. It's possible he has sold out. (I know I'm likely to hear from people who tell me it's obvious he has.) But I'm going to say what I said the other day: I don't know. I am nervous as hell, but will not yet judge because my information is insufficient. I remain ever mindful of the broader context — including the need for support with regard to Iran — that must be factored into the equation. It's a big step from selling Israel out to playing a game in order to position Israel better at a very threatening time. That game is dangerous, but Netanyahu may be proceeding with appropriate intent. May. We have not yet heard about anything that he has actually conceded or caved on. No concessions he has made. It's all worried speculation. And a lot of secrecy. Consider this: Assad's unequivocal demand is to have the Golan Heights returned to Syria. Matter of national pride and all that. He always says there will be no peace with Israel without that. Netanyahu knows this very well. He knows that this is a pre-condition that Assad insists upon, whether formally or not. Yet he says he is willing to enter negotiations with Syria if there are no pre-conditions. Does he expect at the get-go that his offer will be rejected by Assad? Is he planning a "pretend" negotiation that will lead nowhere? Or...is he prepared to relinquish the Golan under the "right" circumstances? According to the newspaper al-Arabiya, Netanyahu said in Paris that he would relinquish the Golan in return for peace. The prime minister's office absolutely denies this. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Golan is legally part of Israel proper, governed under Israeli civil law. That makes its status different legally from that of Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu cannot simply sign away the Golan — the process would be stringent. I will not review here in detail all of the many reasons why we should never, ever give up the Golan. But if this issue becomes serious, you can bet I'll come back to it. ~~~~~~~~~~ Let us, for the moment, return to our other headache, the Palestinians: A senior official in Fatah announced today that the PA Central Elections Committee is going to recommend that the elections (for president and the legislature), scheduled for January 24, be postponed because it would not be possible for Palestinians in Gaza to vote. Gee, what a surprise. ~~~~~~~~~~ Understand please that Abbas has not resigned. He simply declared with great drama that he was weary and would not run in the next elections. So... if the elections are postponed until who-knows-when, for the interim he is still PA president. And factor this in, as well: According to the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat in London (as cited in IMRA), the Fatah Central Committee has declared itself firmly in favor of Abbas as the candidate for the presidency. (Abbas has been pumping for this sort of endorsement.) What is more, according to this paper, in the event that Abbas does decide not to run when the election is finally held, there is no support within the Central Committee for the candidacy of Marwan Barghouti, who is a member of the Central Committee now, but serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison. (The assumption is made, repeatedly, that he'll get out in the course of a trade, and thus be able to function politically within the PA.) This is interesting, as Barghouti is frequently touted as a possible successor to Abbas and the man best able to make things happen. There are even left-wing Israelis who have — ludicrously — pumped for this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Lastly we have this: According to the Palestinian news agency Maan, Hamas leader Dr Aziz Ad-Dweik has announced that by the end of this month Hamas will sign the reconciliation agreement brokered by Egypt. Egypt has penciled into the margins of the agreement some reservations voiced by Hamas — what, specifically, was not explained, but we know that attending to Hamas reservations can only lead to greater radicalism. At any rate, Hamas now feels its concerns have been attended to. Declared Dweik, "By the end of the month you'll hear what will delight your hearts." The PA already signed the Egyptian proposal, but will have to sign, or initial, the new, adjusted agreement. No problem is anticipated on this score (but who knows). The signing would signal the beginning of the process of establishing a unity coalition. Then there would be a whole new drama to attend to, with a different dynamic in place. There are all sorts of heavy implications, regarding the "peace process," establishment of a state, and the training by the US of PA security forces (a big concern). I will visit each of these issues as the situation unfolds. I am particularly interested in seeing how those supporting a Palestinian state will respond to a Fatah-Hamas coalition (should it evolve), and what sorts of pretzels they'll turn themselves into as they seek to justify it. I hope that the Hamas reservations are sufficiently blatant in their radical perspective so that it will be impossible to claim that Hamas has "moderated." ~~~~~~~~~~ Thank Heaven for Shabbat, especially after this upside-down week. Next posting will be early next week. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
C.A.I.R., (COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS) SPEAKER TO MUSLIMS: OK TO ATTACK FORT BRAGG
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 12, 2009. |
|
When the PC apologists for Islam tell us that Nidal Malik Hasan worked alone, perhaps they could add that from his earliest days as a child he was educated as a Muslim obligated to serve Islam, Koranic (Sharia) Law, and therefore, had many teachers and provocateurs to violence. Muslim "Shahids" (martyrs) may be alone when they are the shooters or wearing an explosive vest but, they are linked to all others who assisted in building a mind-set to kill — to plan killing and assisting other Muslims to kill. They are never alone as their apologists would have us believe. What's worse is that within every Muslim are the teachings deeply embedded in their psyche that can surface — even in the seemingly most moderate Muslim. When called upon to be loyal to Islamic "Jihadism" (holy war for Islam) calls from Mullahs, Ayatollahs and other Terrorists, they will do whatever they are called upon to do. Humane conscience is stripped away and they will kill either as directed or on their own initiative, following submissively what years of brainwashing have taught them to do when the time is right! IF being willing to kill "infidels" (non-believers in Islam) in the name of Allah then, it could be said: "All Muslims are or could be excused as being mentally disturbed." Which means that any non (Muslim) believer, be they Christians, Jews, Buddhists or 'others' are fair game to kill by any means available. Strict Islamic Sharia law comes first and, any obligation to their host country is merely for show and is discarded when they attack. This article below is an item entitled "CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK
to attack Fort Bragg".
It appeared yesterday in WorldNetDaily
|
|
A Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book exposing Washington-based CAIR's inner workings. Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: "Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad." Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft. "Islam doesn't permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people," Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, "If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that's something else." The 82nd Airborne Division's elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw's district. Shaw is CAIR's new chairman. The recording of the lecture, which Shakir gave earlier this decade to a Muslim audience in the San Francisco Bay area, was obtained by the authors of the bestselling "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." The bombshell revelation comes in the wake of the worst military massacre at a domestic U.S. military base in American history, and the worst Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Last week, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly gunned down in cold blood more than 50 of his fellow soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan from Fort Hood, Texas. Eyewitnesses say before opening fire, Hasan jumped up on a desk and screamed, "Allahu akbar!" like the 9/11 hijackers. The suspect fatally shot 13, including a security guard. The death toll is actually 14 when a slain unborn child is counted. Imam Shakir also gives his blessing to the use of bombs as a weapon of jihad, as long as the explosives hit "select" targets and are not indiscriminate in their destruction. Civilians can be a legitimate target, he says, if "there's a benefit in that," according to "Muslim Mafia," co-authored by former federal agent P. David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration." Even "old elderly men" and "women who are conscripted" — including Israeli and American women in uniform — are eligible enemy combatants in jihad. "This is Shariah," Shakir asserts in a CD recording of one of his lectures in 2001, which the authors obtained from a radical mosque bookstore in Brooklyn, N.Y. Shakir, a black convert, has been portrayed as a moderate in the mainstream media, including the New York Times, which recently ran a positive profile of him. His pro-jihad statements revealed in "Muslim Mafia" have not been previously reported. CAIR has sued and obtained a temporary restraining order to censor the book's documentary evidence detailing CAIR's support of terrorism and obstruction of FBI investigations. Longtime CAIR advisory board member and chief fundraiser Siraj Wahhaj echoes his friend Shakir's interpretation of jihad. "If we go to war, brothers and sisters — and one day we will, believe me — that's why you're commanded [to fight in] jihad," the imam has told his flock in Brooklyn. "When Allah demands us to fight, we're not stopping and nobody's stopping us." World Trade Center bombing CAIR has invited Shakir back to speak at its events even after the FBI questioned him about a copy of one of his incendiary pamphlets found in the apartment of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing. The pro-jihad pamphlet lauded the "armed struggle" that brought about the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are dying in record numbers from Taliban and al-Qaida ambushes. Shakir, who recently confided to the New York Times that he'd like to see the U.S. "become a Muslim country" ruled by Islamic law, is a regular speaker at CAIR as well as Islamic Society of North America events. (Federal prosecutors say CAIR and ISNA are fronts for the terrorist group Hamas and its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and the sister organizations were recently listed as unindicted terrorist co-conspirators in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history.) Recently, Shakir helped host workshops and delivered keynote speeches at banquets held at CAIR chapters in Chicago, Orlando and San Diego, among others. "Imam Zaid's speeches are very practical and bring the best out of his listeners," said former CAIR official Ibrahim Moiz, a close personal friend who invited Shakir to speak to Muslims in Maryland, according to "Muslim Mafia." The cleric has not tempered his jihadist views. "I don't regret anything I've done or said," Shakir has insisted. Shakir holds little, if any, respect for law enforcement, particularly the FBI, according to "Muslim Mafia." He constantly belittles the bureau in speeches to Muslims, even warning them that the FBI frames Muslims for terrorism — terrorist acts that he contends the FBI secretly commits. "The World Trade Center bombing of course was aided and abetted by our good friends at the FBI," the imam has claimed, in just one of the many wild-eyed conspiracy theories he peddles. 'State within a state' The American Muslim cleric also preaches treason against the United States, according to the book, which hit No. 5 on Amazon.com's non-fiction best-seller list the day after it was released last month. It currently ranks No. 1 in books on terrorism and Islam. Shakir advises the Muslim community in America to wage a cultural jihad now, and a violent jihad later — once the proper "infrastructure" is in place. He says Muslims should respect American democracy insofar as it can be exploited to help the Brotherhood one day assume power here. And the only thing that could stop the Islamization of America, he notes, is if its people rose up and denied the subversive movement the unbridled freedom it's heretofore enjoyed. However, if Americans were to do that, Muslims would then be obligated, he says, to exercise their supposedly "divine legal right" to rise up and wage violent jihad, reveals the book "Muslim Mafia." "What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims," sermonized Shakir, who continues to be a marquee speaker at CAIR functions. For now, he said, following the radical Muslim Brotherhood playbook, Muslims must continue to "create a state within a state." IMPORTANT NOTE: The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is
suing "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris over
the evidentiary documents they obtained during Chris' six-month
undercover penetration of the organization, which both the FBI and
Justice Department have branded as a terror co-conspirator. As a
result of revelations in "Muslim Mafia," the bipartisan Congressional
Anti-Terrorism Caucus is calling for new, wide-ranging federal probes
of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two
courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so
much about this dangerous group. WND has stepped up to the plate,
procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country and is
paying for the Gaubatzes' defense — but we can't do it without your
help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.
Go here.
Thank you.
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
|
|
PHOTO FROM DACHAU: WAS THAT MY FATHER STANDING BEHIND THE BARBED WIRE?
Posted by Susana K-M, November 12, 2009. |
|
This was written by Rabbi Tzvi Nightingale |
|
I was taken by a photograph of you There were one or two I know that you would have liked a little more But they didn't show your spirit quite as true — Jackson Browne My father has three birthdays. Yes, three. His biological birthday is May 10, 1924. When he came to Canada after the war, he was too old to qualify as an orphan, so he had to rearrange his age a bit and make himself younger. 5/10/24 became 10/5/27 and he was now born on October 5, 1927. (Please don't tell the Canadian government about this. I would hate to see him deported at this stage of his life.) Oddly, our family has been celebrating this completely fictitious birthday ever since. My father was finally liberated from Dachau on April 29, 1945. But it is his third birthday that he speaks about with the most emotion; the one that carries the most meaning for him. He spent years in various forced labor and death camps after his town of Staszow, Poland was liquidated by the Nazis in 1942. He was finally liberated on April 29, 1945 from Dachau concentration camp in Germany. My father has never been one to speak at length about his experiences as a survivor of the Holocaust, but he does talk about this one particular day. Among other things, I have heard him praise the American army for quickly delousing the inmates soon after they freed the camp. Being free from the Nazi hell and from the lice that infested his body for so long gave him a new lease on life. The day after Yom Kippur I went to my office and did what I do after every Yom Kippur — not much. Not only am I tired from the fasting and teaching, but truth be told, I find the next day to be a bit of a downer. After intensely thinking about life, God, goals and being a better person, and trying to inspire 150 people who come to our Aish center for services, I am just not up to the everyday mundane grind that comes rushing back. So trying to recapture some of the seriousness and meaning of Yom Kippur, I found myself on YouTube and typed in "Dachau" in the search box. The top of the list was a film called Dachau Concentration Camp Liberation. It was not a sophisticated piece, by any means. It consisted of photos slowly being panned to the background music from Schindler's List. There were photos of soldiers approaching the camp and arresting surrendering Nazis, a bird's eye view of the camp and photos of the main entrance and a gate with the infamous Arbeit Macht Frei. A picture appeared of an American soldier walking on a wall perpendicular to a building, and I wondered, If my father were to see this short film, would he remember some of the structures and buildings? I briefly thought of showing him the film but knew I would not follow through due to his extreme sensitivity whenever the subject of the Holocaust comes up. In all the years I have known my dad, I have only heard snippets here and there. At 1:50 into the film a photo appeared that made me hit the pause button. It was a relatively clear photo, a close up of sorts, of three inmates behind barbed wire, all smiling and waving — presumably at their saviors. The short man on the left has an overcoat, obviously given to him by one of the soldiers. The man on the right with the moustache is taller and appears to be saluting. They are wearing the familiar striped concentration camp garb. And the man in the middle looks like my father. Could this really be my father? I began to stare intensely and analyze every detail of the physical features to see if they match my dad's. The widow's peak hairline, the shape of the face, the somewhat larger ear, the gap between his front teeth — all were consistent with his look. Could it be? Could this really be him? I kept asking myself. But the trait that made me think it was him the most was the shape of his waving hand. I have always noticed this about my father, how his index finger curls and seems slightly raised higher than his middle fingers and how his thumb comes to almost meet them. Today, thanks to his arthritis, his hand is almost frozen in that position, and this was the shape of the hand of the man in this photo. I immediately emailed the link to my three brothers in Toronto with the subject line, "Something very weird" and told them to pause the film and tell me what they think. By next morning, they agreed that this could indeed be our father in the photo. Then things got a little complicated. We were faced with the dilemma of showing this photo to my father. Will it bring back too many painful memories? Should we subject him to an image of himself from so long ago of the most horrible time in his life? What effect would possibly seeing himself in Nazi prisoner garb have on his psyche? My oldest brother, Reuben, has always been closest to my father ever since he went to work for him in his meat packing plant at the age of 15. My dad gave him the most noxious job there to discourage him from working at Grace Meats, but packing tripe did not turn Reuben away. They have been very tight ever since. Reuben felt that we should think this through and "sit on it" for a while. "He has not seen the photo for all these years, another day or so will not change things." Sid, the next oldest brother and the peacemaker in our family, agreed. Murray and I wanted to show it to him but for the time being we deferred to the elder siblings. But the following day Murray came up with a Solomonic solution: Let's show the picture to my dad's one surviving sibling, Henya, who was with him in the camps earlier in the war and would be able to recognize if this indeed was him. Murray called me that morning on his way to Auntie Henya. I told him to call me on my cell as soon as he spoke with her. Murray called me at 12:30 pm. "She was unequivocal — it's him. And not only that, but the man standing next to him with the overcoat was his childhood friend, Herschel D." With that Murray then called my dad and asked if he wished to see a photo of himself on the day of his liberation from Dachau. He did. Murray went up to his condo and showed him the picture. With tears in his eyes my father declared, "Yeah, that's me." 
On April 29, 1945 a handful of photos of the liberation of Dachau were taken by Robert Spring, an X-Ray technician serving with the 59th Evacuation Hospital of the U.S. Army Medical Corps. There were 32,000 inmates on that day and most of the photos taken by soldiers were of men too skeletal to discern their identities, too grainy to see any specific faces, or group shots taken from far away. But Mr. Spring decided to take one photo of a random group of nameless survivors whom he would never see again.To the Nazis, the man in the photo was prisoner number 147 963 and for 64 years and five months it was a photo of a nameless prisoner experiencing freedom for the first time in many years. On the day after Yom Kippur in the year 5770, Tuesday September 29, 2009, it was discovered that the smiling inmate in Nazi prisoner garb was not just prisoner 147 963, and he was not a random nameless survivor that a heroic soldier happened to capture on camera. He was born Icek Nachtigal, Yitzchak Dovid ben Reuvain, and he goes by the name of Irving Nightingale. He was born on May 10, 1924 but he will tell you that his real birthday is April 29, 1945. And he is my father. 
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. |
|
ISRAELI WATER TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT; MAY ISRAELI POLITICIANS DEFY ELECTORAL MANDATES?;
JEWISH ANTI-SEMITISM; JIMMY CARTER ON US DIPLOMACY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 12, 2009. | |
|
HAMAS CANCELS JOURNALISTS' CONFERENCE Palestinian Arab journalists planned a conference on professional ethics, to be held in Gaza. Upon their arrival at the meeting place, they found that Hamas had ordered the meeting canceled. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights denounced this unconstitutional deprivation of the right to assembly (www.imra.org.il, 11/11). I remember Arafat acting just like the Iranian clerical regime, on coming to power. He closed independent or dissident newspapers and murdered or beat enough of the staff to make the survivors toe his line. He kidnapped some U.S. reporters, including one from the NY Times. The NY Times did not report that until considerably later, word got out. ISRAELI WATER TECHNOLOGY EXHIBITION Israel will be holding a water technology exhibition November 17-19 in Tel Aviv. The presentations aim at helping other countries utilize water more efficiently, reduce environmental pollution, and increase use of alternative energy. Exhibitors will offer solutions to other countries' and continents' specific problems. "One example is the Israeli-Jordanian Project for Production of Bio-Diesel from Agricultural Waste. The Project, which enables production of alternative energy without harming the production of food is initiated by Israeli and Jordanian companies and will be presented for the first time at the conference." (www.imra.org.il, 11/11. For more information, www.watec-israel.com.) Israel has been teaching other countries, especially Egypt, how to farm the desert. Unfortunately, I learned when studying the issue years ago, some Arab countries let much of their water leak before reaching end users. Saudi Arabia has been drawing down its aquifer source, which does not get replenished. I visited some area in the U.S. where the aquifer had been drawn down so much, that buildings collapsed and the road was dozens of feet below its former level. The Jewish National Fund has been building cisterns, but Israel still is over-using water. This is in partial answer to an Internet critic, "BiasedReporter,"
who accepts an Egyptian's unverified accusation that Israel is
planning wars to wrest water away from Arabs. To see my article on
that accusation, go here:
Some Arab states already are at loggerheads with other states over water allocation. ISRAEL LETS EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS INTO GAZA Israel just let a large shipment of educational materials into Gaza. It exempts humanitarian materials from its embargo (www.imra.org.il, 11/11). Critics of Israel allege great suffering in Gaza. They do not cite any. They do not take into account the extensive tunnel smuggling. They blame Israel for the suffering and not Hamas' insistence on making war. I question the ethics of letting humanitarian materials through. The Islamist enemy, with popular support, is waging a terrorist war for eventual expulsion of the Jews or their murder. Providing such materials facilitates that war. If total war is being waged against one, then one may take stiffer counter-measures. What do the Islamists do with educational materials? Just educate? You know they indoctrinate in bigotry and violence. They indoctrinate for coming wars. They have summer camps for that purpose. Children's TV programs, same purpose. Hamas boasts that they are preparing their future soldiers mentally. MAY ISRAELI POLITICIANS DEFY ELECTORAL MANDATES? Peace Now leader, Noam Shelef, and my source, Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA, are debating whether Israeli politicians may defy their electoral mandates. It started when Yossii Beilin encouraged politicians, "If you are in power with the responsibility for the future of the People on your shoulders and if you are convinced that it is the correct path don't hesitate. Don't knowingly make the wrong decision only because you found yourself saying something in the heat of the election campaign. In any case in the next elections you will face the judgment of the public..." Dr. Lerner criticized Beilin's proposal as encouraging fraud and as offering a remedy too late. That is, voters might reject a party after it would have ceded Territories, but it would be too late to retrieve the Territories without war. The controversy was on! Peace Now suggested that Israeli politicians would be brave to defy the platform on which voters had selected their parties. The defiance would be to withdraw Israeli forces and residents from areas that voters do not want abandoned. In a personally sarcastic way, Peace Now stated that Dr. Lerner writes objectively, but his ideological bias sometimes appears. It claimed that IMRA polling is manipulative. [IMRA polling asks more precise questions, when vague polls are manipulative. I have read the polls and their explanations.] It challenged Dr. Lerner to respond, to demonstrate intellectual honesty, which it doubted he has. Dr. Lerner did respond. The proposed politicians' defiance was put as if a carte blanche policy. Thus, politicians could issue campaign pledges with intent to deceive. Dr. Lerner suggested that such a policy would be a fraud [intellectually dishonest], subversive of democracy. Peace Now opposes a referendum on the issue. Peace Now challenged Dr. Lerner that if withdrawal is put to a referendum, he should propose a referendum for building in the Territories. The problem with a referendum is that unscrupulous politicians could defy that, too. Dr. Lerner cites PM Sharon's doing that with a national referendum on Gaza and a Likud referendum on it. The result was war. There is a difference between the two issues, that does not make them comparable, as Peace Now implies. Withdrawal is difficult to reverse, but drastically affects national security. A building freeze can be thawed without troops having to fight their way past an army. Incidentally, the building in, and presence of, Jewish settlements did not stop PM Sharon from a withdrawal. On the other hand, settlement expansion would put pressure on the Arabs to come to terms. In recognition of the great difference between the relative permanence of withdrawal and the temporary nature of building, Oslo forbad changing the legal status of the Territories but did not forbid settlement building. (Documentation below.) Dr. Lerner is trying to defend his democratic rights. Peace Now knows that the people do not support its ideology [despite the Left's citing polls favoring withdrawals and building suspension, though most polls, when they put the question accurately, find opinion against withdrawals and building freezes]. Unable to win at the ballot box, Peace Now wants to leave it up to more amenable politicians and not have the people ratify or veto by referendum. "The question is not the merits of withdrawal or the fruits of withdrawal. The question is if the citizens of Israel should have the right to express their view and have it honored. Dr. Lerner concluded, "As for the charge that I hide my agenda behind an appeal to democratic principles. I resent the attempt to avoid my point by somehow stripping me of my right to argue for my democratic rights. (www.imra.org.il, 11/11). Peace Now injected personal nastiness into the debate. It is uncalled for. It reflects on them. However idealistic people consider themselves, when they get personally nasty, and when they try to force their policy upon the people, they also call into question just how idealistic their ideology is. As for intellectual integrity, Peace Now repeatedly has put forth greatly exaggerated figures about the extent of Arab-owned land in Jewish communities in the Territories. It also hunts up Arabs with false claims to land in those communities. Elected officials should have some flexibility, if circumstances change. Peace Now does not claim that circumstances changed. Documentation: Article XXXI Paragraph 7 of the Interim Agreement: "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." The meaning of "status" means "legal status". A violation of the agreement would take place if Israel annexed part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip or the PA declared an independent state in the area before the negotiations were concluded. Israeli settlement activity is no more a violation of the Agreement than Palestinian construction." "This is not just an Israeli interpretation. 'the Oslo agreement was not clear in the need to stop the settlement machine.'" "That's straight from 'The political agenda of the national liberation movement Palestinian 'Fatah' Submitted to the Sixth Conference of the Movement ' June 28, 2009 Draft." www.fatehconf.ps/pdfs/fatehpolitical.pdf JEWISH ANTI-ZIONISM & ANTISEMITISM The news here is that Haaretz, Israel's far-Left daily, has published a stern rebuke of Jewish antisemitism (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/11, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127159.html The Jew Flu: The strange illness of Jewish anti-Semitism By Uzi Silber, in 5 pages). Haaretz surprises us, because usually it condemns Israel for much of its self-defense and has correspondents who encourage terrorism against fellow Jews. Like my earlier analysis of Jewish antisemitism, the newspaper's rebuke categorizes it as an emotional disease, typifies it in some of the same ways as my series on irrational anti-Zionism, has double standards, supports the side that believes in hatred and murder. The newspaper accords with my finding that Noam Chomsky (whom one of my critics cited as his authority against Israel) is afflicted with the psychosis. I think that Martin Buber's case is more complicated. He opposed Jewish government, because he thinks that governments have too much power. I can understand some fevered Jewish minds agreeing, after hundreds of years during which the Jewish people had no power. If Buber were rational about it, he would not want to subordinate their people to a government by gentiles indoctrinated to hate them. But as the newspaper explains, the psychosis is accompanied by disloyalty to one's people. This disloyalty is something that some of the comments I receive demonstrate is not understood by gentile anti-Zionists. They stereotype all Jews as alike, and assume that all Jews support Israel. False assumption. Can we expect more, striking developments by Haaretz? Here's the article:
ITALIAN JUDGE CONVICTS U.S. AGENTS OF KIDNAPPING TERRORIST An Italian judge convicted U.S. CIA agents of kidnapping a Muslim terrorist, in cooperation with Italian agents. He wanted to convict those Italians, but the evidence against them was classified. The captive had been sent to Egypt for questioning. There, he says, he was tortured. [I suppose that is true.] The NY Times of 11/11 approved of that verdict. The Wall St. Journal did not. The NY Times emphasized the captives being sent abroad to evade U.S. Constitutional protection from mistreatment. The Wall St. Journal emphasized that it really wasn't kidnapping, but a joint anti-terrorist effort. Foreign security officials will be wary of cooperating with the U.S. against terrorism. I think that both newspapers made valid points but missed the other's point. An end run around our Constitution, and in order to permit torture, is indeed a "national disgrace," as the Times headline put it and the Journal should have. The judge's prosecution of foreign agents working with his own country's security agents in order to combat international terrorism that afflicts both countries is unfair and dangerous, as the Journal found, and should have been called an Italian "national disgrace" by the Times. The answer is to apprehend but not torture. JIMMY CARTER ANTI-ISRAEL, PRO-ARAB ON U.S. DIPLOMACY Jimmy Carter wrote an anti-Israel, pro-Arab letter on U.S. diplomacy. He was responding in the NY Times to a column by Thomas Friedman, which declares it futile now for the U.S. to strive for a diplomatic solution to the Arab-Israel conflict. I think that Mr. Carter puts it manipulatively. He said, "Mr. Friedman is advocating what some Israelis want and no Palestinian wants: a perpetuation of the status quo..." Carter insinuates that the Arabs want a solution, which they have proved they do not, as by refusing to negotiate, refusing all previous offers, violating their peace agreements that were to lead to a solution, and making demands that would doom Israel. Carter also shades his statement so that it insinuates sentiment against Israel. What does "some Israelis" mean? Carter claims that most Palestinian Arabs want peace. The polls and their indoctrination indicated they want to take Israel away from the Jews. Carter refers to the Saudi plan that hints at general Arab recognition of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. However, Abbas said he never would, regardless of any peace agreement. The Saudi plan is a snare, not to be taken seriously. It's the old Arab trick of offering something intangible for something tangible. For the enemy, nothing materializes, it dematerializes. Then Carter claims that "most thinking Israelis — including Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, all conservatives — have recognized that a continuation of the status quo will be a catastrophe for Israel..." because of the Arab demographic threat. Those particular Israelis were known for blunders, corruption, and leftist policy, particularly poor at thinking things through. The demographic threat was exaggerated by Arafat and parroted unthinkingly, especially by Olmert, but Arab birth rates declined. The status quo is not satisfactory, but what Carter proposes, depriving Israel of secure borders and the core of its homeland would be more unsatisfactory. But Carter falls back on discredited buzz words, "diplomatic and economic recognition of Israel within its secure borders, side-by-side with Palestinians in a viable and contiguous state." Giving Palestinian Arab terrorists a state, the heights of the Judean and Samarian mountains, and the Jordan Valley tank barrier from the east, and putting their army alongside Israeli cities, and giving them the sovereign right to bring in arms and armies, does not leave Israel viable. A corridor through Israel to make the Arab state contiguous, may bisect Israel. Another reader reacted to Friedman's column by suggesting that the U.S. bring the parties to terms by withdrawing diplomatic support from Abbas, threatening Hamas with military strikes for aiding international terrorism, and threatening to cut off Israel's annual subsidy. Can you imagine what judge Goldstone would think of U.S. bombing of Gaza, where Hamas gets away with deploying its troops and arms around civilians, so when some civilians get killed, the world blames not Hamas but the U.S.? In any case, why should the U.S. support Abbas, a terrorist, himself? I think that Israel should give up U.S. subsidy. It does Israel more harm than good. It is used as a club against the Israeli military industry and the letter suggests it be used to extort concessions from Israel. The reader's mistakenly assumes that the problem is tractable but the participants are not. Actually, Israel would negotiate, but the Arabs' religious motive keeps them from making peace. Were any Arab to make peace, he probably would be assassinated and repudiated. Arafat used to fear this.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
BRING DOWN THE WALL: WALL OF ANTI-ISRAEL ISOLATION, RATHER THAN SECURITY FENCE, IS REAL OBSTACLE TO PEACE
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, November 11, 2009. |
|
This was written by Eldad Beck and it appeared today in
Ynet News
|
|
BERLIN — The international festival marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall offers a renewed push to the well-oiled Palestinian propaganda machine against the security fence. This campaign has been enjoying wide support worldwide. The security fence has become a new version of the Berlin Wall in the simplistic perception of many Europeans a long time ago. This has created a rather broad consensus calling for and acting for the sake of bringing down the "Israeli wall" in the name of principles such as international fraternity and human liberty. In the face of this global assault, we must make something that is seemingly obvious (yet many prefer to ignore) clear: Apart from certain visual similarities, there is no connection between the Berlin Wall and the security fence. The Berlin Wall separated members of the same nation who aspired, to some extent or another, to reunite in a joint political framework. Meanwhile, the security fence marks, to some extent or another, a future border between two nations that do not wish to coexist in one state, but rather, to split their shared land into two separate states. It is surprising that precisely those who for a long time fought for the Palestinian right for their own state now demand to dismantle the security fence. After all, this fence pushed the Palestinians closer to geographical and political division that would constitute a basis for a separate political entity. Charges regarding the "apartheid fence" reveal the true motives of the Palestinians and their supporters, who are uninterested in dividing the country and co-existing alongside Israel; rather, they are interested in taking over the entire land. Wall of ostracism There is another wall in the Middle East which objectors to the security fence refuse to see, not to mention fight against, even though it is this wall that perpetuates the conflict between Jews and Arabs: The wall of boycotts and isolation imposed by most of the Muslim world against Israel since its establishment. Despite the peace treaties and despite far-reaching concessions offered by Israel in order to advance on the path of peace, the wall of ostracism has remained in place almost unchanged. Moreover, in recent years, in the wake of the slight openness that accompanied the Oslo years, the wall has become larger. Over the years, the dismantlement of this wall of hostility has become — in the eyes of the West as well — a reward Israel may enjoy only if and when it complies with all Arab demands. However, perhaps things should be examined in a wholly different light: Only the toppling of the wall of isolation surrounding Israel would enable the promotion of the peace process. Only this step would facilitate reconciliation between Israelis and Arabs and among Jews, Muslims, and Christians. As long as this wall exists, the sides would not be able to get to know each other and it would be impossible to counter the bias that fans the flames of this conflict. The "Middle Eastern Wall" had been established much before the security fence and it bears absolute responsibility for the security fence's existence. Anyone who claims that he genuinely wishes to advance peace must enlist to the cause of toppling the wall of Israel's isolation as a pre-condition to any serious reconciliation process — because this wall is the true successor of the Berlin Wall. Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: ROUND WE GO
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 11, 2009. |
|
November 11 is the day that WWI stopped, 91 years ago. In the US, this day — which was once Armistice Day — is now celebrated as Veterans Day, to honor soldiers who served in all American wars. In light of what is going on at this time, honoring the fighting men who give of themselves to protect freedom could not be more appropriate. 
~~~~~~~~~~ But here we sit, and there is the sense of going round, of spinning with the rumors and the game-playing. Not being able to tell quite what is the truth of our situation or where we'll end up. One piece of information I received today — off the record — may be encouraging. And while I cannot share the information, I can certainly pass on my tentative sense that it's not all bad. ~~~~~~~~~~ However, there is absolutely nothing optimistic about the declaration by Fatah Central Committee member Mohammad Dahlan that the PA may seek a resolution by the Security Council that would recognize the borders of a Palestinian state. I shared here just days ago the comment by former law professor Ruth Lapidot that there is no agency that recognizes nations, so whether the Palestinians could pull this off at all is debatable. But at the end of the day, we must hope that Obama, committed to the negotiation process, would veto this as inappropriate. Abbas — in a talk he gave at his Mukata headquarters in Ramallah in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of Arafat's death — echoed Dahlan's theme: "A Palestinian state is a truth recognized by the world, and we are now leading a battle to have its border recognized." Sounds like this is the tactic they've settled on for now. ~~~~~~~~~~ But even this is complicated. Khaled Abu Toameh, in a piece today, reported that Al-Quds al-Arabi in London is saying that some members of Fatah are criticizing Fayyad's plan for a state in two years, because they had not been consulted in advance. So their power struggle might at some level undercut plans to advance their state. (Nothing new in that.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Returning to Abbas and his talk at the Mukata: Assuring the crowd that the Palestinian people will not give up, he declared that "our revolution is the most difficult and the longest revolution in history." He didn't explain why the "revolution" continues, when the people could have had a state in 2000, and again in 2008. His mentor, Arafat, turned down the first offer, and he, the second. Instead, he delivered the inevitable accusations:
"Judaizing Jerusalem" One of my favorite of the accusations coming from the PA. Is this not an oxymoron, as Jerusalem IS Jewish? But with the oxymoron, came the libel — that blatant and ubiquitous lie — regarding excavations under the mosque. They never quit. ~~~~~~~~~~ Could this, just possibly, be enough to move Obama with regard to his position on Iran? According to official Iranian media sources, last night, at a meeting of the Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ahmadinejad placed a challenge before Obama. It's time, he said, for the American president to make good on his promise of "Change." "The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand. No change is made unless great choices are made. Put plainly, Ahmadinejad was saying, "Obama, old buddy, it's us or Israel, you can't have both." Now, it's something of an understatement to say that Obama has bent over backwards overlooking and justifying unacceptable behavior from Muslim nations. But this sort of audacious challenge might be too much for even him. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Security Council held a closed-door debate yesterday about implementation of resolution 1701, which brought our 2006 war in Lebanon to a close. In the course of the discussion, according to one participant, the US accused Iran of violating a UN arms embargo by secretly sending weapons to Syria via the arms ship the Francop. US deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the council that the concealed arms shipment, "clearly manifested from Iran to Syria" — in violation of a March 2007 arms embargo — provides "unambiguous evidence of the destabilizing proliferation of arms in the region." Israel has released documents — such as a customs form from the Iranian Armed Forces — and photos to substantiate the fact that the origin of the arms cache was Iran and that its destination was Syria. What I want to know is, now that the closed door session is over and the accusation has been made — what? Where do we see follow-through, penalties, restriction on Iranian activities, or plans for increased sanctions? Where do we even see a public statement on this by the US? ~~~~~~~~~~ I recommend Daniel Pipe's comments on the events at Fort Hood. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. Identifying himself as "a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation," which "perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law," he rejects other explanations of Hasan's actions as "weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic." What makes his piece stand out is that he lists a number of other jihadist attacks and the lame explanations that were offered with regard to them. For example: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed" (killing with an SUV in northern California). Pipes concludes: "If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it's also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army's 'unforgivable political correctness' will officially ascribe Hasan's assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" "Wing of Love" is a wild life park situated in Kibbutz Kfar Menahem in central Israel. But it's a very special park, with a unique mission. Fourteen to 18 year olds with police records live on the premises, and work there, on court order. In the main, they assist with the rehabilitation of protected species of fowl and assist with park maintenance. The goal is for the boys to bond with the animals and each other, in an atmosphere of hope. Michele Klein, spokeswoman of the park, explained the park's philosophy to ISRAEL21c: "The boys are under our wing — one wing — because they are also supposed to develop their own wing...they are participating in the process that will allow them to fly the rest of the way on two wings. And this place is meant to be a garden of love for people and animals..." Volunteers from a variety of fields — from air force cadets to persons in hi-tech — work with the boys, providing them with contacts they would not otherwise have. ~~~~~~~~~~ When there is heart disease, blood vessels around the heart either become clogged or die. Now Israeli researchers — Dr. Britta Hardy and Prof. Alexander Battler of Tel Aviv University — have developed a protein that can be injected straight into the muscles of the body to stimulate regrowth of tiny blood vessels in just weeks. "The biotechnology behind our human-based protein therapy is very complicated, but the goal is simple and the solution is straightforward," says Hardy. "We intend to inject our drug locally to heal any oxygen-starved tissue." Where damaged vessels around the heart are concerned, the hope is to reduce the need for by-pass surgery. But this work was begun in an effort to prevent limb amputation.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
THUNDER AND LIGHTNING
Posted by Marc Prowisor, November 11, 2009. |
|
Thunder and Lightning, or in Hebrew — Rahm and Barak, can either bring rains of blessing or a damaging storm. Rahm Emanuel spoke to the General Assembly of Jewish leaders regarding Israel and US involvement in achieving peace between Israel and the Arab occupants of Judea and Samaria. He spoke of his family's connection to Israel, President Obama's dedication to peace in the region and how what started in 1967, must end. What exactly started in 1967? Israel was victorious over the Jordanian Army after we were attacked, and ended the JORDANIAN occupation of the region, this is what started back in 1967. Jewish communities were reborn from the ashes, once again Jews were allowed to live in places they were once evicted from, and places where they were massacred. What started? Mr. Emanuel? Jews returned to their biblical heartland, you know this as you were brought up with a religious education. The Chief of Staff spoke of how his Father took the name "Emanuel" in honor of his Uncle who died fighting for Israel, will he show the same courage when the Arabs once again deny the existence of a "Jewish" state? I could not help but notice the lack of heart Mr. Emanuel had while speaking, his lack of conviction, his detachment from the truth and real situation on the ground in Israel. How easy it is to speak to an assembly full of "yes men", whose lives are not endangered by the political duels going own. Mr. Emanuel mentioned how the "Two State Solution" enjoys bi-partisan support among US Jewry. I ask myself, whose sons and daughters are serving in the armed forces of Israel and putting themselves on the front lines, defending a people and country with their lives. Rahm, mentioned not to let "settlements" stand in the way of peace, who is he to decide what is good for Israel, who will clean up the mess he makes, definitely not his sons. Yes, he is the President's Chief of Staff, a very powerful politician and possibly the mastermind of the current US strategy to endear itself to the Arabs and Muslims of the world. If he believes that the dismantling of the Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria will solve the Israeli-Arab problem, then he probably feels that Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a common criminal and not a terrorist. It hurts to hear the cheers of the audience as Rahm mentions the issue of "ending" the communities of Judea and Samaria, most of those at this convention have never been out to any of these places and regard the populous as extremist lunatics, how unfortunate that they don't even realize who these people really are and how their "Heroes" in the IDF are made up of these people, that these places are theirs also. Such is ignorance. I challenge them to come out here to visit and see what is really going on and meet the people of Judea and Samaria, but to come out with an open mind, sans the poison that they are being fed by the opponents of a strong Jewish nation. I also extend this invitation to Mr. Emanuel to come out and meet us, not through the eyes of the government, but through your heart and mind. Maybe for your son's Bar Mitzvah, after he reads the Torah at the Kotel (in the capital of Israel today), take him also to Hevron to see where his forefathers are buried, then to Shilo which served as the first capital of Israel, home to the Mishkan (Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant) for 369 years (even older than the United States). You spoke how important your history is to you, here is a chance to show your family and supporters that you mean what you say. Mr. Emanuel, you are a source of pride to the American Jewish Community, your patriotism, your dedication and your loyalty. I would like to bless you that you also become a source of pride to all of your people, all over the world using the same characteristics. Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com |
|
YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE ROLE OF RADICAL ISLAM
Posted by Daily Alert, November 11, 2009. |
|
This is by Tarek Fatah, and it appeared yesterday in Tawa Citizen (Canada)
|
|
As dozens of talking heads descended on CNN and FOX TV to give their opinions on the Fort Hood massacre last week, no one seemed to notice the significance of the attire that suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan was wearing the morning of the killings. It was captured on a store surveillance video as Maj. Hasan bought a coffee. CNN's Arab commentator incorrectly reported that the major was wearing "Muslim garb" commonly worn in Jordan, and that it reflected his devoutness as a Muslim. However, to Pakistanis and Afghans watching the clip around the world, his clothing reflected something far more significant and sinister. Maj. Hasan was wearing the "shalwar-kameez," the traditional attire worn by Pashtuns on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Had Maj. Hasan been of Pakistani or Afghan ancestry, it would have meant very little, but for an Arab-American to wear this attire was significant. In the Middle East, over five million Pakistanis and Afghans work and live among the local Arab population. The shalwar-kameez is common on the streets of Dubai and Jeddah, but no Arab male would ever want to be seen wearing this garb. I have lived a decade in the Arab world and not once did I see an Arab wearing the shalwar-kameez. Having said that there is one particular group of Arabs who did embrace the garb of the Pashtuns. They were the "Afghan Arabs" who went to Afghanistan to wage jihad alongside al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The question that needs to be asked is this: Where did Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American-born Arab, get hold of a shalwar-kameez? Did Hasan visit the Pakistan-Afghan region, or was he in touch with the Arab Afghans in the U.S. and Canada who wear the Pashtun attire as a sign of solidarity with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? All of this talk about the killer's clothing would be inconsequential, had it not been for what else has been reported about the good major. Col. Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with Maj. Hasan at the military base in Texas, alleges the suspected mass murderer had angry confrontations with other officers over his views that Muslims should "rise up and attack Americans" in retaliation for the U.S. war in Iraq. Col. Lee was quoted in the London Telegraph saying, Maj. Hasan was "happy" when in June, a Muslim convert was arrested in the killing of a U.S. soldier in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas. Other army officers claimed Maj. Hasan had said "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves" and go to Times Square in New York. Lt.-Gen. Robert Cone, the commander of the base, told NBC News that, according to eyewitnesses, Maj. Hasan had shouted the Islamic battle cry "Allahu Akbar!" (God is great) before opening fire. In addition, U.S. federal law enforcement officials say someone with the same name as Maj. Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. However, none of this is relevant for Islamic groups. In statements after the mass murder, they tried to manipulate the media narrative by suggesting it was they who were the victims of this tragedy. Instead of denouncing the rise of Islamism and jihadi doctrines among Muslim youth, Islamist organizations once more came out with banal denunciations of "violence." Muslim groups condemned this "cowardly attack" without mentioning Maj. Hasan by name. And there were the usual provisos that "Islam in no way accepts such violence and terror," and that "Islam is a peaceful religion with great reverence for human life." But such statements must include a denunciation of the doctrine of "armed jihad," which is without doubt the force that gives religious validation to such acts of terror and encourages so many young Muslims toward suicide attacks on non-Muslims. Unless and until Islamic organizations, imams of mosques and their allies who have penetrated every institution that matters in our public life, say explicitly that there is no room for jihad at a time of the modern nation state, and that the doctrine of holy war is defunct, outdated and needs to be shelved, the rest of North America will not take us Muslims seriously. If the mosques do not stop spreading the virus of victimhood there will be more Muslim men willing to waste their lives for a jihad that God never asked them to fight. We have a window of opportunity. Let us acknowledge what Muslim youth living among us are being fed. If a Muslim man, educated and trained at the expense of the American taxpayer to be a doctor and rise to the rank of major, could still feel a victim, and could launch an attempted suicide attack against America, then those who cry Islamophobia every day also share some blame in this atrocity.
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
|
|
MUSLIM CLERIC PRAISES DECEPTION; AMERICAN INDIANS CONNECT TO ISRAEL;
MUSLIM JUDEOPHOBIA; YEMEN CIVIL WAR; ROADMAP DOESN'T REQUIRE PA STATE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 11, 2009. |
|
MUSLIM CLERIC COMMENDS ISLAMIC DECEPTION This is from a sermon delivered by Egyptian cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri, which aired on Al-Nas TV on August 10, 2009. To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2268.htm "I'd like to tell you a very nice story. Once there was a Muslim who lived next to a Jew. The Muslim saw in the Jew a measure of good-heartedness — however small — and he wanted to find any way to make him convert to Islam. So he went to him and asked: 'Don't you feel the need for Islam? Why don't you become a Muslim?' The Jew said: 'The only thing preventing me from becoming a Muslim is that I love drinking alcohol. I would have become a Muslim ages ago, but the only thing stopping me is that I am an alcoholic.'" The sermon implied that Jews cannot be decent people. Judaism holds that people can be decent without being Jewish. This planet of scarcity except of people and of increasingly deadly weaponry needs tolerance. RUSSIAN & TURKISH BALANCING ACTS OVER IRAN & ARABS Having tilted away from Europe and Israel and toward Iran and the Arabs, Turkey may find itself irking the Arabs who worry about Iranian imperial ambition. Welcome to the world of national balancing acts! Russia has been helping Iran build a nuclear plant and hampering stiff sanctions against Iran for moving its nuclear development in a military direction. Russia also, however, has been delaying delivery of a defense system for the plant. As a result, Iran threatens its relationship with Russia and Russia threatens to support stiffer sanctions against Iran. Russia is in a balancing act (www.imra.org.il, 11/9). If governments would recognize and renounce evil, they would escape such problems. Unfortunately, idealism is diminishing though not hypocritical pretense at having it. Russia may be holding off support for Iran only temporarily, seeking concessions from the West for doing so. It also is concerned about offending foreign Muslims lest they support domestic Muslims rebels. I think that jihad has regained its fervor, so that Russia cannot appease it away. ISRAEL & THE AMERICAN INDIANS A new connection was forged between Israel and American Indians. Anne Richardson is the Chief of the Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. "...she has worked for the past ten years ministering reconciliation to tribal nations in America and established Restoring Nations International Ministries in 2007, teaching reconciliation, redemption and healing of land to indigenous people. This year, the Department of Labor gave her the 'Chiefs Award,' its highest, for her leadership and advocacy for the rights of Native Americans." "In 2006, Chief Anne Richardson renewed the covenant with the Queen of England. In 2005 she presented President Bush with a 'Proclamation of Forgiveness'. She also presented him with a 'Never Again' pin asking him to always stand to ensure a holocaust would never again take place in America or in Israel." Now Chief Anne Richardson is coming to Israel, to present "...Minister Landau with a Native American headdress and a Declaration of Alliance signed by the Chief and her Tribal Council as a symbol of their covenant with Israel. The Chief will be bringing a message of support and solidarity to the State and people of Israel, while Minister Landau will be conveying the warm support of Israel with a message of hope and continuity." "'We love Israel and want to show your people the solidarity that we as Native Americans have with you' says Chief Anne Richardson. Government Minister of National Infrastructure Dr. Uzi Landau, known as being deeply invested in reconnecting the people of Israel to the land of Israel, sees a natural parallel with the Native American peoples." (www.imra.org.il, 10/1). Palestinian Arabs have likened themselves to the American Indians, but the Palestinian Jews were in the situation that the Indians found themselves. Both Jews and Indians were the aboriginals conquered by foreign settlers, deprived of their rights, and suffered mass murder. OBAMA & QUARTET, AGAINST ISRAEL, GUT ROAD MAP The senior heads of the Quartet, including Pres. Obama, gutted the Road Map. The Road Map had at its core the principle of reciprocity. It required the Arabs to take certain steps to end the conflict (such as end incitement to war and dissolve terrorism), and that would require Israel in the next phase to make some concessions. The Quartet unilaterally declared specifically that reciprocity no longer is required. This means that the Arabs can stall, keep up their terrorism, while the Quartet would expect Israel to make concessions to people demonstrating disinterest in peace. President Obama further unbalanced the agreement by no longer referring to UN Resolution 242 which called for just some Israeli withdrawal, but indicated he wanted a total withdrawal [without justifying it]. This contradicts former President Bush's letter to former PM Sharon, stating that "...it was unrealistic to expect that Israel would withdraw from its large 'population centers' in the West Bank. This acknowledgement of the settlement blocs granted a portion of the settlements a degree of legitimacy that Obama's formal remarks denied." Bush's letter got bi-partisan congressional endorsement, including by Rep. Rahm Immanuel and Sen. Clinton [who now don't remember it]. The Quartet statement also supports Palestinian Authority (P.A.) PM Fayed's plan for establishing the institutions of statehood, without obligations on their part, but leaving the P.A. in a position to declare independence, or for the UN to do so, without having resolved the P.A. bases for having made war on Israel. The Quartet thus has removed P.A. incentives to negotiate fairly. It has given the P.A. an incentive to further work to de-legitimize Israel. It is up to Israeli diplomats to insist on Israel's rights and to retrieve the promises and guarantees made to it (www.imra.org.il, 10/2 from Jerusalem. Post). We see international perfidy against Israel. Israel should have rejected outside "mediation" in the first place. It cannot trust the U.S. or other foreign entities. They don't keep their agreements. They prefer the terrorists. They have the double standard and arrogance to unilaterally change agreements, and demand that Israel adhere to its part in them and not that the Arabs do. Quartet policies are disastrous for Israel and beneficial for war. THE ARABS & THEIR NAZISM AGAINST JEWS The Arab line is that Israel's only justification is the Holocaust, with which they were not complicit, making Arabs suffer for what Germans did. They rationalize that the Arabs' role ended with the Holocaust. German historians, Islamic scholars, and Arabists play down the important Arab role in the Holocaust and in antisemitism. To expose the falsity of the pro-Arab line, Karl Russell submitted an exhibit to the Werkstatt der Kulturen," supposed to open in Germany on September 1. True to form, the center's director canceled the exhibit, though after protests, a small version was allowed in. What don't those historians know or want us to know? The Jewish people have 3,000 years of history on their Land. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem "...orchestrated the 1920/1921 anti-Jewish riots in Palestine and the 1929 Arab pogroms that destroyed the ancient Jewish community of Hebron. An early admirer of Hitler, Husseini received Nazi funding, as did Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, for his 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt, during which his thugs killed hundreds of British soldiers, Jews and also Arabs who rejected his Islamo-Nazi agenda. After participating in a failed fascist coup in Iraq, he fled to Berlin in 1941 as Hitler's personal guest. In the service of the Third Reich, the mufti recruited thousands of Muslims to the Waffen SS. He intervened with the Nazis to prevent the escape to Palestine of thousands of European Jews, who were sent instead to the death camps. He also conspired with the Nazis to bring the Holocaust to Palestine. Rommel's defeat in El Alamein spoiled these plans." In the West, "...it is often claimed that the mufti's Hitler alliance later discredited him in the region. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Mideast, Nazis were not only popular during but also after the war, scores of them found refuge in the Arab world, including Eichman's deputy, Alois Brunner, who escaped to Damascus. The German war criminals became trusted military and security advisers in the region, particularly of Nazi sympathizer Gamal Nasser, then Egypt's president." "The mufti himself escaped to Egypt in 1946. Far from being shunned for his Nazi past, he was elected president of the National Palestinian Council. The mufti was at the forefront of pushing the Arabs to reject the 1948 United Nations partition plan and to wage a "war of destruction" against the fledgling Jewish state. His great admirer [and kinsman], Yasser Arafat, would later succeed him as Palestinian leader." Apologists for the Arabs rationalize falsely that Arab collaboration with the Nazis "wasn't ideological but pragmatic, following the old dictum that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' This 'excuse' not only fails to consider what would have happened to the Jews and British in the Mideast had the Arabs' German friends won. It also overlooks the mufti's and his followers' virulent anti-Semitism, which continues to poison the minds of many Muslims even today." "The mufti 'invented a new form of Jew-hatred by recasting it in an Islamic mold,' according to German scholar Matthias Kuntzel. The mufti's fusion of European anti-Semitism, particularly the genocidal variety, with Koranic views of Jewish wickedness has become the hallmark of Islamists world-wide, from al Qaeda to Hamas and Hezbollah. During his time in Berlin, the mufti ran the Nazis' Arab-language propaganda radio program, which incited Muslims in the Mideast to 'kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.'" YEMEN, SAUDI ARABIA, IRAN, & ERITREA Besides Yemen's north-south civil war in Yemen, the Shiite Houthis are rebelling. I have reported little about this, because the area is too remote and restricted for independent journalists to access. Journalists are taking handouts from the various parties involved. Those parties deny each others' stories. I cannot rely upon them. But here is the jist of their mutually conflicting claims. S. Arabia claims that hundreds of Houthi rebels infiltrated a bordering Saudi area, mainly for the purpose of raiding Yemen. The Saudis claim that their military killed the rebels. The rebels claim that S. Arabia used phosphorus bombs against them, but on the Yemen side of the border and including populated areas. S. Arabia calls those claims lies. The rebels also accuse Yemen of using phosphorus bombs, but Yemen denies having such bombs. Yemen claims that Iran trains the rebels, as part of its mission to destabilize the Arab world. An Eritrean opposition group claims that the arms are shipped to the rebels via Eritrea (www.imra.org.il, 11/9) a member of the Arab League. They way they toss around claims, counter-claims, and denials, in the absence of independent reporters, reminds one of what happened in Gaza. When the ridiculous claims are taken up by the UN, which is not independent, and against Israel, their absurdity is overlooked. That is what we mean by "tendentious." You can see that this Mideast war has nothing to do with Israel. Therefore, settling the Arab-Israel conflict cannot bring peace to the whole Mideast. It might shatter what little Muslim unity there is, and bring additional wars. YEMEN, SAUDI ARABIA, IRAN, & ERITREA Besides Yemen's north-south civil war in Yemen, the Shiite Houthis are rebelling. I have reported little about this, because the area is too remote and restricted for independent journalists to access. Journalists are taking handouts from the various parties involved. Those parties deny each others' stories. I cannot rely upon them. But here is the jist of their mutually conflicting claims. S. Arabia claims that hundreds of Houthi rebels infiltrated a bordering Saudi area, mainly for the purpose of raiding Yemen. The Saudis claim that their military killed the rebels. The rebels claim that S. Arabia used phosphorus bombs against them, but on the Yemen side of the border and including populated areas. S. Arabia calls those claims lies. The rebels also accuse Yemen of using phosphorus bombs, but Yemen denies having such bombs. Yemen claims that Iran trains the rebels, as part of its mission to destabilize the Arab world. An Eritrean opposition group claims that the arms are shipped to the rebels via Eritrea (www.imra.org.il, 11/9) a member of the Arab League. They way they toss around claims, counter-claims, and denials, in the absence of independent reporters, reminds one of what happened in Gaza. When the ridiculous claims are taken up by the UN, which is not independent, and against Israel, their absurdity is overlooked. That is what we mean by "tendentious." You can see that this Mideast war has nothing to do with Israel. Therefore, settling the Arab-Israel conflict cannot bring peace to the whole Mideast. It might shatter what little Muslim unity there is, and bring additional wars. ISRAEL OPENING CHECKPOINT TO ISRAELI ARABS' CARS Israel is opening the Jalameh Vehicle Crossing, near Jenin, to Israeli Arabs' vehicles. This is an event to which governmental and regional agencies and reporters are invited (www.imra.org.il, 11/9). The NY Times admits that Israeli Jews' cars would be stoned (11/10). A photo-op. Why not open it to Israeli Jews' cars? Because the Arabs are liable to lynch Jews. Palestinian Arabs who visit Israel have no such concerns. What do you make of that? Does it show that the Muslim Arabs are ready to live side-by-side with Jews or that they are too prejudiced? ISRAELI AIDE MISREPRESENTS ROADMAP ON ARAB STATE Dov Weisglass was PM Sharon's Chief of Staff, a key contact with the U.S. [and with the Palestinian authority (P.A.)]. He described the Road Map as requiring P.A. statehood. He also suggested that the new government of Israel start by offering the extensive concessions offered by its predecessors. The Road Map does not require P.A. statehood. It mentions it as an option. As a lawyer, Mr. Weisglass is expected to describe contracts accurately. Here is the Road Map wording, "Phase II: Transition — June 2003-December 2003. In the second phase, efforts are focused on the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty, based on the new constitution, as a way station to a permanent status settlement. ..." (www.imra.org.il, 11/9.) Weisglass was an investor in the P.A. while advising the government of Israel in relations with the P.A.. It was a conflict of interest bearing on national security. His advice to go beyond past offers to the P.A. does not safeguard national security, either. It is a poor way of bargaining. Why not ask the P.A., which keeps raising its demands, to expect less than past offers? It is improper to hobble a new regime with the blunders of prior regimes, which blunders it was elected to eliminate. Weisglass does not take into account subsequent events which show that the P.A. is not interested in genuine peace, and its continued dissemination of bigotry and support for terrorism makes it unworthy of concessions. Israel would be wiser to look to its own security. PALESTINIAN ARAB LEADERSHIP MAY RESIGN, BLAME U.S. Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) gave out word that he may resign. Other P.A. leaders said that they would follow his lead That would bring the P.A. to collapse. Abbas may change his mind, however, for "clear gains." Reasons they give: (1) They do not foresee statehood; and (2) They are shocked that the U.S., which originally demanded a total Jewish building freeze in the Territories and in eastern Jerusalem, then accepted the predominant but not total freeze counter-offered by PM Netanyahu. [For years, the NY Times called Abbas a "moderate," not explaining why except in general terms as opposing terrorism and wanting peace. Here is more.] "Rather than military fatigues, Abbas wore suits. He made a point of condemning Palestinian military actions against Israel as 'terrorism,' and saying that the second Intifada was wrong. He gained the confidence of former hard-liners like Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and he was widely admired on the Israeli Left. Some of those on the Left now worry deeply about his decision, blaming the Israeli government." For example, Ephraim Sneh laments Israel's "lost opportunities." Other leftists say the problem is that he does not control Gaza. Rather than Israel's lost opportunities, he lost an opportunity to accept Olmert's offer of about 96% of the Territories (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 11/9, A1). I think that the Times is both biased and misunderstanding. First, we don't know whether Abbas and his colleagues are posturing — P.A. presidents have threatened to resign, before, for effect. Second, the Muslim Arabs treat agreements not as solutions but as the basis for new demands for more concessions for more agreements. Thus Abbas raised the issue of the one-sided building freeze, encouraged by Pres. Obama, as if he were entitled to it. Obama accepted Israel's compromise 90% or so in the Arab favor. Abbas is too demanding, as if the U.S. is supposed to dictate to Israel but not to the Arabs. I have noticed that the Arabs, whether his or in Jordan or in Egypt expect too much from an agreement and then want to go back to war when the agreement doesn't live up to their hope for future development. If Israel had a real right-wing government, it could exploit any P.A. collapse to advance Zionist interests, which would reduce Arab temptation to war. For the Times to judge moderation by civilian clothing is silly. It also is inconsistent. The Times used to call Arafat moderate though he wore fatigues. Abbas wore suits when he smuggled weapons for murdering Jewish civilians. Abbas does not condemn morally attacks on Jewish civilians, terrorism, he praises terrorists as martyrs. He criticizes attacks when he anticipates gains from diplomacy if Israelis think terrorism subsided. He just finds terrorism inopportune, but threatens war and terrorism if diplomacy does not give him all the gains he demands. The Times is misleading readers. Arab extremists easily gain the confidence of leftists and former hard-liners. That does not make those Arab moderate. Abbas' refusal to compromise indicates extremism. If Abbas had accepted Olmert's offer, he would have been able to inflict far more terrorism on Israel. It would have been more disastrous than Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon, which led to small wars. Abbas' refusal was not so much a missed opportunity as a second chance for Israel. Israel had better learn from second chances. It won't always have them. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
NO CRITICISM OF ISLAMIC CHARACTER OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES!
Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 10, 2009. |
|
The U.S. State Department, in the name of religious freedom, accuses Israel of "governmental and legal discrimination against non-Jews and non-Orthodox streams of Judaism." The report emphasizes, "Proselytizing is legal in the country and missionaries of all religious groups are allowed to proselytize all citizens." It then criticizes Israeli "society" by reporting, "Society's attitudes toward missionary activities and conversion generally were negative." (Why don't they send missionaries to Iran and Saudi Arabia? What will be "Society's attitudes" over there — Death! It is time to end the policy of supremacy and stop the cultural and religious pollution of other nations.) The report is also critical of prayer customs at the Western Wall, the second in Jewish sanctity only to the Temple Mount just above it. (There is no criticism of Muslim traditions, such as the exclusion of women from praying in Mosques, and the fictitious naming of the al Aqsa mosque due to anti-Zionist political motivations as a Muslim place of importance — Where are the Muslim pilgrims in Jerusalem if it is?) When Arabs are Angry — Clinton Jumps. Clinton caused a stir Saturday in Jerusalem when she said at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his government's offer to restrain — but not stop — settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem was unprecedented. She offered unusually strong praise for Israeli peace efforts without explicitly mentioning positive acts by the Palestinians. After Arab governments interpreted her comments in Jerusalem as a tilting of U.S. policy toward Israel Clinton issued what she called a clarification, saying her words in Jerusalem were meant as "positive reinforcement" for the Israelis. She said the U.S. still believes that continued Israeli settlement activity is illegitimate — a point she failed to emphasize in Jerusalem. (There is no pressure from the US on Arab states to stop the sponsorship of terrorism and recognize Israel as the Jewish state!) Ugly Nothing (UN) at Its Best. The United Nations General Assembly voted to adopt the Goldstone Report by a vote of 114-18, with 44 abstentions. Enemies Within are in the USA Now! A U.S. army major Malilk Nadal Hasan massacred 13 U.S. army soldiers on Thursday and wounded 30 others is the grandson of Arabs from Samaria and a Muslim psychiatrist who screamed, "Allah Akbar" (Arabic for Allah is Great) before he fired. (The Palestinian terror has reached the United States now. And he is not a stupid and uneducated Arab as media and politicians like portrait all Muslim terrorists) Quote of the Week: "Today there is a rule of tyrannies in the U.N. and the undemocratic countries, which are the majority, automatically vote against Israel. We can not overcome the numbers, but we can form a moral majority of countries that vote with Israel against this horrifying report." — Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon. Calls for Change to Law of Return. The law granting automatic Israeli citizenship to Jews everywhere is under attack, following the perceived increase in Russian ethnic immigrant crime. "I propose that anyone who wants to come here as a Jew," said former Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, "should come and reside here for five years, take an oath of loyalty to the State, and only then receive citizenship." (Israel was established as the only Jewish country for Jews! Many individuals and groups have been trying to migrate to Israel from Russia, Ethiopia, India and South America for economic reasons. Others have hidden religious agendas — they want to witness the second coming of their saviour and/or proselytise among Jews!) Iranian Arms of Terror was Facilitated by Egypt. A special forces squadron captured a suspicious ship flying the Antiguan flag near Cyprus. The final weight of the cache, that was sent by Iran to Hezbollah through Egypt, was 320 tons and included 9,000 mortar shells, thousands of 107-mm. Katyusha rockets that have a range of 15 kilometres, some 600 Russian-made 122-mm. rockets with a 40-km. range and hundreds of thousands of Kalashnikov bullets. IDF sources said they were surprised by the significant quantity of mortar shells. Long Overdue Law in the Making. Last week, the Knesset approved a preliminary reading of a bill designed to allow forfeiture of property of someone who committed an act of terrorism. The bill's initiator, Likud MK Danny Danon, said that "since you can not convict a suicide bomber, this bill makes it possible to seize his property and his house". Hypocricy of the Headlines. Israel offers no breakthrough on policies after Clinton's visit — Xinhua, Chinese news agency — What has the PA offered, beside the rejection of peace negotiations and the continuation of terror attacks? What about Jewish Refugees? About 60 Yemeni Jews have been secretly flown in to the United States since July. An additional 100 are scheduled to arrive in the coming months. The U.S. government is taking part in efforts to extricate Jews from Yemen as a result of the physical harassment they had suffered from their Muslim neighbours. (Over 850,000 were forced to leave Muslim countries after Israel gained independence!) Arabs have Never Cared for the History of Jewish Land. Police have arrested two Bedouin men in connection with the recent vandalism at the Uvdat archaeological park in the Negev. (Disrespect and desecration of the archaeological history of the Holy land is a common occurrence among Arabs in Israel and Jordan.) Stealth "Withdrawal" in Samaria. Following the destruction of Maoz Esther, near Kokhav HaShachar, this morning (Nov4), Border Guard forces have now arrived at Shvut Ami, near Kedumim, to do the same there. The Land of Israel Faithful movement issued this statement: "We view this eviction with great gravity, and we will continue to build the site, despite the many evictions." (Jewish traitors have made fictional claims that they are sorry for the Gaza Withdrawal, which has brought more terror and misery to Jews, but in fact they persistently continue the process of the destruction of Israel! ) Quote of the Week: "Instead of confronting terrorism, the General Assembly chooses to detach itself from reality again. The report before us is a product of the Human Rights Councils obsessive preoccupation with the State of Israel that has brought it to support an outrageous number of resolutions against Israel (over 60% of all resolutions), the largest number of resolutions against any nation and equal to all the resolutions against all other states combined." — Israel's UN Ambassador, Prof. Gabriela Shalev. We Must Help Them to Leave Jewish Land! According to a new poll carried out by the Palestinian Centre for Public Opinion only about half of the Arab population is certain they wish to remain in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In reply to the question: "If the possibility of immigration to the West were open to you, would you immigrate or stay in the country?" 55.3% said "I would stay", 38.3% said "I would immigrate", 6.3% said" I don't know" (With the proper plan and encouragement, most of them would leave Jewish land.) Enemies Love Benefits of Life in Zionist's Country. Arabs in Israel tend to retire early — with many leaving the workforce at between ages 40 and 44, according to a Bank of Israel study. Jewish workers, on the other hand, tend to remain in the workforce far longer on average. The study also found that only 20% of Israeli Arab women work at all. Iran Tested Nuclear Warhead — For Peaceful Purpose? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design. Unpublished documentation (which was deliberately kept hidden by IAEA) revealed that Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design known as "two-point implosion". The technology reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. Carter's Dirty Money. One of the loudest critics of Israel in the West at the moment is the former President of the United State Jimmy Carter. Let's see why: The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Centre have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his centre... more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects." Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, "the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists." BCCI isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Centre "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Centre, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Centres Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. Recently Carter said: "As President Barack Obama has made clear, the key factor that prevents peace is the continuing building of Israeli settlements in Palestine, driven by a determined minority of Israelis who desire to occupy and colonize east Jerusalem and the West Bank". Have unstoppable terror attacks committed by so-called Palestinians against Jews, Arab and Muslim states unwillingness to recognize Israel as the Jewish state and relentless efforts to destroy Israel nothing to do with preventing peace? Anti-Israel bigotry must be stopped on all levels. It is pure and unadulterated anti-Semitism! Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: NOW WHAT?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 10, 2009. |
|
I really cannot say, as the situation is still too fluid and there remain too many unknowns. It seems fair (and not particularly prescient) to say that we're quite possibly on the cusp of some significant changes — not necessarily for the good. ~~~~~~~~~~ A sum-up: Netanyahu's speech to the GA during the day yesterday was replete with comments (painful to read) about how he really truly wants to achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians — how he'll go to the negotiating table any time, and encourages Abbas to join him there, etc. etc. The big question, to which I still have no answer, is whether he really truly means it, or is doing damage control — confident that the Palestinians won't bite. From a reliable source I today learned that there are people within the administration (although no names were named)pushing Obama to abandon the "peace process" and recognize a Palestinian state. That might motivate Netanyahu to seek ways to keep the process alive — or at least to keep it from appearing moribund. ~~~~~~~~~~ While he says he will go to the negotiating table without preconditions, he does stipulate red lines with regard to achieving an agreement. Yesterday he spoke about end of conflict, the need for the Palestinians to recognize us as a Jewish state, and the fact that we will never accept Palestinian "refugees": "The Palestinians must recognize that the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees is gone." And he spoke as well about the need for the Palestinian state to be demilitarized: "We cannot permit another Gaza in the heart of our country." I mention here, however, that there are serious analysts who claim this would not be possible, that once a sovereign state (again, G-d forbid) were to be established, we could not deny it an army. At any rate, he makes security a priority and if he is serious about this, it is an absolute given that we need high places in Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, and strategic depth provided by communities adjacent to the Green Line — Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, etc. All of this, as fair and reasonable as it is in terms of our needs and rights (yes, I know we have more rights than these!), is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Thus, as long as these are Netanyahu's red lines, no matter how he protests that he's working hard for a final settlement, and no matter how much he may mean it, the simple unalterable truth is that there will not be one. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu and Obama met last night for almost two hours. But there was a black-out on the meeting and the standard joint press conference and photo op never materialized. All we can say with some certainty is that Iran and the "peace process" were both discussed. There was some speculation that the silence either meant that there was no meeting of the minds during discussions and thus nothing positive to report, or that Netanyahu caved in some substantial way and didn't want to make it public. But we don't know this. (See below) From the White House came a statement about how the president remains committed to our security. That gave me an uneasy feeling (never mind that his concept of Israeli security is not the same as mine), for I've observed that this is a throw-away line — intended to mollify and reassure — that frequently accompanies an Israeli concession. ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu even cancelled his routine meeting with Israeli reporters. Clearly he did not want to be questioned. Responding later to comments that the meeting must have gone badly, he said: "The atmosphere during the meeting with President Obama was very open and very warm. The importance of the visit will be ascertained in the future." The meeting, he added, had been "positive and to the point," and that it had dealt with the peace process and Israel's security. "We discussed these issues in detail, practically, and out of friendship." Which tells us what, exactly? This business of the meeting's importance being "ascertained in the future" leads me full circle to my opening comment about the possibility that we're on the cusp of changes. SOMETHING was decided or agreed upon. The silence did not simply reflect dissension. While security is an issue raised in the context of forming a Palestinian state, we must remember that it applies as well to Iran — about which Netanyahu was mum here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Already the Palestinians are backing off with some of their threats. Today PA negotiator Saeb Erekat denied that he ever called for the PA to be dismantled: "I didn't say that. Nobody said that." Right... ~~~~~~~~~~ You might want to see this incisive article by Elliott Abrams about the complete and total failure of Obama's Middle East policy. While I don't agree with all of it (we shouldn't be too complacent about PA security forces taking on terrorism — a subject I must return to), he makes several excellent points. At the end of the day we could say that Obama is an equal opportunity president — he and his secretary of state alienate all parties equally. Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations, has served in a number of positions in
government, most recently as Deputy National Security Advisor for
George Bush.
~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu is now on his way to France, where he will meet with President Sarkozy tomorrow. Not likely to be an easy trip. Today French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said this: "What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace. A fairly vile but not atypical statement. Being ready to make major concessions and surrender Israeli rights is what qualifies one as "for peace." While Sarkozy has been a disappointment in several respects, his relationship with us is far better than Kouchner's. ~~~~~~~~~~ From one savvy reader has come this comment with regard to the Fort Hood jihad massacre: "The biggest question of all, and one NO ONE is asking: How many more traitors have infiltrated our military and how demoralizing will it be for our brave young men and women in uniform to be looking over their shoulders in fear of their comrades in arms?" I thought this worth repeating, and thank you, Micki. ~~~~~~~~~~ In this very regard, David Horowitz (publisher of Front Page Magazine, don't confuse him with the editor of the Jerusalem Post) has provided a no-holds barred analysis of the situation: "The Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost...The fifth column formed out of the unholy alliance between radical Islam and the American left is now entrenched in the White House and throughout our government." ~~~~~~~~~~ I also heard from a former associate of mine, who used to do undercover work (in a hijab) in places of Muslim radicalism. She picked up on what I wrote yesterday regarding Anwar al-Awlaki, who served as imam in a mosque in VA that both Hasan and three of the 9/11 terrorists attended. She identified the mosque as the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, which, she said was and is one of the most radical mosques in the US. She found going there scary. (Not, she says, that the one in Silver Spring he was reported to have attended is much better.) (This lady knows I appreciate her comments, and I won't identify her even by first name.) Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
INVESTIGATE THE ENABLERS OF MUSLIM MURDERERS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 10, 2009. |
|
Now that the Keystone Kops of the CID, CIA AND FBI, among others, have started to sniff out the trail of a Muslim who massacred 13 soldiers and wounded 29, for a total of 43 casualties — let us get on with the investigation of the enablers. These "enablers" are those who practice a policy of artfully avoiding the investigation of Muslims — Arabs — self-declared "Jihadists" (holy warriors for Islam) — even when they had cause to do so.
Here I refer to high ranking political figures — first those in the Bush family, now the Obama family and both Administrations, also the Intel "family" and all those involved with establishing a policy of appeasement of the Arabs called by some "Political Correctness". Let the investigation begin of the enablers because Nidal Malik Hasan, the perp's involvement seems straight forward as a Muslim Terrorist. He is a born Muslim, employed by the Army as a psychiatrist, loyal to Allah, the Koran and Al Qaeda. All of his known contacts, from as far back as 2001, show this connection but, have been totally ignored by our "loyal" sleeping watchdogs in the FBI and CIA. But, our watch dogs already knew that Nidal was a hostile-to-America Muslim before the massacre and chose to follow "Politically Correct" orders from the White House. Muslims are not to be investigated, questioned or otherwise to be troubled. The FBI seem to have developed an outreach of exceptional friendliness and they even have Muslims lecture FBI agents on how to accept their Muslim customs. Orders from the Arabist State Department must be obeyed, especially since they originate from various Muslim and Arab countries and are conveyed through the multi-national oil companies. Which brings up the questions of: Why would American politicians, all the way up to Presidents, establish special "Politically Correct" policies to appease the Saudis, even as the Saudis establish Madrassahs and Mosques in America to teach hatred of Christians, Jews and — whom the Muslims believe are all infidels (non-believers)? Why was the U.S. State Department allowed to establish its own protective hands-off policy for Muslims, both in America and abroad? But, worse yet, the American Army and Intel Services were ordered to ignore any threat Muslim Islamists may pose to American security. America went through the era of appeasement to the Muslim and Arab oil countries by the Bushes and Baker oil men first and — I don't know what to call them second. Now we have the Obamas who have their "outreach" policy to Iran and Syria, two of the most hostile anti-American Muslim nations but, there are more. As you by now are connecting the dots, you can see that any danger to America has been cavalierly dismissed in favor of pretending that Muslims in America pose no internal threat. That's just because their teachings call for the elimination or enslavement of all Infidels. Therefore they are not dangerous. (Oh. That's very logical!?!) But, they were and are still dangerous. Our Presidents and our protective agencies knew this. Therefore, in deference to Arab and Muslim oil, American safety was positioned way down the line of importance. Was 9/11/01 only a momentary awakening? — followed by comforting eulogies and sing-song speeches and useless investigations which were merely make-work, so the American people had something to watch as the event slowly faded from the memory of most Americans (except those directly impacted or families of the victims). You wouldn't think the Military and our vaunted Intelligence Agencies would go along with the scam but, they did as ordered. All sorts of signals were ignored, showing parts of America was rotting from the inside. When the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) of December 3, 2007 under its Head Dennis Blair released a report of dis-information that Iran had ceased its Nuclear Development in 2003, it was no less part of a scheme to protect Muslim "Jihadists" as the "Political Correctness" displayed for Muslim hostiles now waiting their turn in "sleeper cells" in America. That false report was intended to stop any forceful actions against Iran but, none of the schemers in the State Department and 16 U.S. Intel Agencies were investigated or charged with treason for putting America and her Allies in harm's way from Iran's enabled and emboldened Nuclear Research and Development. We can now anticipate the foot-dragging investigation to follow Nidal's massacre as it slowly bleeds away the righteous anger of Americans — as happened after 9/11/ This below is entitled "Congressional probe to say if Fort Hood shooting was worst post 9/11 terror attack in US." It is a DEBKAfile special report November 9, 2009. |
|
"Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent who heads the Senate's Homeland Security Committee is the first high-ranking US lawmaker to speak out on the tragedy, said to the media Sunday night, Nov. 8: "We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and therefore this was a terrorist act." Indirectly criticizing official silence, the Senator said that if the news reports were true, "the murder of these 13 people was....the most destructive terrorist act committed on American soil since 9/11." Senator Lieberman also called on the Pentagon to conduct an independent inquiry. Hasan's classmates at military courses in 2007-2008 quoted the US-born major of Palestinian parents as quite openly justifying suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the US Constitution. One report said students had complained to their professors but no action was taken. Others reported that the Fort Hood killer had complained to at least five officers and two civilian lecturers — and written a letter to the Pentagon — saying that the American army was wrong to prevent an intellectual debate on Muslim ideology. Witnesses of the shootings agreed that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" (god is great) while firing. This war cry is commonly used by Muslim Terrorists prior to their making themselves a "Shahid", a martyr who kills himself by acting to kill "infidels" (non-believers in Islam). There is also evidence that he worshiped at the same Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia as two of the 9/11 hijackers and was an admirer of its imam Anwar al-Awlaki their mentor. The army's commander, Gen. George Casey, was finally obliged to say an act of Terrorism could not be ruled out. (Is he kidding?) But he cautioned against speculation. "We must let the investigation take its course," he said, while expressing concern that speculation could result in a "backlash" against Muslim soldiers. [I suppose American soldiers, deployed in a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan might be concerned about a Muslim soldier who, in his deference to Allah, does not guard the back of his fellow American soldier but, would rather take vengeance.] DEBKAfile's Washington sources report growing impatience in the army and country over what is seen as official hedging. US commander-in-chief President Barack Obama is already taking some heat for refusing to address to address any of these sensitive issues until the federal and military inquiries end. Why is the Obama administration and its supporters equivocating on the Islamist factor of the Fort Hood crime in a way that could encourage radical Muslim Americans in and outside the army to emulate Maj. Hasan's act?" *********** We have just heard that the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, has a speaking engagement with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) which is a major pro-Muslim organization, apparently to continue the Obama appeasement and apology process to sooth their (Muslims') jangled nerves. According to their own PR release: "CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." CAIR's Director Ibrahim Hooper has been interviewed numerous times about Muslim attitudes and loyalty to America as their host country. Hooper assures us that Muslim are loyal to America and have no visceral, underlying hostility toward America's Judeo-Christian culture. Of course, there were reports of joyful celebration after 9/11 across the Muslim spectrum when the hijacked airplanes struck the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. When it was announced that 15 of the hijackers were Saudis and 4 were Egyptians, the Terrorists were accorded high status in the Muslim world as heros — "Shahids" (martyrs) and thus were swiftly on their way to Allah's Courtyard with the special rewards of 72 black-eyed virgins and all those things denied to Muslims on earth. I suppose we should not be surprised that Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of President Barack Hussein Obama would continue his tour of apology for America by anything we may have done to offend Muslim sensitivities. The FBI has come under fire because U.S. Intelligence officials were aware months ago that Hasan had links to Al Qaeda. It's wasn't the first time the FBI has avoided investigating suspicious Muslims. Hasan was in Email contact with an Imam Anwar Aulaqi who met with the 9/11 hijackers in 2001. Aulaqi was expelled from America and is now in Yemen. Officials decided not to open a formal investigation into Hasan after concluding that the 20 to 30 Emails were "essentially harmless". [Political Correctness right our of the White House and State Department. They are in high gear, covering their backsides.] I have no doubt that patriotic agents in all 16 branches of America's Intelligence Agencies, if turned loose from the Politically Correct Pacifist White House policy, would do a superb job. It's hard to do the job when your superiors have been ordered by the White House and State Department to not accuse Muslims. Perhaps we need another "Deep Throat" to break ranks and serve the American people as patriots, rather than Politically Correct Pacifistic politicians, willing to sacrifice American lives for whatever they can get out of perfidious betraying the nation and circumventing the U.S. Constitution for cash or other personal advantages. Something dire has happened to the American nation where elected officials knew they were employed by the people and for the people. As it turned out, the elected bureaucrats have come to believe that, we the people, are there as a financial pot for them. Only at election times do we hear from the elected. The elected stop listening to the people almost immediately after they are elected. The Peoples' Tax Treasury has become nothing more than a feeding trough for political pigs to fatten themselves. From the President, through the Congress, they seem to believe Americans exist merely as a convenience to be mis-used at their pleasure. The growing manipulation of American lives under the Obama regime is straight out of George Orwell's 1984 where, they the government, know best and you will obey! 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 |
|
NETANYAHU IN U.S. TO HEAD OFF UNILATERAL ARAB STATE; PALESTINIAN
AUTHORITY PROVES EXTREMIST; MUSLIMS IN US MILITARY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 10, 2009. |
|
LEBANON BLAMES ISRAEL FOR ROCKET FIRED AT ISRAEL A high-ranking Lebanese security official alleged who was responsible for firing a rocket at Israel, recently. He said it was from Fatah al-Islam (a terrorist organization). He said the organization wants to embarrass Hizbullah, and was paid by Israel, which wants the same thing, to fire the rocket 11/8). Evidence reported? None. Like the earlier allegation that Israel will start wars for water, like most Arab accusations against Israel, either no evidence is adduced against Israel or the evidence in favor of Israel is ignored. The Arab enemies of Israel don't deal in facts, they deal in calumny. To them, words are weapons. The Arabs claim that Israel and the U.S. inflicted terrorism upon themselves in order to shame the Arabs. That is absurd! The Arabs call their opponents Zionist agents. That is absurd! Note the quality of their rationality. ISRAEL'S PM IN U.S. TO HEAD OFF UNILATERAL ARAB STATE Israel's PM Netanyahu just came to the U.S., to head off unilateral declaration of western Palestinian Arab statehood. He is reacting to plans by Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority to develop institutions of statehood and then, presumably with U.S. approval, ask the UN to recognize his regime as sovereign and as including territory where Israelis live. Turkey offered to mediate, but PM Netanyahu declined, because Turkey's anti-Israel stances create tension. Dr. Aaron Lerner is skeptical that Fayyed is serious, because his plans call for more study than state-building. Dr. Lerner warns against over-reaction by the Israeli Left. The Left has had one slogan after another, in favor of Israeli withdrawal. The Left has pressed for withdrawal using false arguments and sometimes encourages foreign pressure on Israel to induce it. First the Left said that the Oslo withdrawal would bring peace. It didn't. So then the Left urged withdrawal to avoid being swamped by the "demographic time bomb," but Arab birth rates declined and it seems as if Gaza is no longer connected to Israel. [A third claim was that withdrawal from Gaza would win Arab peace, but the Arabs made another war.] And now the Left suggests that Israel withdraw before the UN declares Arab statehood and that Israelis within it are illegal occupiers (www.imra.org.il, 11/8). Should Israel should preclude some of this by: (1) Declaring Oslo voided by wholesale Palestinian Arab violation showing such poor faith as to vitiate any hope of a peaceful agreement with them; (2) Explain the danger of Arab terrorism, the poor Arab claim to statehood, and the Palestine Mandate's recognition of Jewish claims; (3) Annex the contiguous settlement blocs and vacant land under authority of the Mandate and of International Law permitting annexation of areas from which attacks have come and which remain a menace to national security; and (4) Ending assistance to the P.A. that builds it up, because if more built up, it becomes a stronger force for jihad, which, as a whole, threatens world civilization? PERES' CONNECTION TO ISRAELI RIVALS' DEATHS Israel's President Shimon Peres bears a connection to the murders of a number of his Israel rivals and critics. [Rabin and Peres were known to dislike each other, and Rabin started to balk at the Oslo process that Peres had put over on the government secretly and by out-maneuvering it.] Rabin soon was assassinated. Peres succeeded him. Peres, can be seen on film asserting shortly afterwards, "'Three bullets pierced Rabin's body and the songsheet. The songsheet was in his front jacket pocket, thus Peres admits that Rabin was shot from the front, an act Amir [convicted for the assassination] could not have committed." [The Health Minister made a similar statement. Already in custody, Amir could not have fired the third shot. Someone else did, either when Rabin was escorted to the hospital by his bodyguard or after arriving. The statements by Peres and the Cabinet Minister indicate that Peres knew the real story and was in charge of the cover-up. The original autopsy confirmed the real cause of death, but the chief pathologist, Dr. Yehuda Hiss, revised it to fit the 2-bullet theory. The Shamgar Commission determined that PM Rabin was shot twice in the back, period. Later, Dr. Hiss was convicted of illegally harvesting corpses' organs. Nevertheless, he remains the highest paid civil servant in Israel. Coincidence? 90 minutes after Rabin was declared dead, Peres convened a Cabinet Meeting at which he had Rabin's bodyguard, Yoram Rubin, the one who failed to protect Rabin, to say the least, made his own bodyguard. Do you think the guard deserved a reward for failure or that Peres was prudent in putting his life in that guard's hands? Also taken care of was Rubin's boss, Carmi Gillon, head of the secret service. During the uproar and inquiry, Peres sent Gillon abroad, as an Ambassador. He later brought Gillon back to run his Peace Center. That is the third person who at best can be called a bungler, but to whom Peres protected. Rubin was sent to Washington, to head security there. He returned to become PM Sharon's guard. [Didn't Sharon know better?] "On December 18, '05, Sharon had tea with Peres in a private Knesset meeting. Within half an hour Rubin escorted him to Hadassah Hospital with a stroke." Sharon's second seizure came after a meeting alone with his deputy, Ehud Olmert, who succeeded him. Before that, Tourism Minister Ze'evi criticized Sharon for letting Peres pursue appeasement-minded diplomacy. Ze'evi warned that if Sharon didn't fire Peres, Ze'evi would pull his MKs out of the coalition and Sharon's regime would fall. Six hours before the deadline, Ze'evi was assassinated, conveniently for Peres. Arafat denied having anything to do with it, and blamed the Israelis. That might not have seemed out of the ordinary, but that was when Sharon besieged Arafat's compound. There were other such cases (Barry Chamish, 1027). SHARING HOLY SITES Maan News reports a non-existent Israeli plan for sharing the Temple Mount. It states that certain days would be reserved for Jewish prayer. The Islamic Christian Society in Support of Jerusalem called this unacceptable. This plan was put into effect years ago in Hebron. It worked there fairly well [except when Muslims commit violence]. The Islamic Christian Society in Support of Jerusalem did not explain its objection. Inadvertently it reveals that the Muslims [I think that the Christians are just playing ball with the Muslims for their own survival] are not tolerant but anticipate that Israel would put in a plan of tolerance. The Society warned that Israel next would change the regime at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (www.imra.org.il, 9/30). If the Palestinian Authority gained control over the Territories, intolerance and religious exclusivity would be enforced. Do you remember what happened to the two holiest Christian churches in Jerusalem and Bethlehem? In Bethlehem, PLO terrorists fled into it, held the monks hostage, desecrated by feces Christian holy objects, stole valuables, however holy, starved the Christians and gorged themselves, and eventually left the place in a shambles. In Jerusalem, Muslims built a mosque taller than the Christian edifice, to overawe it. They built toilets overhanging it, by way of insult. They broke through a wall into a couple of storerooms of the Church, and occupied them. The PLO refused to return the rooms. After some protest, Arafat gave made other compensation. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PROVES EXTREMIST Suppose a Palestinian Arab were captured now, as he was murdering an Israeli family. What would "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas want Israel to do with him? Transfer him to a Palestinian prison to serve his sentence? Transfer him to the Palestinian Authority to be tried and punished? Banish him from the country? No. The "moderate" Abbas would demand that Israel release him. And for a hero's welcome. This is a fundamental problem. Because when Palestinian "moderates" want Israel to release all Palestinian terrorists regardless of when they committed their crimes, they are effectively saying that no Palestinian commitment is binding. — including the very anchor commitment of Oslo to abandon violence. [Past violence was one thing, but future violence, abjured, was to be treated as a crime.] For these "moderate" Palestinians, terrorists aren't guilty of murder — at most they are guilty of bad PR for the cause (www.imra.org.il, 10/1, verbatim but abbreviated). ABBAS WARNS OF VIOLENCE, BLAMES IT ON U.S. "Bethlehem — Ma'an — US failure to push forward the peace process has created a political vacuum that will soon be filled with violence, said Nabil Abu Rudeina, spokesperson of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas on Monday." "'To avoid this, the US administration should immediately start exerting pressure on the government of Israel and make them comply with their share of the peace process,' he added, according to the Palestinian Authority's (P.A.) WAFA news agency." Dr. Aaron Lerner points out the apparent anomaly of the P.A. threatening violence while the U.S. trains its army (www.imra.org.il, 11/9). What is wrong with the P.A. statement? 1. The Palestinian Arab leaders' way of threatening violence is to predict it, as if they are not responsible for it. But it starts by minions rousing their people to it. It implements what the N. Vietnamese Communists taught Arafat: "Talk, fight; talk; fight." They use violence to back up their diplomacy, and their diplomacy to position themselves to exert more violence. 2. The signed agreements call upon the P.A. to cease defamation, dismantle terrorism, etc., before Israel takes various risks. Abbas calls on the U.S. to make Israel meet its share of obligations for peace, and does not call on the U.S. to make the P.A. meet its share of obligations for peace, which take precedence. Which side has met its obligations? Israel has met all its major obligations under its signed agreements, but the P.A. has met none. What Abbas really demands is that the U.S. give him what he wants from Israel. 3. What makes that a U.S. obligation? Why doesn't the P.A. bear the responsibility for lack of peace, due to its encouraging terrorism, and making a new demand and as a pre-condition for negotiation, about building? Israel is ready to negotiate without pre-conditions. Why isn't the P.A. condemned for stalling peace? FT. HOOD MASSACRE & MUSLIM ROLE IN U.S. MILITARY Major Hassan reportedly massacred fellow U.S. soldiers because he felt that they were preparing to make war on Islam. Some Muslim veterans of U.S. wars "...return exhausted and traumatized from their tours, only to hear at their local mosques that they will go to hell for 'killing Muslims,' said Qaseem A. Uqdah, the executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council." "He argued that Muslims groups must work harder to help their veterans cope with coming home. 'We are failing as a community here in America'" (Andrea Elliott, NY Times, 11/9, A1). That constructive comment is rare for its insight and introspection — our society has become ridden sentiment encouraging minorities to blame their problems entirely upon society and not taking any responsibility for themselves. I think that Muslims have a particular problem with foreign intervention. When Saddam was murdering Muslims by the tens of thousands, Muslims abroad were not heard to object much. When the U.S. intervened to prevent genocide and aggression, Muslims abroad resented it as unbelievers killing Muslims. They did not give the U.S. credit for liberating a Muslim country. They did not acknowledge that U.S. troops attack nobody because of his religion. Yet Major Hasan perceived it as a war on Islam. Many Muslims have accused the U.S. of making war on Islam, although the U.S. also rescued Muslim Bosnia and Kosovo, rescued the people of Afghanistan, and more. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE JEW FLU: THE STRANGE ILLNESS OF JEWISH ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 10, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Uzi Silber and it appeared today in
Haaretz and is archived at
|
|
Diagnosis The 1930s Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson asked "Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?" This is Jew Flu — the virus of Jewish Anti-Semitism, and its Jewish Anti- and Post-Zionist mutations, afflicting a small but inordinately loud minority of Hebrews. Its modern symptoms are a rejection of Israel's identity as a Jewish state and a dismissal of its right to defend itself militarily, while embracing the goals of its nihilistic Arab enemies. Those infected with the virus wildly inflate Israeli sins real or imagined, while excusing or rationalizing Palestinian anti-semitism and outrages against Jews. Those afflicted with Jew Flu often view the notion of Peoplehood as an artifice, which implies a rejection of Jewish national self-determination and acceptance of the 90-year-old Palestinian Arab contention that Jews are not a nation but merely members of a religion, and as such don?t merit a national home of their own. Is Jew Flu a bona-fide illness? Michael Welner, a psychiatrist at New York University, suggests that Jewish Anti-Semitism is akin to a personality disorder, enabling a person to "derive some psychological benefit from this pathological thinking." What causes Jew Flu? Harvard psychiatrist Kenneth Levin argues for twin culprits: so-called 'Stockholm Syndrome', where "population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous", as well as "the psychodynamics of abused children who blame themselves for their situation and believe they could mollify their tormenters if they were 'good'." Julie Ancis, a psychology professor at Georgia State University says that it isn't "uncommon for a minority group with a history of oppression and persecution to possess internalized self-hatred regarding their cultural/religious identity." I'm no therapist, but that won't restrain me from proposing my own theory for the ultimate cause of Jew Flu. More on that later. Since the defamations of Jew Flu victims are propagated across the Internet and are extensively documented and challenged in many fine books and articles, repeating them here would be redundant. Suffice it to say that Noam Chomsky, Daniel Boyarin, Joel Kovel, Avrum Burg, Ilan Pappe, Steve Quester, Jacqueline Rose, Tony Judt, Naomi Klein, Michael Neumann, Ben Ehrenreich, (the apparently "outed") Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and their ilk, spout pronouncements eerily similar to the propaganda routinely ejaculated by representatives of Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah. At the same time, a hearty "shout out" is due those who have made it their business to forcefully rebut the Jewish defamers, including Andrea Levin, Edward Alexander, Alan Dershowitz, David Solway and others. Those interested in a quick and free primer on Jew Flu should download Alvin Rosenfeld's UJA-sponsored brief, "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism". History Jew Flu, of course, isn't new: It has lurked in our midst for millennia. Jews collaborated with Greeks, Romans and Inquisitors; Bolshevik self loathers displayed savagery towards their brethren; their prophet Karl Marx was described by author Rafael Patai as the "most influential of Jewish self haters", who thought "Israelite faith" most repugnant, and whose rabid anti-Semitism was attributed by the historian Simon Dubnow to "the natural hatred of the renegade for the camp he deserted." Incredibly, certain young Jews in Weimar Germany, members of a certain Association of National-German Jews were sufficiently maddened by Jew Flu to attempt to "identify and ingratiate (themselves) with the Nazi Party". Jew Flu developed its anti-Zionist strain in the decades preceding the creation of Israel: renowned philosopher Martin Buber of Hebrew University and others actually justified the Palestinian Arab pogroms of 1921, 1929 and the late 30s, urging that desperate Jewish holocaust refugees be permitted to enter Palestine only with Arab permission. In 1944, and with the destruction of European Jewry proceeding apace, Lessing Rosenwald, the President of the American Council for Judaism equated the ideal of Jewish Statehood with the concept of a racial state "the Hitlerian concept". Following remission during the post-Holocaust years, Jewry experienced a relapse of Jew Flu in the aftermath of the '67 Six Day War. In the U.S., young Jewish radicals of the New Left branded Israel a fascist, colonial power while praising Arab countries as progressive and revolutionary — unsurprising since many were Soviet client states. They remained largely silent as Soviet tanks crushed the 1968 Prague Spring — presumably a 'progressive' development. New Left sentiments found expression in Israel even during the aftermath of the traumatic Yom Kippur War; at a Tel Aviv reception in late 1973, my mother found herself amid a chatty crowd of cocktailing cultural figures casually dismissive of their own country's right to exist. The infection among Israel's cultural elites intensified through the Lebanon War and the two Intifadas that sandwiched the delusional Oslo era. As author Aharon Meged lamented in 1994, there existed "an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel's intelligentsia, and its print and electronic media, with people committed to our annihilation." Epitomizing this "moral identification" were the certain prominent Jewish journalists who, according to Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, crucially failed the so-called 'lynch test', by exhibiting an inability to ever criticize Palestinian terror, even following the widely televised gruesome execution of two Jews by a Palestinian mob in Ramallah In 2000. Metamorphosis It was at this time that Jew Flu claimed a childhood friend of mine. We'd come of age together in the early '80s, like-minded Zionists, he more "Kahanish" in temperament. Immigrating to Israel the day after graduation, he'd serve in theIDF, settle in Jerusalem, marry, spawn a brood, and settle into the life of an Israeli academic, where anti Zionist stances are common and open identification as an Israeli patriot is tantamount to career suicide. Infection struck during the Oslo years: before the millennium was out, the youthful Kahanist yeshiva boy had morphed into a militant Jewish Anti Zionist, mindlessly spouting hackneyed and malicious anti-Israel canards on leftwing and Arab websites, and regularly consorting with a posse of Arab academics in Ramallah. This episode recalled a scene from "Radio Days", the Woody Allen movie in which an uncle fasting on Yom Kippur indignantly watches the Jewish communists next door brazenly barbecuing. In Holiday suit he marches out the front door to scold the Reds on their evil ways, only to return shortly after chewing on a chicken drumstick, indignantly decrying religion as the opiate of the masses. Those like my friend afflicted with Jew Flu deny their infection, contending that criticism of Israel isn't Anti-Semitism or even Anti-Israel. Helpfully, Natan Sharansky formulated his so-called 3D litmus test to clearly distinguish mere Israel critics from Jew Flu victims, and has allowed me to diagnose my old friend. As it turns out, the afflicted regularly engage in at least one of the following: Demonization (comparing Israeli actions to Nazism and referring to Arab refugee camps as Auschwitz);- Double Standards (singling out Israel for human rights abuses while ignoring the blatant human rights violators such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestinian Authority, North Korea, Cuba, China, Myanmar etc); and Delegitimization (denying Israel the fundamental right to exist as a Jewish state) During March 2002, Jihadist suicide murderers were exploding on Israeli buses every other day, massacring and maiming hundreds of Jews in a cascade of latter-day pogroms; savage images of Haim Nahman Bialik's monumental poem, "City of Slaughter" blazed across the broken land. 125 Jews were massacred and hundreds were wounded by Palestinian suicide murderers that month. Yet unsurprisingly my stricken friend declined comment. My friend seems to amuse his Arab colleagues: Appearing at a conference some years ago at Cairo's American University, an Egyptian fellow panelist quipped to the audience that our mutual friend was "more pro-Palestinian than me — I am more pro-Israel than him." Incidentally, this college has since instituted a ban on Israeli academics. At this point allow me to complicate things: It's easy to assume that those struck with Jew Flu would be contemptuous of Jewish religious observance. They often hold Marxist views, which would imply an atheist outlook. Yet what one should one make of my friend who performs Kiddush on Friday nights, fasts on Yom Kippur and uses two sets of dishes in his kosher kitchen? Would such Jewish customs be performed by an anti-Semite? Knesset speaker Avrum Burg is a lifelong modern orthodox Jew, a skull capped davener whose Jew Flu was latent for years but burst out into the open when he took to smearing Israel in Nazi-like browns. Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin are pleasant, prominent and yarmulked professors of Jewish history who don tefilin daily, daven on Shabbat and holidays and are easily mistaken in appearance for West Bank settlers. Yet Daniel is comfortable vilifying Israel regularly as a violent outlaw state. And Jonathan admitted to me some years ago during an especially sweaty Simchat Torah "hakafa" on the Lower East Side that his views are identical if not even more radical than Daniel's (if that was possible.) Actually, it is interesting that the views of such radical yet observant Jews resemble the tenets of Catholic Liberation Theology. But could such a trio be accused of outright anti-Semitism? The Burgs and Boyarins of this world have long revered another devout Jew, the departed Yishayahu Leibowitz, a renowned scholar, recipient of the Israel Prize, and editor of the Hebrew Encyclopedia, a Jerusalemite who habitually referred to drafted Israeli soldiers who happened to be defending his charmed way of life as "Judeo-Nazis". Was Leibowitz an anti-Semite? Submitting their pronouncements to the Sharansky test demonstrates that even tefilin wearing, kosher food eating Kiddush reciters can speak and write like anti-Semites. Prognosis But back to the elusive cause of Jew Flu: what makes one Jew vulnerable and not another? Wouldn't a far larger proportion of Jews fall prey to Jew Flu if, say, Stockholm syndrome was the culprit? Is there a prime mover, some physiological or neurological smoking gun pointing to a root cause? There may be. David Brooks recently reported in the New York Times on research by a Haifa University team led by Reem Yahya who studied the brains scans of Arabs and Jews while showing them images of hands and feet in painful situations. Brooks reports that "the two cultures perceived pain differently. The Arabs perceived higher levels of pain over all while the Jews were more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than their own." This phenomenon was epitomized by Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Bolshevik and Jew Flu victim. "I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering," declared Rosa the Red. "Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles? I feel closer to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations of Putumayo or the Negroes in Africa... I have no separate corner in my heart for the ghetto." And then there's the modest story Ahmad the cabbie related to me last week as we drove through Eilat-like Palm Springs: Ahmad's brother in Nablus was employed for many years by an Israeli Jewish building contractor. When the outbreak of Intifada in 2000 permanently barred Ahmad's brother from work in Israel, his Jewish boss continued to pay the brother's salary for five years. The intriguing research out of Haifa suggests that Jews may very well be inherently altruistic. But while exhibiting more sensitivity to another group's pain is one thing, embracing the goals of people openly committed to one's destruction is a form of madness. So here's my ultimate theory for the cause of this nefarious virus: Jew Flu is a condition in which being "more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than (one's) own metastasizes into a malignant emotional and moral identification with people committed to (one's) annihilation." Like any other virus, Jew Flu is contagious but containable. Yet ultimately incurable. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
WHAT'S BEHIND AMERICA'S POLITICALLY CORRECT "LOVE" OF ISLAM?
Posted by HouMEye, November 10, 2009. |
|
This is a Commentary Piece from World Net Daily. It was written by David Kupelian, who is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." He is a dynamic speaker and has been featured on Fox News, MSNBC, CBN and many other media outlets. |
|
The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: "Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?" Then, when the alleged perpetrator's name and religion were made public (Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim) along with eyewitness reports he had shouted the obligatory pre-terror-attack proclamation, Allahu akbar ("Allah is greatest") before commencing his orgy of slaughter, their suspicions were confirmed: This was surely a major attack on the American homeland by a Muslim terrorist. Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a "war on Islam," told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. In other words, although the Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week's terror attack. Why? And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?
Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously — before they could possibly know — that the attack was not terror-related? Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth? Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane. Remember the beltway snipers? In October 2002, Muslim convert John Muhammad along with 17-year-old Lee Boyd "John" Malvo paralyzed the Washington metropolitan area for three bloody weeks, killing 10 and critically injuring three others. But after their capture, most in the media were loath to focus seriously on Islamic jihad as a motive, despite the fact that Muhammad had praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and had threatened to commit major terrorist acts within the U.S. "Likewise," he adds, "a Boston Globe article found 'there must have been something in his social interaction — in his marriage or his military career — that pulled the trigger.'" This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.
So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam? Everyone attributes it to "political correctness," but I think it's time to move beyond that shallow, passé, near-meaningless phrase. Do we dare admit what is really at play here? The truth is actually very simple. We are afraid of Islam. We are intimidated by Islam. And because we are afraid of and intimidated by Islam, Islam is changing us — in two distinct and profound ways. First, as is appallingly obvious, we're afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new "2012" film, or we're afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we're afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or "Islamophobe" thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we're afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic. However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them. We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we're intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won't hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom. Intimidation — that is, causing others to react with upset and fear — is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim's loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical. "Political correctness" — which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage — is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy." Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it? Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don't understand what's really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it's the result of craven weakness on our part. The problem with Islam Now imagine there's a religion, which we'll call "Religion X." Many adherents to "Religion X" live peaceful lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Whatever their religious doctrine is, they don't bother anybody. But other adherents to Religion X believe — indeed, are taught by prominent clerics, including within the U.S. — that they must rule the world, and that the lord of their religion condones, even encourages, their killing those who refuse to convert to Religion X, or who leave Religion X. So, one contingent of this religion we are inclined to allow freely to exist within our borders — indeed our laws and culture demand it. But virtually all Americans would rightly categorize the other contingent of the same religion as a murderous, mind-control cult that should be driven from our shores. The problem with Religion X, then, is that it's really hard to distinguish one type of adherent from the other. That's the problem we're having with Islam. Every time a jihadist like Hasan goes on a terrorist killing spree, invariably all who knew him say they were totally stunned, as he was always so "calm, cool and soft-spoken." And yet there were warning signs, such that were we not blinded by our fears and cowardice, we would not merely have seen them, we would have acted on them — and prevented last week's terrorist attack. According to the London Telegraph, in an article headlined, "Fort Hood gunman had told U.S. military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut": Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. Hasan made these incendiary jihadist comments "in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington, D.C." during a talk on the Quran, according to the report. And how did his fellow doctors respond? Although they were horrified, "One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints," reported the Telegraph. Are you with me? "A fear of appearing discriminatory" caused 51 brave American soldiers to be shot by an Islamist monster, 13 fatally. This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame. It gets worse, much worse. As ABC now reports, "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al-Qaida." The evil of "political correctness" — the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for — has to end. Now. It's over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes. In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans — including Muslims — and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by "true-believing" Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security. One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States — a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine — then make a donation to WND's legal defense fund. We are defending, at great expense, two people who most definitely are not intimidated by Islamic radicalism: Muslim Mafia co-author and former federal agent Paul David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who daringly penetrated the belly of the Islamist beast in the U.S. for six months, retrieved 12,000 pages of smoking-gun documentary evidence, reported their findings in the blockbuster book (already the basis for new congressional investigations) — and are now being sued by a terror-front group that wants the evidence of its plots and misdeeds returned! We have hired the best First Amendment lawyer in the country, and we can and must win this all-important fight, but it's expensive — so please help. OK? What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam? Contact HouMEye by email at HouMEye@aol.com |
|
OBAMA'S MIDDLE EAST POLICY FALLS APART
Posted by Sammy Benoit, November 10, 2009. |
|
President Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. While the U.S. continues to press Israel for a settlement freeze (and a freeze on Jerusalem), Obama's strategy is falling apart piece by piece. He has turned the Israeli populace against him and strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Netanyahu. At the same time, he has eroded his own support among American Jews and other U.S. friends of Israel. This is why he has pressured political hacks such as Congressman Steve Israel to lend their names to the anti-Israel group known as J Street. The Arab League nations answered no to the President's request for a peace gesture, and the President of the Palestinian Authority has used Obama's settlement pressure as his "out" from reentering negotiations. Settlement-building didn't start with Netanyahu, but it didn't become a roadblock to negotiations until Obama was elected. The entire settlement issue was caused by the Obama administration's naïveté. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. This was a major error by the Obama administration. Their insistence on a freeze and their constant public berating of the Jewish State has turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left, whom Obama would look to for support. His public blasting of Israel has weakened his support among American Jews, who initially bought into his promise that he was a friend of Israel. The news that Obama was breaking a Bush-era pledge to Israel regarding natural expansion in existing settlements only made things worse. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began lowering expectations on negotiations and praised what Israel is prepared to do — namely, refrain from constructing new settlements in the West Bank, but impart no limits on construction in East Jerusalem — as an "unprecedented" concession. The Palestinians went crazy, so Clinton changed her story. In remarks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit following their November 4 talks in Cairo, Clinton said the United States would like all current and planned Israeli settlement activity to halt. The U.S. policy opposing Israeli settlement activity has not changed, she said. She also said that Israel's offer to halt all new settlement activities, to end the expropriation of land, and issue no permits or approvals, while "unprecedented," is "not what we would prefer." "We would like to see everything ended forever," she said. However, she added that it is "at least a positive movement." In a November 4 interview with Jackie Northam of National Public Radio, Clinton said the issue of settlements has been "a terrible flashpoint" in the region. Settlements never have been a precondition for negotiations in the past, she said, adding that the Israeli government has gone further than its predecessors in its offer. However, she acknowledged that Arabs and Palestinians have said "it wasn't far enough." If you are looking for the Obama Administration to demand some sort of move from the Palestinian side, don't hold your breath. The POTUS pressures not the Arabs, but only the Jewish State, even though Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas continues to order terrorist acts against Israel. And then there is that new ploy: Mahmoud Abbas, citing the deadlock, said he would not run for another term in the elections scheduled for January. According to the Jerusalem Post, U.S. Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham acknowledged during a public appearance in Tel Aviv on Thursday that "there is doubt" among Israelis about Mr. Obama's friendship. That doubt is well-placed. During the first ten months of his term, Mr. Obama has shown sympathy for the people who would destroy Israel while snubbing the Israelis. Even worse is Obama's desire to cast Israel as the hold-up to peace at every opportunity, whether through his statements, the statements of his subordinates, or his anti-Israel appointments:
With his typical left-wing arrogance, Tom Friedman of the New York Times says that Obama should drop his peace efforts and call a pox on both the Israeli and Palestinian houses because neither side is willing to negotiate. Friedman assumes that President Obama is an idiot who did not understand that peace is unattainable. I suggest a different scenario. President Obama has a lifetime's worth of anti-Israel sentiments, a cause for great suspicion for Jewish voters during the early part of the campaign. Before the economy collapsed, the Jewish vote was moving away from Obama. In the end it was economics, not Israel, that was the key issue in the 2008 vote. That made it easy for Obama to overcome the Jewish suspicion and win their votes. Now that he is President, perhaps the reason Obama is pushing for peace so hard is that he knows it is unattainable. It is the very failure of his effort that gives him the excuse to bash and isolate Israel while working to split up the Jewish community. This is exactly what Obama is doing via his anti-Israel statements, anti-Israel appointments, and his "mentor-ship" of J Street. Last October, just before the election I wrote this about Barack Obama: Folks the truth is I had many issues with the way George W. Bush ran middle east policy. But there are a few things that are admirable. Bush was the first president that considered a terrorist attack in Israel just as bad as one elsewhere it the world. He constantly supported Israel's right to defend itself against terror, and praised her as America's number one ally in the Middle East. He also authorized an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces including intelligence sharing, anti-terror training, and the joint development of missile defense systems. I hate admit it, but that prediction was very wrong. Barack Obama has turned out to be much worse than I could have imagined. Just examine the facts and you will agree that in only ten months of work, not only has Obama's policy fallen apart, but he now ranks among the worst presidents in American history with regards to Israel and the Middle East.
Sammy Benoit is the editor of the political blog: Yid With Lid.
This article appeared today in American Thinker and is archived at
|
|
ON 'EXORCISING' ISRAEL BASHERS FROM THE JEWISH MAINSTREAM
Posted by Isi Leibler, November 10, 2009. |
|
Although no stranger to controversial encounters, I was nevertheless taken aback by the extraordinary misrepresentation of my views by Bradley Burston (Dovish Jews? They love Israel? Excommunicate them) and especially Carlo Strenger (Memo to Jewish haters of Liberals: The Middle Ages are over). I have written a number of columns criticizing extremist Israeli and Diaspora Jews whose principal political activities are geared toward delegitimizing the Jewish state and who currently occupy leading roles fuelling global anti-Israeli campaigns (Why Make a Fuss about JStreet? and Marginalize the Renegades). I referred in particular to a number of Israeli academics who abuse academic freedom by exploiting their universities as launching pads to vilify Israel, identify with Israel's enemies and even call for global boycotts of their own institutions. It would be inconceivable for the authorities to adopt a laissez-faire approach toward racists or radical right wing extremist academics behaving in this manner. In a nation under siege and facing existential threats, people exploiting academia for such purposes have crossed the red line and should not retain tenure at institutions funded by Israeli taxpayers and Diaspora Zionist philanthropists. I also related to a small but increasing number of Diaspora Jews who share a one-dimensional global agenda of demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. I am not referring to "doves" or critics of Israeli policy but those who exploit their Jewish antecedents solely in order to demonize Israel. For example, those who partake in demonstrations with groups supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Or those responsible for disseminating what was subsequently proven to have been malicious libels against the IDF which created the climate for the global campaign depicting us as war criminals — as embodied in the Goldstone report. In this context, I was also critical of J Street not because of their views but their preposterously false attempts to portray themselves as pro-Israel. J Street has never endorsed any substantive Israel government policies and their principal objective is to lobby the Obama administration to exert more pressure on Israel to provide additional unilateral concessions. They opposed Israel's role in the Gaza war, lobbied Congress to oppose sanctions against Iran and recently urged Congress to water down a resolution criticizing the Goldstone report. The "pro-Israel, pro-peace" pretensions of J Street are reminiscent of the Jewish communists who sponsored state sponsored Soviet anti-Semitism in the guise of promoting bogus "peace" campaigns. Their right and that of other Israel bashing groups to express their views are not being challenged. But that does not mean that establishment Jewish groups should indulge in kumbaya with those systematically trying to undermine the Jewish state. I stand by my view that those whose primary goal is to delegitimize and demonize the Jewish state — such as radical right wing extremists or racists — should be marginalized from the mainstream Jewish community. That is not fascism. It is common sense. I observed that self loathing Jews are not a new phenomenon in Jewish history. During the Middle Ages, Jewish apostates were exploited by the church to promote the most obscene libels against their kinsman. That paved the way for subsequent pogroms and massacres. I noted that during that period, such renegades were excommunicated. To suggest as did Burston and Strenger that I seek to reintroduce "excommunication" to deal with "doves" or critics of Israeli policy is an unconscionable misrepresentation of what I wrote. More disturbingly, Carlo Strenger joins those exploiting the memory of Yitzhak Rabin to cynically intimidate and silence their opponents. But he goes further. He implies that my views "could be taken seriously by someone like Yaakov Teitel," the alleged fiendish deranged Jewish terrorist. I will not dignify such an obscene assertion by a response. On a broader level, Strenger's references to Rabin are symptomatic of an increasing trend by those on the far left to invoke the memory of our assassinated Prime Minister in order to suppress public criticism of their agenda. I was privileged to know Rabin and met with him on numerous occasions. I remember how he repeatedly reiterated his hope that "the gamble for peace" as he described the Oslo Accords, would succeed. Alas, in the absence of a genuine peace partner, his gamble failed and became the incubator for our current problems. But even after the Oslo Accords proved to have been an absolute disaster, most of us recognized that Rabin's sole motivations were to promote the interests of the Jewish state and achieve a genuine peace settlement. Rabin was above all a consummate Israeli patriot and a true Zionist. It is thus disturbing to observe post-Zionists and extremists, whose views Rabin utterly detested, abusing his memory in order to promote their discredited policies and silence their opponents. I can just visualize the expletives he would have uttered had he been asked to send an Israeli ambassador to participate at a convention of American Jews like J Street whose principal objective was to persuade their president to exercise "tough love" on Israel because they decided that the Jewish state needed to be treated like a parent who treats a drug addicted child. Israel and the committed global Jewish community encompass a wide range of opinions on matters relating to the future of the Jewish state. However, I have no doubt that had Rabin been alive, he too would have endeavored to "exorcise" (Thesaurus "disentangle" or "remove") from the mainstream, those Israelis and Jews who actively seek to demonize the state, defame the IDF, lobby foreign governments against Israel or oppose a Jewish democratic state.
Contact Isi Leibler at ileibler@netvision.net.il
This article is archived at
|
|
ASSAD DESERVES RESISTANCE
Posted by Paul Lademain, November 10, 2009. |
|
We hope that Israel will give Assad plenty of the same resistance he stupidly promises to deliver to Israel if Israel refuses to take orders from him. Despite the ingratiations and bowing and bending of Israel's immediate past leadership Israel should finally grasp that Assad cannot be assuaged with Jewish Wonderfulness because the jerk is a true believer in any canard delivered against Jews. If Jews want to die young, all they need do is believe arab promises for peace. Israel's choice: defeat Assad or find a way to never, ever give this despot an inch. The Golan Heights belong to Israel and that's final and it's about time Israel stands up and declares that the lands of Israel belong to Israel. And the lands of Israel will consist of the lands of its attackers. When Solana the devil of Espana rips off a chunk of Spain and delivers it to the Basques will be the day the Israeli government stops telling this devil to go to hell. Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the Secular Christians for Zion. Paul Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
PRESIDENT SULEIMAN'S OATH AND OUR PEOPLE IN ISRAEL
Posted by Elias Bejjani, November 9, 2009. |
|
In his inaugural speech that was delivered in the Parliament after his election as President for the Republic of Lebanon on 25 May, 2009, General Michele Suleiman promised to bring back our people from Israel who took refuge there in the aftermath of the Israeli army's unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon in May 2000. He said: "This day coincides with the anniversary of the national liberation and victory day, let us make it a motive for greater awareness for what awaits us, and to renew our commitment for freedom and democracy, which we offered sacrifices for them in a bid to safeguard the country. In this context, comes the hard work to release prisoners and detainees, disclose the fate of the missing, and to bring back our sons who fled to Israel; our country's lap has room for all of its citizens." Almost two years have passed since President Suleiman's election, while his promise to bring back our people from Israel has not yet been fulfilled. It is an ethical obligation and a national legitimate right to ask what is hindering the president from taking the needed actions to put an end to this ongoing dilemma? We wonder if Lebanon and its official decision making process that Hezbollah currently controls by force and terrorism is in fact able and willing to embrace all its citizens including those who are in Israel since May, 2000? The wicked Lebanese politicians, clergy, officials and leaders who venomously hide behind fake and camouflaged lies of resistance and liberation, and whose conscience is dead, memories rotten and selective, especially the terrorist group, Hezbollah, the Syrian-Iranian mercenary thugs and militias, MP General Michele Aoun who changed his skin to join the axis of Evil and many others all must be reminded that our people who fled to Israel are from the mosaic of all the Lebanese religious denominations, and that they were forced to do so following the notorious deal that was brokered between the Israeli government at that time, with the regional agreement of Hezbollah's masters in Iran and Syria and with international blessings. The deal sacrificed our southern people, led to a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, gave Hezbollah full control over the South, including the joint border of Lebanon and Israel, and kept the Lebanese army and institutions out of the whole region. In fact, Hezbollah did not liberate the South and according to MP General Michele Aoun (before he became Hezbollah's ally), who stated: "The Shebaa Farms is a big lie and not Lebanese. Hezbollah did not liberate the South, but on the contrary, it hindered its liberation for 14 years and forced its own residents to leave". Aoun labeled Hezbollah's joy of liberation in the year 2000 as a "drug addicts' ecstasy". Based on facts, unveiled lies and fabrications, the mercenaries who unjustly accuse our people in Israel with treason, collaboration and betrayal should fear God's wrath and revenge. They need to witness the truth and repent. Our people in Israel were, are, and shall remain patriotic par excellence and totally loyal to their country and land. We, wonder what is the actual agenda for the sudden re-opening of General Antoine Lahed's judicial (leader of the now defunct South Lebanese Army) case on 28 October 2009 and the issuance of a 15-year hard labor imprisonment verdict against him in absentia on charges of acquisition of Israeli citizenship and collaborating with Israel, although General Lahed was sentenced in 2000 with a death penalty and also in absentia. Apparently this new verdict has no judicial value at all because Lahed who now lives in Israel, has already has been haphazardly and unjustly sentenced in his absence with a death penalty. So what is the reason now for this questionable judicial reawakening? The logic of this bizarre maneuver shows clearly that the verdict targets President Suleiman's inaugural speech, and in particular the section in which he promised to bring back our people from Israel. The Hezbollah-tailored verdict is in reality not against General Lahed, but against President Suleiman personally. It puts him on notice that the file of our people in Israel is closed and will remain so as long as he is in office. The two charges that were used in the new sentence against Lahed actually apply to almost all our people in Israel, i.e. acquisition of Israeli citizenship and collaboration with Israel. We genuinely hope to be wrong in our very serious fears and dire concerns. But the extensive cumulated traumatic knowledge of the mentality and the patterns of Hezbollah and its Syrian-Iranian masters in dealing with all matters since1982 to date allows us to maintain our analysis. All evidence based on past experience with Hezbollah and its two masters is too abundant and all of it consists of tragedies and calamities. We call on President Michel Suleiman to fulfill his promise and work hard with courage and honesty to bring back our people from Israel with all due respect to their dignity, patriotism, sacrifices and loyalty to Lebanon, the homeland that they will never under any circumstances substitute with any other country. President Suleiman, who was Lebanon's Army Chief Commander in the year 2000 when our people were forced into exile, is well aware of all the hidden secrets of that era. He knows too that these heroic citizens are more patriotic and more Lebanese in every aspect than those who are accusing them with treason and betrayal. Our people refused to abandon their land and courageously defended their towns and villages against all thugs of terrorism and fanaticism for 25 years while all the successive Lebanese central governments have merely abandoned them. When the Israeli army unilaterally withdrew from the South in May 2000, our people declined from continuing the fight and chose to leave, not because of fear of combat or death, but to avoid more Lebanese bloodshed, while the central government did not dare to assume its national responsibilities and obligations. President Suleiman knows more than anyone else in Lebanon that the Hezbollah mercenaries and the so-called resistance are hindering the dignified return of our people from Israel and falsely accusing them of treason and collaboration. It is the Hezbollah who are actually guilty of these charges and not our heroic Lebanese people. Mr. President, please do not allow those who were behind this bizarre new sentence against General Lahed, and which in fact was a condemnation of your inauguration speech to achieve their schemes and fulfill their evil objectives. You are the guardian and the protector of the country's constitution. Do not back down or retreat from your promises, and do not abandon our people any longer in Israel. Above all, do not let the Israeli government be more concerned and caring for our people than you and the Lebanese authorities. Mr. President, protect and safeguard the rights of our people in Israel and bring them back to their beloved Lebanon as soon as possible. Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist,
journalist and political commentator. Email him at
phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: RESPONSES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 8, 2009. |
|
It is clear that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has struck a nerve with my readers. I thank all of you who have sent me links to commentary on the Fort Hood jihad massacre. More and more information is being exposed, in terms of Hasan's radical attitude and associations. It is reported that he, a psychiatrist, actually argued with his patients — soldiers returned from war — regarding the worth of their sacrifices. And yet he was not removed, for the system, awash in PC, failed abysmally. A report from ABC News says Hasan tried to connect with people from al-Qaeda. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here I share, most significantly, a powerful piece by Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish: "He is inside your borders. He works deep inside your political and social structures. Openly he expresses his support for your murderers and enthusiastically promotes his message of hate. The bumper sticker on his car reads, 'Allah is Love', but that love is the 'love' which the Koran 61:4 describes as follows, 'Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.' ~~~~~~~~~~ America, take heed!! Lest you doubt what Greenfield says: Anwar al-Awlaki is a US-born Muslim and served as imam at Virginia mosques that were attended by both Hasan and three of the 9/11 terrorists. (You're reading this correctly — Hasan and 9/11 terrorists attended the same mosques.) On his website al-Awlaki (who is now in Yemen) has posted praise for Hasan for being a "man of conscience" and doing "the right thing." He explained that no decent Muslim could serve in the US Army, which "is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest," unless he intends to "follow the footsteps of men like Nidal." Hasan's actions, he said, had drawn attention to the essential dilemma of Muslims living in the US, who may find that they are forced to either "betray Islam or betray their nation." I myself firmly believe that the future of the US depends in good measure on the ability of her citizens to grapple forthrightly with all of this. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Khaled Abu Toameh in today's Post, a senior PA official said Abbas was surprised by Israeli news reports regarding secret agreements between Fayyad and Obama with regard to unilateral declaration of a state. And a source close to Fayyad said there was no such deal. I don't know how much credence can be given to the denial of the Fayyad associate. What matters more is this additional wrinkle in the situation: Apparently Abbas is upset because he says the US is trying to replace him with Fayyad. (There's a reasonable likelihood that this is an accurate perception, as Fayyad is the darling of the Western nations). Said the PA official: "The Americans should know that Fayyad is the prime minister and not the president. Any attempt to bypass President Abbas will fail, because he's the only address. (In Israel the "only address" is the prime minister, and the presidency is a ceremonial position. In the PA, the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the president.) Tension between the two men, and a desire by Abbas to undercut any deal that might have been made between Fayyad and Obama, can only serve us well in this instance. ~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, the Post ran another article that attempted to shed light on the legal aspects of such a unilateral declaration. The point presumably of greatest significance is that a unilateral declaration of statehood would represent a material breach of Oslo, which prohibits change in the status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. (Apparently our changing the status of Gaza "didn't count," as we were surrendering something.) Frankly, I don't believe for a second that the Palestinians would care if they breached Oslo. And there would certainly be nations that would go along. The big question is whether Obama would. Dan Diker, foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is cited as being concerned that the American administration, weary with the stalled negotiations, might be headed in that direction. Other analysts, however, are more dubious about this because the US was a signatory to Oslo. ~~~~~~~~~~ From my perspective what is most pertinent is this: Hebrew University Professor Emeritus Ruth Lapidot says that there is no international body or institution that recognizes states. Individual countries do so according to their own considerations. Thus, I am assuming, the Security Council, while it might theoretically override resolutions 242 and 373, could not put an official stamp of recognition on a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Presumably — barring a very unlikely situation in which some other resolution substituted for this recognition — there is no way in which international troops would be sent in via chapter 7. ~~~~~~~~~~ Balagan, which means, roughly, confusion, mess, or muddle, is a lovely and oft-used Hebrew word. There is no adequate one-word translation into English. And right now that's what we're seeing with all of the above: a massive balagan. So if you have found what I've written confusing, take heart. It's not because your capacity to understand is deficient, but rather because the situation is confused in a major way. And who knows what tomorrow brings. ~~~~~~~~~~ Prime Minister Netanyahu did speak at the General Assembly today, although I have no information on what was said. What I do know is that he was heckled by a couple of people over Gaza. Very sad indeed. Jokingly, he said that he received a better reception at the UN. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tonight Netanyahu and Obama will be meeting at the White House. I confess that I shudder a bit at the prospect. Ethan Bronner of the NY Times has written, "when Secretary of State Clinton was in Jerusalem last week, she asked Mr. Netanyahu to include in negotiating guidelines specific references to the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Jerusalem. He declined." (Thanks Winkie!) This is apparently the reason why it took Obama so long to agree to see Netanyahu. The word was that he wanted something in return for the visit, but I trust that this was not it. We need to pray for the backbone of our prime minister, who is walking into the lion's den. Obama's maximalist position is quite clear. We know what we're dealing with. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" My readers are all familiar with the claims being regularly made by Muslims that we are digging under the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount in an attempt to make it collapse. Recently, the Western Wall Heritage Foundation held a special tour to which a broad spectrum of officials was invited to see for themselves what sort of excavation work is actually being done. All testified that they saw no sign of digging under the Mount. Unfortunately, a similar invitation to the Muslim Wakf (Trust) was turned down because "we will not receive approval from settlers to enter a Muslim-owned area." Anything to avoid seeing the reality, I suppose. There are negotiations going on that may help them to change their minds; additionally, representatives of Arab countries may be brought in to witness the excavations first hand. The good news is what is going on in those excavations. The work, which has been in progress for over four years, begins in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City and connects to the Western Wall tunnels (which run adjacent to and not under the Mount). At this point the digging has gone down 12 meters and it is anticipated will go another four. Important archeological remains from the First Temple have been uncovered. The tunnels (which are also amazing): Excavations: 
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
MUSLIM VICTORY. EU COURT RULES: ALL CRUCIFIXES TO BE REMOVED FROM ITALIAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Posted by Boris Celser, November 9, 2009. | ||||||
|
This article comes from yesterday's David Horowitz Newsreal and is archived at
| ||||||
|
In 2003, the Union of the Muslims of Italy (UOMII), led by a radical convert to Islam named Adel Smith, brought a court action to have the crucifix removed from all public schools in that predominantly Catholic country. Calling the crucifix a "small body on two wooden sticks," and "a miniature cadaver," Smith and UOMII lobbied hard for their removal. Also on their agenda was the removal of an "offensive" 15th century Giovanni di Modena fresco in the Bologna cathedral and the deletion of Dante's Divine Comedy from the school syllabus. Smith said both showed the prophet Mohammed cast into hell and were blasphemous against Islam. The local Italian Court ruled in favor of the Smith and the Muslims. The schools appealed. The matter was taken up by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France (along with a similar action by a different plaintiff), and in a stunning decision, which has gone almost entirely unreported by most major news outlets and cable programs (with the exception of a small, peripheral mention on Fox News) in this country, that Court also ruled last week that displaying crucifixes in the Italian schools violated Europe's principle of "secular education," and "might be intimidating for children from other faiths." The presence of the crucifix could be ... disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities. The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions. The ruling has provoked outrage from all levels of Italian society, being nearly unanimously condemned by Christians, greens, conservatives, and even communists, who called the ruling "absurd." Mariastella Gelmini, a member of the government of conservative Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, argued that: No one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity. The head of the main opposition leftist Democratic Party, Pierluigi Bersani, commented that the ruling lacked common sense. I think a longstanding tradition like the crucifix can't be offensive to anyone. Foreign minister Franco Frattini, speaking during a visit to Morocco, said it was an attack on Italy's Christian identity and that the government would appeal the decision. At a time when we're trying to bring religions closer together, this is a blow to Christianity. Those sentiments aside, it may already be too late for Italy. Although generations of Italian children have grown up studying in classrooms displaying a crucifix, Italy has been transformed of late with the arrival of some 4.5 million refugees and asylum seekers (about 8% of the entire population), a huge percentage of which are Muslims. The influx has led to deep-seated tensions with Muslim immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East (who tend to resist assimilation and are becoming more vocal and radicalized as their numbers grow) despite efforts by the Italian government to accommodate them (as evidenced by the building the Grand Mosque in Rome, the largest Mosque in Europe). To add insult to injury, the European Court has also fined the Italian government the sum of five thousand Euros, for their role in: Psychologically damaging students who were forced to learn in the midst of a crucifix. The Islamization of Europe continues unabated.
Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
RED CROSS INVOLVED IN ATTEMPTED ARAB LAND-GRAB
Posted by Hillel Fendel, November 9, 2009. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), attempting to help Arabs in Samaria take over a plot of land bordering the Tapuach Junction checkpoint, says it will return tomorrow to complete the project. Early Sunday morning, IDF soldiers at the Tapuach checkpoint were surprised to see an empty field suddenly come to life. Some 50 local Arabs, accompanied by three Red Cross jeeps, arrived on the scene for an attempted "land grab." Eyewitnesses said they saw Arabs emerging from the jeeps. Over the past decade, a local Jewish shepherd has grazed his goats on the large plot of land, which borders the southwest part of the large junction and which has not been cultivated in many years, if ever. Despite this, the Arabs, with mules and small tractors, spread out over the area and began clearing it. Major Change of Status Quo The checkpoint junction is traversed by hundreds of Jewish cars each day; for the land in question to become "Arab" would be a major change of the status quo. After a short while, the IDF soldiers on the scene ordered the Arabs to stop working and to leave the area until they provide documentation that the land is theirs. Israel National News contacted the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to ask why its jeeps were there and in what capacity they were accompanying the Arabs. The spokesperson originally surmised that its vehicles could not have been there, but upon being shown the photographic evidence, she promised to investigate, and in fact later returned with a response. "Mis-Coordination With the IDF" The spokesperson explained that the ICRC is in fact helping the Arabs in question "rehabilitate" the plot of land near Tapuach, and that though actions of this type are always taken with the IDF's consent, this time there was a "mis-coordination." She promised that the ICRC would return tomorrow (Monday) to the site to complete the "reclamation" of the land. The spokesperson further said that the ICRC's mandate is not only to help victims of armed conflict, but also to provide "protection, assistance and economical security" for a "small period of time" to those who are in "dire need." Asked if Jews could also apply to the ICRC for such assistance in the case that they are actively thrown off their land, she acknowledged that this was unlikely, as "our mandate is basically for those under occupation... Israel is a democracy with organizations and bodies to which citizens could apply for help." She brushed off suggestions that Arabs in need could apply to the Palestinian Authority for help. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com). This article appeared in Arutz Sheva. |
|
IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA AT WAR IN YEMEN
Posted by Guitta, Olivier, November 9, 2009. |
|
The new major front on the war against radical Islam is on fire. While one would think of Afghanistan or Iraq, it would be very damageable not to study what is currently going on in Yemen. Indeed Yemen has become the new haven for Al Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq and has also been under the attack of Iran-backed Huthi rebels. The new element of this equation is the forced entry of Saudi Arabia in the conflict at hand. This means the beginning of the war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The conflict between the central government of Yemen and the zaidites — a sect of Shiism — Huthi rebels has been going on and off since 2004. But since August the intensity of the fighting has decupled. The implication of foreign nations behind the scenes has made this new stage of the conflict even bloodier. While Yemen is supported by Saudi Arabia, the Huthis are backed by Iran. And Iran has been more aggressive in the past few months supporting and financing their allies, mounting also a campaign of conversion to Shiism targeting several tribes especially in the Hadramuth region. Further proof of Iran?s hands-on approach can be seen through the fact that Yemeni forces seized an Iranian ship transporting weapons to Huthi rebels. Also as reported by Al Watan, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are training Huthi elements and also as Al Arabiya reported a dozen of Hezbollah fighters were killed during battles in October. On Oct. 16 the Kuwaiti Al Seyassah added that three Hezbollah experts in explosives had also been killed and 19 more were made prisoners by the Yemeni Army. The Huthi rebels recently accused Saudi Arabia of intercepting ships full of weapons destined to the rebellion and also of hosting the Yemeni Army in a Saudi base in the Jebel Dukhan area. Riyadh estimates between 4,000 and 5,000 the number of Huthi forces, including Iranians and Lebanese Hezbollah elements, located at the border. So on November 3, things escalated violently and Saudi Arabia was left no choice but to enter the conflict. Indeed on that day, Huthi rebels entered Saudi territory, killed one border guard, injured 11 and took control of some Saudi territory. That was the red line that pushed the Saudi army to respond heavily. Indeed Saudi F15s and Tornados fighter jets sprung into action and bombarded for a few days Huthi positions at the Saudi-Yemeni border. Saudi Arabia has massed units to its border with Yemen and dozens of border Saudi villages have been evacuated and declared military zone. While some Saudi officials are saying that they do not intend to enter Yemeni territory, an adviser to the Saudi government told El Watan that this latest operation was not just a one-time shot but that it will be much longer and may include a ground incursion in order to clean up the rebels? camps?. And according to the French Libération, a column of tanks and motored infantry did enter Yemeni territory to target rebel positions. But even after this heavy fighting Huthi rebels have succeeded in killing at least 5 Saudi soldiers and allegedly taking four more prisoners. Saudi Arabia is very much upset at Iran over Tehran?s proxy war and a Saudi official accused the insurgents to be working for Iran and to want to take the front to the Saudi border. At the same time Yemen is also fighting Al Qaeda in the east in the province of Hadramuth. Al Qaeda has succeeded in mounting very daring operations such as a brazen attack on a convoy of high-ranking security officials that resulted in the death of three of them on Nov. 3. Several media reports evoke the probability of complicity with Al Qaeda among members of the Yemeni army. Yemen is under multiple assaults and the next few weeks are going to be crucial for its future. But even more importantly it is the first front of a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Also, the recent inflammatory declarations of Iranian leaders regarding the upcoming Hajj in Mecca are not boding well for a possible thaw between the two regional powers. Olivier Guitta is an Adjunct Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant based in Europe. You can view his latest work at www.thecroissant.com/about.html |
|
EGYPTIAN CLERIC: HATE & KILL THE JEWS!; MUSLIMS IN THE U.S. MILITARY;
ISRAELI STRATEGIC PLANNER UNDULY CONFIDENT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 9, 2009. |
|
EGYPTIAN CLERIC: HATE & KILL THE JEWS! On TV in Egypt, cleric Amin Al-Ansari showed footage of Nazis killing and torturing Jews in death camps. He hoped Muslims would do the same. He told of a British athlete that kicked an Israel member of a rival British team. His conclusion: everybody hates Jews. He told a tale of a camel that kissed its master but was hostile toward a Jew. His conclusion: Jews are not normal (MEMRI in www.imra.org.il,11/7). I've petted camels, but wouldn't kiss one. Palestinian Authority TV is not the only Arab TV that promotes hatred of Jews. By contrast, Israeli TV does not promote hatred of Arabs. To the Egyptian cleric, bigotry, or religious and racial hatred is "normal." He probably would think that one aspect of Jewish abnormality is that they are not filled with hatred. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY ELECTION? Khaled Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post analyzes the prospect of an election in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Hamas said it would not allow the election in Gaza. If Abbas held an election, it would be just in Judea-Samaria and would be uncontested. If it were contested, it would not do well, because he picked a slate for the legislature of the same leaders whom the people rejected the last time. That includes Marwan Barghouti, whose supposed popularity may be imaginary. Abbas is not popular, because of his overtures to the U.S., including his original willingness to postpone UN action on the Goldstone report until after negotiating. After the election, the victors would lack credibility, because they would not represent the voters of Gaza. Without credibility, they would have difficulty concluding negotiations with Israel (www.imra.org.il,11/7). His people are not fair to Abbas. He is no tool of the U.S.. If his people accepted postponement of the Goldstone report, he could have started negotiations aimed at Israeli concessions to them. But their ideology allows no compromise, not even gestures. It is a religious ideology that sometimes insists on absolute victory and sometimes allows deceptive truces. This ideology got Sadat assassinated, because he seemed to recognize Israel, the price for getting the Sinai away from Israel. Pundits have pointed out that Abbas need not run, he can hang on, as he has done, after his term expired, or he can retain his other posts, such as head of Fatah. NORWAY DROPS ISRAEL WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATION Norwegian attorneys brought a war crimes case against Israel for conduct in the recent Gaza warfare. Prosecutors dropped the case, because it had no connection to Norway or Norwegians (www.imra.org.il,11/7). I find that the cases, all of which have been dropped or lost, are raised more for harassment and propaganda than for justice. Western legal systems allow too many frivolous suits, but cost too much for many with a legitimate grievance to sue or for many victims of anti-Zionist "lawfare" to contest indictments. Legal costs should not be a club against justice. ISRAELI COLLEGES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ARABS? Israel sets a minimum entry age for its colleges of 20 years. It does so because it wants more mature students, who are likelier to succeed in college, and does not want to give an advantage to Arabs, who do not have to serve in the Army, over Jews who do. Returning veterans, however, suffer the disadvantage of having to take entry tests after having been away from studies for years. Returning veterans may have to wait a year before the next tests are offered. Arabs have more time to study for the tests. The result is that 5,000 Israeli Arabs now start college in Jordan, upon finishing high school in Israel. Some of them go there because the language is easier for them. But most do not want to hang around or do work they are not interested in, for a couple of years. Arab organizations are calling this discriminatory, even if unintended (Haaretz in www.imra.org.il, 11/8). I think it is discrimination. I think it is unintended, because Israel discriminates in favor of Arabs in college admissions financially. A more likely explanation is that Israel, like the U.S., has too many rules with unintended consequences, including the current recession. Many secular Jews get exempt from military service and also have to wait for entry to college. Probably one answer is universal national service, non-military for groups that would object to military service. No group would be at a disadvantage for college. The Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews would give something for citizenship that they now do not have to, now. They would get veterans' benefits, important in Israel. For the ultra-Orthodox, however, I think that more should be done to make military society acceptable to them. As for when the entrance exams are given, why not rearrange the schedule of the exams so that they occur soon after graduation and before military service, while their completed studies still are fresh in their minds? Coordinate! MUSLIMS IN THE U.S. MILITARY The U.S. military worries that some Muslims may turn on fellow soldiers. This has happened, but not often. Over all, the Pentagon wants more Muslims to join up. It offers Muslims a special recruiting bonus and fast track to citizenship. The U.S. needs translators and soldiers familiar with customs in Muslims countries. It knows of about 3,000 Muslim GIs, but suspects there are thousands more who think it prudent to conceal their identity. For one thing, they don't want insurgents to single them out or to punish their relatives living in Muslim countries. Several Muslim soldiers said they had been uncomfortable going into combat zones in Muslim areas, but then became proud of their service. Some re-enlisted (Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall St. J., 11/8, A13). I am proud of them, too. During WWII, many Americans of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry fought well for the U.S., though their homelands were on the opposite side and the U.S. treated Japanese-Americans as suspects. Socialists believed that workers from different countries should not fight each other in WWI, but the German Social Democrats voted funds for the war and Socialists participated fully in the war. Some Jews regret that fellow Jews fought each other on both sides of that war. That makes some sense, considering how useless the war was. Jews traditionally were loyal citizens of their countries, though some of their governments were not reciprocally loyal. In eastern pogroms, returning veterans committed some pogroms. Israel exempts Arabs from military service, lest they be put into a position of having to fight their own families. However, it also exempts them from the non-military alternative of national service, as in teaching and medical care. That does not seem justified. U.S. DID NOT FORESEE 1973 SNEAK ARAB ATTACK U.S. intelligence did not foresee the 1973 sneak Arab attack on Israel. Simultaneous movements of Egyptian and Syrian armies were thought coincidental. U.S. intelligence thought that Egypt lacked the ability for a large-scale Canal crossing, that the ground-to-air missiles did not significantly increase Syria's strength, that there was no advantage for Egypt to invade, and that Syria was too cautious to do so. Apparently, U.S. intelligence suffered from the same fallacy that Israeli intelligence did. First they started with a concept that the Arabs do not want war now. Then they squeezed bits of intelligence into that fallacious concept, thereby failing to arrive at a realistic estimate. If Israel had made a pre-emptive strike, the U.S. would have considered it aggression. Now, Haaretz reporter, Amir Oren, who reported on this, states that Israel will not be caught by surprise, again. But next time, there might be a different sort of surprise (www.imra.org.il, 9/26). Israel could have mobilized, at least in part. One, perspicacious general called up his forces in advance, saving the northern front. It's not a simple problem. Sadat kept missing deadlines for war and kept practicing, until his troop movements were ignored. One day it wasn't just practice. ISRAELI STRATEGIC PLANNER CONFIDENT The head of IDF strategic planning is confident that Israel is so powerful it deters Hizbullah. Here is his logic: (1) Hizbullah will continue getting more rockets and missiles; (2) With its increasing strength, it gains self-confidence and is more willing to take risks; (3) Iran may order Hizbullah to bombard Israel; and (4) But Israel is so powerful that it deters Hizbullah. The strategist fails to see that If Hizbullah is getting stronger, more self-confident, and more reckless, and in any case may be ordered to war, then Israeli force does not deter it. This is akin to the over-confidence that Israel had in 1973, feeling that the Arabs were too weak to start another war (Dr. Aaron Lerner, (www.imra.org.il, 9/26). There are other factors: (1) Arab leaders may bluster, and then feel they cannot turn back; (2) Israel always was kept from driving its victory home, and the Arabs were rearmed, so there isn't that much to lose; and (3) Most jihadists prefer war.
Dr. Aaron Lerner points out that Israel is trying to resolve the problem by desalination (www.imra.org.il, 11/8), purchases from Turkey, and more efficient usage. Conservatives suggest charging for water at costs, instead of different prices for different classes. They believe that the more extravagant uses for low income would be priced out. Others have predicted wars over water, too. Water is scarce in that whole desert region, including the professor's country, Israel. Israel didn't make war over water, it made peace over water. That is, in its peace agreement with Jordan, it agreed to give Jordan a specified quantity of water annually. The professor sounds sure of his accusations against Israel, but Israel never started wars against other countries, whereas Jordan started two against Israel. Egypt has disputes with other riparian countries. Some Arab countries have had disputes with Turkey. Generally, international law holds that all the countries along a water course have the right to share in that water. The professor's accusations that Israel steals water don't square with that. What we do know is that both Syria and Lebanon have tried to cut off the flow of water to Israel. Israel also has found Arabs in Judea-Samaria breaking the Oslo accords on water usage. Those are the water thieves. The accusation that Israel sends Gaza contaminated water from Lake Kinneret does not make sense. Twice Israel refilled Gaza's aquifer from which the Arabs over-drew and let get saline. Lake Kinneret has better quality water than Israel's coastal acquifer. Note the professor's lack of appreciation for Israel's gratuity. Nor does the professor observe that for political reasons, the P.A. has refused to use foreign funds on joint sewage projects that would protect P.a. sewage water from seeping into Israeli water supplies. Perhaps the professor should admit that he has no direct line to the Israeli general staff, as he predicts which wars Israel would start and when. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PM HARPER'S OUTSTANDING SPEECH
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 9, 2009. |
|
This speech was delived by the Prime Minister of Canada, Steven Harper, on the occasion of Israel's 60th year. |
|
"All of my life, Israel has been a symbol of the triumph of hope and faith. After 1945, our battered world desperately needed to be lifted out of post-war darkness and despair.... After so much pain and suffering, humanity needed comfort and optimism. After so much death and destruction, we needed the renewal of the dream of a better and more civilized world. In short, we needed to be inspired. It was the people who had suffered who most provided that inspiration. By their example, they led the world back to the light. From shattered Europe and other countries near and far, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made their way home. Their pilgrimage was the culmination of a two-thousand-year-old dream; it is a tribute to the unquenchable human aspiration for freedom, and a testament to the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people. "In the sixty years that followed, Israel blossomed into one of the most successful countries on earth; a land of ingenuity and enterprise, an oasis of agricultural genius, a wellspring of fine art and high culture, a model of democracy. Israel truly is the 'miracle in the desert.' "But the source of Israel's strength and success, in my view, is its commitment to the universal values of all civilized peoples: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law... "Unfortunately, Israel at 60 remains a country threatened by those groups and regimes who deny to this day its right to exist.. And why? Make no mistake; look beyond the thinly-veiled rationalizations: because they hate Israel, just as they hate the Jewish people. Our government believes that those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fueled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk. "In this ongoing battle, Canada stands side-by-side with the State of Israel, our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations. We have stood with Israel even when it has not been popular to do so, and we will continue to stand with Israel, just as I have always said we would... "There will be many challenges along the way, but considering how far Israel has come in such a short time, in the face of such seemingly insurmountable odds, I can foresee no dark force, no matter how strong, that could succeed in dimming the light of freedom and democracy that shines from within Israel." Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
TEL AVIV STUDENTS AFRAID TO CHALLENGE LEFTIST PROFESSORS
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 9, 2009. |
|
Of all places, it was in Haaretz, and on the front page to boot! Tel Aviv University students are complaining in masses about the politicization of the classroom at the University by leftist anti-Israel faculty members. They are complaining about indoctrination in the classroom and suppression of viewpoints that are not radically leftist and anti-Zionist. The article below was written by Or Kashti and appeared today
in Haaretz
|
|
Tel Aviv University students are hesitant to express their political views in class, lest lecturers perceived to have left-wing political views penalize them with lower grades, the head of TAU's Department of Curriculum and Instruction wrote in an internal memorandum last month. Prof. Nira Hativa's comment in the faculty memo ignited controversy among professors, with some declaring that her sentiments should not be made public. Hativa wrote: "There are no small number of students of lecturers with left-wing views who complain bitterly that they are extremely offended by the presentation of materials that oppose their views, but are fearful of expressing contrary viewpoints in class, lest it harm their grades." In response to the uproar, Hativa, who is currently abroad, wrote Haaretz this weekend that "the things I wrote in the context of an internal disagreement are based on intuition and my personal impressions." The chair of the university's students' union, Shahar Botzer, said his organization receives a number of complaints each year from students dissatisfied with what they view as lecturers' biased portrayal of material in favor of left-wing positions. He said that such complaints are the exception, however, rather than the rule. "If lecturers express their views in class in a way that makes it illegitimate to express contrary views — that is inappropriate and unacceptable to us," Botzer said. "This university is founded on pluralism and on the ability to express a variety of opinions." Hativa's statements were prompted by a story in the Haaretz English Edition on rightist activists monitoring lecturers who are considered to have leftist views, as well as an article in Maariv on what it described as the right-wing views of Daniel Schueftan, deputy director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa. "At the end of each semester, I read comments from several hundred students on the teaching they receive," Hativa wrote on October 23. "I have come across many complaints from students about a small number of lecturers in various fields, who express radical left-wing opinions in their classes — that they are lashing out at the State of Israel, the army, the Zionist movement and worse." TAU said in response that "informal discussions are held frequently on controversial issues, and people feel 'at home' in expressing opinions based on their understanding and intuition. The university is an institution where pluralism is a guiding principle." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
NIDAL MALIK HASAN COMMITTED MUSLIM TERROR
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 8, 2009. |
|
cd2,454,000 is a rough estimate of how many Muslims are in America, including recent immigrants, plus second and third generation Muslims. (1) The Media describe Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as having 'snapped' but, it would be more accurate to say that he and others evolved within Islamic Jihadist (warriors for Islam) beliefs that killing infidels (non Muslims, especially Jews and Christians) is their mission in this world — according to Koranic Law and their Islamic teaching. Nothing 'snapped' because from these earliest teachings of the Koran and Mohammed's "Hadith" (oral teachings), the seeds of martyrdom are deeply planted in the psyche of an observant Muslim. Following that, further teachings by the Mullahs tell eager Muslim minds that the poverty in which they live isn't their fault but, rather the manipulations of infidels, non-believers. That the material success of the Judeo-Christian world is fed into their system drop by poisonous drop. When a Nidal massacres American soldiers, it wasn't a 'snapped' mind but rather a step-by-step process to a time when they are ready for a call to action. Regrettably, neither America, Europe or Israel are willing to treat this bizarre and dangerous behavior for what it is. It is their culture; it is their view of civilization which makes the expression (a war of civilizations) quite accurate. To think or to conclude Muslims will accommodate and live in peace with other civilizations is nothing more that self-delusional thinking based upon illogical hope. Presently, there is a PC effort to apologize for Nidal's murderous assault as that of a Muslim with mental problems. That would be like saying that the 15 Saudi and the 4 Egyptian ;Muslims who attacked in 9/11 were 'merely' troubled Muslims. Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, states that "we cannot blame the Muslims." Anthropologists can speak to the matter of why cannibals first conquer their victims as a show of superiority for their gods. Then, eating their victim, automatically absorbs the entire past life the victim has achieved over to the cannibal victor. The more victims conquered (and eaten), the stronger they believe they will become. The Muslim civilization similarly speaks of conquest and living off the accumulated assets of the conquered victim, thus claiming superiority for their god Allah and themselves. It is an addiction they cannot abandon until they are either eliminated or they succeed in running out of victims and only they will remain on this planet — other than slaves to Islam. When Nidal, as an experienced senior psychiatrist was assigned to give a lecture to his colleagues at Walter Reed Army Hospital on stress and healing returning soldiers, he instead gave a lecture on Islam. Colleagues interviewed after his murderous assault recalled that, in his lecture, he approved of beheading infidels and pouring hot oil down the throats of non-believers. Granted, this sort of wish fulfillment is bizarre but, not less that the extreme torture already actually used on their captives by radical Muslim extremists. It was reported that a Muslim MD in the audience vigorously challenged Nidal, both in his lecture and, particularly, his recommendation of how to punish unbelievers/infidels in the name of Allah. Which leads us to the conclusion that it's hard to predict which way a Muslim will swing and at what point in his or her life, the martyr phase kicks in. Questions are being asked about the role of the intended victims. When does the victim have or takes the opportunity to defend their own lives? In America and Europe, the weakened victims' government adopts the role of PC (Politically Correct) Pacifist. I guess that would then morph into a PCP description. For some time, honest and I suppose fearless journalists have written about a phase of deteriorating mechanisms in order to play down the threat of Muslims embedded in the military, universities, sleeper cells scattered throughout the so-called civilian enclaves of Muslim communities in America and Europe. The FBI, under pressure from an Arabist State Department, are loath to start deep investigation of Muslim Jihadist cells and the Mosques where they congregate, recruit, raise funds for Muslim Jihadists to conduct Terror operations back in their homeland. Apparently, the Politically Correct Pacifist policy has now made its way through the Oval Office, Congress, the Military, the 16 American Intel Agencies — underpinned by major Left-Liberal Universities with a solid block of Left-Liberal professors, especially those who teach Middle Eastern studies. Perhaps this explains the considerable effort to absolve Nidal of culpability due to his supposed mental instability. The White House was in a frenzy to protect Obama's outreach policy to the Muslims of Iran and Syria. Thousands of would-be Nidals are living in peace in America and Muslim organizations who are well-funded and even use America's Court system to create a protective barrier against investigation and exposure for Muslims. Only when these Muslim Jihadists are caught red-handed with bomb-making material does Justice play a role but even then the Court process takes years. Only when there is a spectacular 9/11 does America's so-called official protectors take off their pillow gloves, ignore their Washington orders to be Politically Correct and do their job without State Department and Presidential interference. But, at the moment, there is a full court press to make the massacre, merely the problem of one deranged Muslim and not Muslims in America and Arab countries. Some will recall during WW2 how American friends of Adolph Hitler in high places in government whose role was to subvert American war-making capability. Similarly Joseph Stalin had his fellow travelers doing their damage during the Cold War. We are now in the era of what may be called the Oil Wars with American friends in high places, representing Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Islam — generally to the detriment of America. Many former State Department diplomats are on their payroll — some as declared foreign agents and some who are not declared — operating in political circles alongside the multi-national oil companies executives. Selling out one's nation for hard cash is not that unusual. However, the Islamists do it for their ideology and recruiting Americans for cash and oil speaks of Treason to our highest governmental offices. Nidal is merely a symptom of Muslim intention while the Politically Correct who enable Muslim penetration signals a nation up-for-sale. Regrettably, some of our European Allies have passed the point of no return in selling out their nation and heritage to an aggressive Islam. America, in some parts, is also going in that direction — even to the point of insisting Israel cease her fight against Jihadist Terror and adopt a U.S. policy of appeasement and pacification no matter what the risks and cost to the victims. In brief, Islam is totally on a war footing, marching toward their self-assigned goal of world conquest toward what they call the Global Caliphate under Sharia Law. At this moment, they are succeeding in America and Europe with our security mechanisms obediently maintaining a deep sleep under Politically Correct orders from the top down. America, under Obama's leadership, has adopted a policy of apology and appeasement to Islam. Only when our cities are struck by devastating attacks, subways blown up, random terrorist attacks in Department Stores, Malls, Nuclear Power Plants struck — releasing nuclear plumes covering several states, will the Military move but, much too late. There are solutions but a society that is already defeated in its mind at the highest levels of American Government may not be able to recover. In closing, we heard from the Army's CID (the investigative arm of the U.S. Army). They reported that Nidal was the sole shooter. (Oh. Really?) They are selling the idea that only a single deranged Muslim was responsible, in effect, saying to the American public that Muslims at large are not to be blamed as culpable — or to be considered basically hostile to America. The PCP (Politically Correct Pacifist) policy went in to immediate play through a mostly accommodating Media — other than FOX NEWS which frequently questioned the PC policy first established by the Bush family towards the Saudis and now expanded by the Obama regime. Two reports 11/6 and 11/8) issued by the blog of "Sultan Knish" demonstrates that Nidal was likely following a broad directive, issued by Al Qaeda Jihadist web site. Nasir al-Wahayshi called for Pew Research Center October 2009 including "any tyrant, intelligence den, "prince" or "minister" (referring to the governments in the Muslim world like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and "any crusaders whenever you find one of them, like at the airports of the crusader Western countries that participate in the wars against Islam, or their living compounds, trains, etc.," (an obvious reference to the U.S. and Europe, as well as Westerners living in Muslim countries)... "...Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year." (May 2009).... While Nidal may have technically been a lone Muslim shooter Thursday November 5 at 1:30 PM, Fort Hood, he had a veritable army of ideological Muslim Terrorists cheering him on. I was particularly struck by a TV interview of the daughter of one of those shot dead by Nidal. Without a sign of remorse, she calmly defended Nidal as "merely a troubled person" indicating that he could not be held responsible for his actions due to his troubled mental condition. (I will leave it to the reader to ponder her mental condition that met the test of Political Correctness as pumped out to the public, both before 9/11 and, certainly, after, that Muslims cannot be suspected of disloyalty to America due to the teachings of the Koran and Mohammed's Hadith. All of this bring Americans to the vital question of: Who in the American government is in the Muslim Bag, besides the State Department, President Barack Hussein Obama with his "outreach" to Iran and Syria, and some in the U.S. Intel Agencies who are massaging disinformation to the public — all of whom are the self-anointed "Shadow Government". Regrettably, much of the Media continues its protection of Obama policy and refuse to ask the tough questions. Sultan Knish continued his examination of the "Nidal Story" November 7th: "....the Media rushed to assign blame for the massacre, not of course to Nidal Malik Hasan, who had opened fire, aiming to kill as many soldiers as possible, but on the U.S. Army and on his fellow soldiers. Completely ignoring his Islamic ideology and Palestinian Arab background, the Media speculated that he might have been suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, even though he had never served in a combat zone, he was angry over being deployed in Iraq, even though he had a history of pro-terrorist postings on the Internet predating that, and finally, that he had been bullied by other soldiers for being a Muslim — claim that has since emerged as completely baseless. All of these however were ways of shifting the blame from Nidal Hasan and his Islamist ideology, and onto his victims, the men and women he had tried to kill and the U.S. Army itself.....Once again, they kill us and yet somehow we're the ones to blame"....Our original sin is fighting back...." "By ignoring the fact that 66% of the deliberate attacks within the U.S. military by other soldiers, have involved Muslims–-the Media is engaging in blatant deceptiveness.....The Media is defending him because he is a Muslim and, in particular, a Terrorist."...."Of course, it is never the Terrorists' fault. Heaven forbid. Ours is but to die and take the blame for the actions of our murderers." (3) Footnotes 1. "List of Countries by Muslim population" Pew Research Center
October 2009
2. "A Brief Shooting Roundup" by Sultan Knish 3. "They Kill Us and We're the Ones to Blame" by Sultan Knish
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 |
|
TOUGH CHOICES
Posted by Ari Bussel, November 8, 2009. |
|
Many are worried that, if left on its own, the Jewish state will at one point have a non-Jewish majority. Thus, they claim, by democratic process alone, Israel will become a country of all its citizens, i.e. cease to be a Jewish state. Recognizing what they call "the inevitable," some call for the creation of two separate states. I call them those of little faith. They surrender in advance, yielding to an idea that will bring only one solution: The Destruction of the Israeli (Jewish) State. Regrettably, many "centrists" in Israel have accepted the supposition and persuaded themselves this is the right course of action. They, it seems, have lost faith in themselves and in their right to exist. The majority of Muslims in the area have a very high birth rate. Coupled with a supply of fresh water, availability of proper sewage, state-of-the-art medical attention and other provisions by the Jewish State, including monetary support, and an increasing life span, the Muslim-Arab population in Israel seems to have the upper hand in the race to populate the country. In contrast, most Israeli families are similar to those in the United States. The single exception is the religious Jews who resemble, in that respect, the birth rate of the Muslims. They, however, are just a minority (for instance, the 300,000 residents of Judea and Samaria) and constraints — such as lack of physical dwelling places that applies only to them and not to their Muslim Arab neighbors — have an effect as well. One solution to the race to populate the country is to encourage Jewish Israelis to have more children. On a parallel plane, support by the Jewish State to Muslim Arabs (such as monthly child support and free healthcare) can be limited, making a family less comfortable than just having a new child every year. As long as someone else is paying, why not continue, worry-free? I am also not worried about requiring every citizen an equal burden, equal responsibility under the law. Enforcing such expectation (for instance, dismantling illegal settlements, destroying structures built without permits, enforcing mandatory national service, etc.) should be applied equally, whatever the short-term price — including to Israeli Arabs. Arabs may be up in arms, for they enjoy all the privileges of a citizen with few if any obligations. Israel is already a country of all its citizens, with members of the Muslim and other minorities becoming Supreme Court Justices, Members of the Knesset or Ministers in the Government. These minorities enjoy equal rights and opportunities, albeit not always equal obligations. In this respect, the threat of an international outcry against Israel is less than significant; Israel is already accused of being an Apartheid State (e.g. President Carter, Judge Goldstone). There are numerous court decisions requiring the demolition of balconies, additions to existing houses and other structures built without permit, all by Arabs. To put it bluntly, the authorities are afraid. None of the court decisions is therefore enforced for it is expected the IDF will be required to assist in order to do so. Thus, the IDF is used for other noble purposes. Did I mention that Israel is first and before all a Jewish State? It is time to make hard choices — a minority with national aspirations must have its wings cut, for it presents a clear and present danger to the entity-state. A minority recognizing it is part of an existing state, respecting its obligations as members of the state and enjoying the many benefits associated with such an "entitlement" or privilege, continues to be a viable and vibrant part of society. Israel's minority citizens would prefer always to be a minority in the Jewish State than part of a majority of an Arab State. They must decide and act accordingly. It is thus up to Israel to make up its mind on the appropriate course of action. Lacking a clear course of progress by Israel, is there any wonder that others are dictating their Israel's destiny? Without a pilot at the helm, how are we to arrive to our destination? How is the Jewish Homeland to survive? Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: REASON FOR CONCERN?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 8, 2009. |
|
It was in late summer that Salam Fayyad, president of the PA, proposed that a Palestinian state be put in place within two years. He put together a plan for establishing infrastructure and civic underpinnings for this state. His declaration dovetailed with Obama declarations regarding intentions to push forward negotiations that would bring about a state within two years — except that Obama was talking about negotiations and Fayyad was talking about unilateral initiative. This has been known — it is not a surprise. And it has not caused undue concern: since August there has been no movement forward in real terms on the part of Fayyad — a lot of talk, a lot of plans advanced on paper, but no massive building of infrastructure begun and no administrative reorganization. Leaders in the PA talk a great deal and do next to nothing constructive. However, today's Haaretz has added additional information that potentially moves Fayyad's plans up a notch in terms of reason for concern. I say "potentially" because I am not certain that the information is solid, and even more so not certain that matters will play out as projected. There are a host of reasons to discount what is being said (which I will share below). And yet, I take the possibility seriously enough — even if is a remote possibility — so that I want to provide information on what has been said, and advice regarding an appropriate response. ~~~~~~~~~~ What Haaretz says is this (I have added emphasis): "Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council. ~~~~~~~~~~ My concern was aroused because of the mention of the Security Council. This international body — as corrupt and immoral as it is — has authority within international law. Its resolutions are binding and if passed under chapter 7 authorize enforcement. SC Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War in 1967, most specifically says Israel is entitled to secure borders and implies that thus Israel does not have to return to the Green Line. Any withdrawal from Judea and Samaria by Israel would come only within the context of negotiations, which would include termination of all states of belligerency, respect for Israel's sovereignty — with acknowledgement of Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. Israel has no obligation under 242 to move an inch until these conditions are met. What is more, the negotiations were to be with existing states that had been at war with Israel, and not with Palestinians (who are not mentioned). As I mentioned just the other day, this was not passed under chapter 7, which means there was no enforcement — Israel was not perceived within this document as an aggressor that had to be pushed back. SC Resolution 373 called for a ceasefire at the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and then for immediate negotiations to secure a just peace. What Haaretz is suggesting Fayyad will be seeking is a UN resolution saying negotiations are not required and that there need not be attention given to providing Israel with secure borders. Instead, a Palestinian state in all land outside the Green Line would be unilaterally declared and accepted as legitimate under international law. There is no statement within this article suggesting that the resolution approving the state would be under chapter 7; what is implied is more in line with international pressure. ~~~~~~~~~~ Possible reasons why this may all be hot air: [] It's one more threat, along with all the other threats a desperate PA is tossing out right now. On top of this, we must remember that Fayyad may well not be president in two years, Hamas may have taken over or there may be a unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the PA may have been dissolved (more on this below), or we may be at war with the PA. ~~~~~~~~~~ All of this said, I think a bit of preventative action can only be to the good. The key here, once again, is Obama. If he is absolutely pledged to support only a Palestinian state established via negotiations, there is no cause for concern with regard to this threat. For then he would veto any alternate proposal in the Security Council. What is more, once the PA understood this was his position, it would take the wind — such as it may be — out of its sails. The article indicated that Obama had made no commitment in this regard in response to Netanyahu's request. Americans must pursue this. A firm and public commitment must be secured from the president stating that the US will honor only a Palestinian state that has been declared via negotiations. He must promise to veto any attempts to establish a state unilaterally via the Security Council. Communication should go to President Obama and elected representatives in Congress. Provide the URL for the article and begin by saying there are reports that PA president Fayyad wants to by-pass negotiations with Israel and unilaterally declare a state within all the lands beyond the Green Line — with the state to be endorsed via a UN SC resolution. And that President Obama might support this. Using your own words, remind them that: [] Israel has declared itself ready to come to the negotiating table, while the PA has demanded preconditions — preconditions that it never demanded before when negotiating with Olmert or Barak. Ask that the president commitment himself to recognizing a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and to vetoing in the Security Council any proposal for a Palestinian that is unilaterally established. President Obama:
For your Congresspersons:
And your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ I recommend that you raise this with the leadership of various Jewish organizations and pro-Israel churches as well. If it is the case that Obama is wavering on this issue, he needs to understand that supporting a unilaterally established Palestinian state would be considered a betrayal of Israel and not sit well with a host of his constituents. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am not, it should be noted, advocating here that we promote a Palestinian state via negotiations. I am, rather, advocating that we speak in terms that will be understood by US leaders and resonate with them. ~~~~~~~~~~ As for the Palestinian threat du jour: Khaled Abu Toameh tells us that officials in Ramallah are reporting that Abbas is considering dissolving the PA and declaring the negotiations a failure. However..."Abbas was now waiting to see if the US and other parties would exert enough pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction and recognize the two-state solution before he makes any decision." Threat du jour, and also joke du jour. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Guardian (UK) has reported that senior Hezbollah officials are saying that they are rapidly rearming in preparation for a new war with Israel, which they anticipate within months, perhaps in the spring. They are fortifying positions north of the Litani river — where they would be less vulnerable than they were in 2006. "But," says a Hezbollah commander, "we still have plenty of capabilities in the south." There will be a new strategy for defending the south, they say. Of note here: It has been announced by Lebanese prime minister-designate Saad al-Hariri that a unity government is about to be formed. Hezbollah and the gov't of Lebanon have finally reached an agreement, after five months of negotiations (during which time there was no functioning government), for Hezbollah to be in the coalition. This is of considerable significance if and when we do fight in Lebanon again — for we would be fighting the government and not a terrorist organization. ~~~~~~~~~~ Reports are being released with regard to warning signs that all was not right with Nidal Malik Hasan well before he went on his Fort Hood rampage. Fellow students and an Islamic community leader all knew of doubts Hasan had about fighting in Iraq because it was pitting Muslim against Muslim. Additionally, he was reported to have made a classroom presentation that supported suicide bombing. According to YNet: "His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's 'anti-American propaganda,' but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint. Time for America to do a whole lot of soul-searching. I'm reading that Homeland Security in the US is trying to deflect anti-Muslim anger following the shootings. I would suggest that there is a great deal more to be dealt with. ~~~~~~~~~~ This morning reports were floating of a meeting that would take place between Netanyahu (who had left for Washington) and Obama. But as of this moment there has been no official confirmation. Quite simply, who knows? Obama, in the meantime, has cancelled his talk at the General Assembly in order to be present at a memorial service for those killed in Fort Hood. Apparently, a small number of Federation heads will meet with him at the White House. I'd love to know what those Federation leaders will be. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
REALITY RAISES IT'S HEAD AND THE MEDIA WAKES UP ABOUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S MIDDLE EAST FAILURE
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 8, 2009. |
|
There's something big happening in the air regarding American media coverage of the Obama Administration. With the Washington Post in advance, the New York Times waking up the tiniest bit, the Los Angeles Times trailing far behind, and a lot of other newspapers getting tough, reality is seeping into their coverage. Even the Boston Globe, America's most liberal newspaper, is strongly criticizing Obama. The Globe remarks: "It takes more than scripted eloquence for presidents to connect with their fellow Americans. It requires a visceral ability to grasp the scope of tragedy, calculate its impact on the national psyche, and react swiftly to it. Ronald Reagan did it after the Challenger explosion....So did Bill Clinton, after the Oklahoma City bombings." After all, the president didn't go to the celebrations commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall; or the christening of the USS New York with steel from the World Trade Center and families of those murdered in that building attending; or visit the Fort Hood wounded; or even treat the latest attack with due seriousness. And of course his Arab-Israeli policy in his ruins while the Iran issue is making a fool out of the administration. On foreign policy, more and more things are becoming harder to deny: --The Obama Administration has failed to charm any Arab states or Iran into changing their policy, even to a tiny extent. As the Obama Administration's first year in office comes toward an end, it has failed, failed, failed, in the Middle East. Then there's the Washington Post which strongly criticized his policy on the Israel-Palestinian peace process one daybashed his peace process policy and today they go after his Iran policy. The alarm clock is going off. On November 6, the Washington Post ran a critical editorial on Obama's Iran policy — under the subheadline "How much longer should the Obama administration tolerate the regime's intransigence? — warning that the administration is helping the Tehran regime's strategy of stalling for time and avoiding more sanctions while crushing the opposition. "And each day Iran's known centrifuges produce another six pounds of enriched uranium." And the editorial has a devastating conclusion: "The Obama administration and European governments have set the end of the year as a deadline for the transfer of the uranium out of Iran and for progress in the overall negotiations. But the administration must consider whether it makes sense to grant the regime two more months of grace. On Tuesday, after all, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly rejected the overtures he said he had received from President Obama, declaring that negotiating with the United States was 'naive and perverted.' On Wednesday, the opposition protesters chanted: `Obama, Obama — either you're with them, or with us.' Sooner rather than later, Mr. Obama ought to respond to those messages." Just 48 hours earlier, the Washington Post looked at the peace process issue in an article and an editorial. Both reflect this new thinking, breaking from a slavish regard from the inexperienced Obama as the closest thing on the planet to a diplomatic deity. The writer, Glenn Kessler, does a good job with an article tellingly entitled, "Administration missteps hamper Mideast efforts." Let me first get out of the way my criticisms as they show some consistent problems in coverage of the Middle East, then talk about all the good things in the article. Kessler first interviews one Daniel Levy. Mr. Levy has no serious training on Middle East politics and is merely just another left-wing activist who never utters a word of anything except criticism of Israel and never has anything particularly insightful to say. Is this really the best expert that the Post can come up with? True, Levy — who is rather generously described as "a veteran Israeli peace negotiator" — worked a while as a low-level assistant for Yossi Beilin, leader of Israel's far left-wing — but his emergence into being what sometimes seems like the media's favorite pundit on these issues in Washington is rather ludicrous. Mr. Levy's only "accomplishment" in recent years is reportedly to have co-founded — along with a former Arab lobbyist — J Street, the new anti-Israel but pretending-to-be pro-Israel lobby. Having said that, what Kessler actually published of his remarks isn't so bad, which probably reflects more credit on Kessler. The second interviewee is Ghaith al-Omari, a former advisor to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Omani is listed as "advocacy director," a title which makes him sound like something less than a scholarly expert, for the American Task Force on Palestine. This is an interesting group since it seems to be the PA's semi-official voice in Washington. As such, it might be slightly more moderate than J Street. Watch what this group says closely. [Pairing an anti-Israel person who can be portrayed as an Israeli with an official Palestinian spokesman is the kind of phony "balance" too often employed in the media.] Nevertheless, with Omari, too, Kessler gets reasonable quotes, though he lets him get away with one outright falsehood. Quoting the article: "He [Omari] said that things have improved in the past nine months, including getting a reluctant Israeli government to embrace the idea of talks." Funny, the truth is the exact opposite. The Israeli government has never said anything but that it is ready to negotiate right away and without preconditions with the PA. This kind of outright and demonstrable lie should not be presented without being questioned. Having said all that, however, Kessler has written a very good article. In fact, I think that his account of what has happened so far this year is worth quoting at length. [But don't stop reading here because I'm going to get to the Post's editorial afterward. So skip this section if you think you know all these points already]: "The administration's key error, many analysts say, was to insist that Israel immediately freeze all settlement growth in Palestinian-occupied territories. The United States has never accepted the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, but the Obama administration took an unusually tough stance. It refused to acknowledge an unwritten agreement between Israel and Bush to limit growth in settlements, with Clinton leading the charge to demand a full settlement freeze. What makes this analysis especially interesting is that it shows how the administration itself has messed up. I'd like to add though that while the administration has agreed to let Israel finish ongoing construction, the agreement seems to be for an absolute freeze on the West Bank. The only difference is that instead of the freeze taking effect on, say, January 1, it will take place — just to pick a date — around May 1 or so. In fact, then, it is a "full settlement freeze," just one that is delayed a bit. So to imply that the United States made some huge concession to Israel or that Israel is getting away with anything is misleading. Obama wanted a full freeze. He got one. And if nothing happens to advance negotiations — though we don't know this — it's possible that the agreement includes Israel's reservation that it will restart in the future. But it's not clear whether that's true and no one seems to be saying so. The article's end is a bit more typical of what's wrong with the usual coverage, in which only Palestinian complaints and demands are highlighted: "Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, mused...about the end of the dream of a Palestinian state and scoffed at the Obama administration's notion of baby steps to talks. `As to the baby steps, we begun taking them in 1990-1991, and we have been crawling for 19 years,' he said. `We need youthful steps to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state.'" How about a balancing quote pointing out that the Palestinians could have had a state in the late 1970s (Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat's initiative), the early 1980s (Reagan Plan), the early 1990s (U.S.-PLO dialogue), and the mid-1990s or right after 2000 ("Oslo" process) if they didn't keep rejecting all offers and instead choosing the path of intransigence and violence? Or how about a balancing quote saying that there should be faster action to get rid of Hamas and end terrorist attacks as well as demonization of Israel? Why is it we only hear about what the Palestinians want (or demand) and never about Israel's desire for full recognition as a Jewish state, territorial swaps on the West Bank, ample security guarantees, an end to the conflict, and resettlement of all Palestinians in Palestine? Someone please do a count of how many times key media outlets mention the Palestinian list and the Israeli list of what should be in a peace agreement. I wouldn't be surprised if the first outran the second by a ten-to-one margin. Now for the Post's editorial whose title, "The Mideast Impasse" could have been used at any time in the last 60 years! In contrast to Omari, it makes clear who is to blame for the impasse: "Palestinian President [sic] Mahmoud Abbas has participated in peace negotiations with five Israeli governments that refused to halt Jewish settlement construction. Yet Mr. Abbas has rejected an appeal from the Obama administration to start talks with the center-right coalition of Binyamin Netanyahu, putting one of the administration's primary foreign policy goals on indefinite hold. The reason: `America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze,' a statement said. "Has Mr. Abbas suddenly realized that settlements are the key obstacle to a Palestinian state? Hardly: In private, senior Palestinian officials readily concede that the issue is secondary. Instead, the Palestinian pose is a product of the Obama administration's missteps — and also of the fact that the opportunity Mr. Obama said he perceived to broker a two-state settlement is not so visible to leaders in the region." Here we have the two key themes I keep trying to get across: peace is very distant and everyone in the region (but not in the West) knows it, and the Palestinians are the ones mainly at fault. It also includes the Obama administration's responsibility. The editorial continues that neither Abbas nor Arab leaders "seems to share Mr. Obama's notion that the time is ripe for a deal." It also sagely adds: "The Obama administration's working assumption has been that energetic diplomacy by the United States could induce both sides to move quickly toward peace. In fact, progress in the Middle East has always begun with initiatives by Israelis or Arabs themselves." But then, since it is impermissible not to end with anything but an optimistic conclusion that there is an easy way out, the editorial goes on: "At the moment, the most promising idea comes from Mr. Abbas's prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who has vowed to build the institutions of a Palestinian state within the next two years, with or without peace talks. Negotiations between the current Israeli and Palestinian leaders could provide indirect support for that initiative, even if there is little progress. But the administration would do well to refocus its efforts on supporting Mr. Fayyad." So we still have some "Old Think," as Russians called Communism in the Perestroika era. It is not quite permissible to suggest the administration might "refocus its efforts" on supporting Israel. And of course the Fayyad solution is an illusion. He has no power, might get kicked out at any moment except that his remaining in office is a condition for continued Western aid, the violent tendencies in the Fatah leadership could launch warfare and wipe out progress at any moment, and the PA has failed to build institutions for 15 years so what leads anyone to believe they will change now? Still, at least this kind of analysis is on the same planet as the real Middle East, which is a step forward. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com This article is archived at
|
|
THIS SADNESS
Posted by Teresinka Pereira, November 8, 2009. |
|
Today I am not available for anything or anyone.
I rebel against myself, I blaspheme against all gods and the result is this sadness with the risk of dying at a long, slow rate. Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com |
|
OBAMA ABANDONS ALLIES, BEFRIENDS ENEMIES; ISRAELI SWINE FLU
PROTECTION FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS; JORDANIAN RACKETEERS SELL ORGANS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 8, 2009. |
|
DELETE WAIVER FROM U.S. EMBASSY MOVE IN ISRAEL? Sen. Brownback has introduced a bill to delete the waiver abused to stall the mandated move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The requirement to move the embassy was enacted by a vote of 90% to 10%, 14 years ago. Israel is the only country in which the US embassy is not located in its capital, although other countries have had similar territorial disputes. Every six months, our most recent three Presidents have cited "national security" as the reason for their waiving the move. They either do not explain what national security is involved or they offer an illogical and weak explanation. The presidents imply that if it were moved, Arabs might riot. In the 14 years since the law was waived, riots and terrorism have gotten worse, leading to wars. The implication holds this U.S. law hostage to Arab rioters. We don't let terrorists hold our other laws hostage. Putting our law into the hands of enemy terrorists is contemptible. By making the U.S. contemptible, our presidents embolden the Arabs against the U.S.. Does that help or hinder U.S. national security? It undermines the "international war against Islamist terrorists." Pres. Clinton said implementation of the move would have to wait until a peace settlement? Why? Where is the logic in that? His peace efforts failed anyway, so what was the point? This is a matter of U.S. law having nothing to do with foreign countries' arrangements. No explanation given. You might think that the presidents' stalling merely is avoiding taking sides in a territorial conflict. But it does take sides. It takes sides by making a pro-Arab exception in U.S. policy and "harms Israel's long-standing position that Jerusalem is its capital." (11/5 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.) Notice the presidents' double standard about what law to defer to terrorists and what capital to recognize. There are too many double standards against Israel, including many in the UN Human Rights Council, itself, to be coincidence. The reasons offered when making Israel the butt of so many double standards must be phony. People must learn caution about accepting idealistic sounding excuses given by cynical agencies, such as the State Dept., which has deployed Nazis, Every government declares what part of the country that it controls is its capital. If a territorial conflict resolves itself differently, embassies can be relocated accordingly. ZOA was too tactful to mention that the State Dept. has an anti-Zionist tradition. The State Dept. does not recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of a country it did not want to recognize, wanted to revoke sovereignty of, and either wants to dismantle Israel piecemeal or would deprive it of secure borders that prevent its conquest. The State Dept. excuse about Jerusalem is that the UN resolution advising that there ought to be a Jewish state suggested that Jerusalem be kept apart from any national state. Advice and suggestion have no legal standing, not that that advice made sense then, especially because the other international cities all were conquered by surrounding countries. Obviously, the State Dept. excuse is a cover for animosity. U.S. foreign policy should be based on U.S. national interests and not on some subversive clique's animosity. It is not their government, it is ours. They have forgotten they are supposed to be the servants of the people. HAMAS TEACHES CHILDREN: SLAUGHTER THE JEWS Hamas children's TV uses animal characters. "Themes promoted by all the characters include Islamic triumphalism, anti-Semitism, self-sacrifice and violence." The September 22 episode uses three phrases for the children's duty
to expel and slaughter the Jews
While our leaders demand negotiations for peace, Palestinian Arabs use their autonomy to indoctrinate the generations to demand war. Imagine what they would do to a leader who would propose genuine peace? GOLAN ARABS VISIT SYRIA Five hundred Golan Arabs visited Syria. There they declared hope that the Golan would be restored to Syria. Syria called the Golan "occupied." The visitors were happy to meet with their relatives in Syria, and asked humanitarian organizations to have Israel let them communicate with relatives in Syria (www.imra.org.il, 9/25) which is what Israel had just done. The Golan was annexed in accordance with the international legal principle of protecting against repeated invasion. Hence it is not occupied. OBAMA ABANDONS ALLIES, BEFRIENDS ENEMIES President Obama has more or less abandoned Israel, Honduras, Columbia, South Korea, Japan, Poland, and the Czech Republic. All reacted with shock. "Obama explained that Israel can no longer expect US support for its security if it doesn't bow to his demand that it surrender all of the land it has controlled since 1967." But if Israel did, it would lose border security. He is subordinating the U.S. to the UN. "...America's adversaries — from Iran to Venezuela to North Korea and Russia — have responded with derision and contempt to his seemingly obsessive attempts to appease them." "The horror Obama has instilled in America's friends and the contempt he has evoked from its enemies have not caused him to change course...As many Western Europeans have begun to openly acknowledge, the man they once likened to the messiah is nothing but a politician — and a weak, bungling one at that." A former advisor of Obama, Brzezinski suggested that if Israeli planes come to raid Iran's nuclear facilities, the U.S. should shoot them down. The way Obama turns on allies in behalf of enemies, one couldn't put that past him. However, the colossal failure of both his foreign and domestic policies weaken his capacity for such an adventure (Caroline Glick in www.imra.org.il, 9/26). IRANIAN ARMS SHIP ON WAY TO HIZBULLAH, ISRAEL SAYS PM Netanyahu itemized the thousands of grenades, rockets, and other weaponry in the cargo that he said originated in Iran, sent from the port of Bandar Abbas, and was destined for Hizbullah. One of my readers was skeptical about that claim, so here is evidence. The munitions had Iranian markings. Israel said it had a document stating the cargo's origin as Iran. Final destination was Syria. These are not the kinds of weapons Syria uses but which Syria transfers to Hizbullah. Iran has been arming Hizbullah for years, but denies it. The rockets would be fired at civilian cities. That would be a war crime, which Iran and Syria are abetting. Arming Hizbullah violates a mandatory Security Council Resolution, too. PM Netanyahu suggests that the UN take up these real violations and not Israel's imaginary ones (www.imra.org.il, 11/5 & http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/6). Would Iran care to suggest who else has been arming Hizbullah so copiously? IAEA EVIDENCE THAT IRAN TESTED NUCLEAR WARHEADS The IAEA has presented evidence to Iran that it tested nuclear warheads. These warheads are more compact, fitting better into missiles. The test was part of recent war games. IAEA asked for an explanation. Iran denied testing them. It claimed to be testing multiple explosives, for which it alleged a civilian use. Western experts deny there is a civilian use. Multiple explosions facilitate the culmination of a nuclear blast (www.imra.org.il, 11/6). The evidence against Iran keeps piling up. ISRAEL SPEEDS FLU PROTECTION FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS Israel expedited shipment of 20,000 swine flu shots for Palestinian Arabs about to journey to Mecca, which requires pilgrims to be vaccinated (www.imra.org.il, 11/5). Compare that humane behavior with Palestinian Arab accusations over the years that Israel poisons them or maliciously bars their religious practice. No reported deaths from the alleged poisoning. Westerners often do not understand that the leaders of an imperialistic religion deceive their credulous followers and rouse them to violence against others. JORDANIAN RACKETEERS SELL ORGANS Racketeers in Jordan pay poor Arabs $1,000-$5,000 to donate organs, mostly kidneys, then re-sold in Egypt for $30,000-$100,000. Egypt has charged 11 Jordanians for trafficking in organs. Jordan claims it is not a big problem, though it has gotten attention by foreign and international organizations. Jordan is campaigning for voluntary organ donation (Saudi Gazette in www.imra.org.il, 10/22). The lucky donors get paid. I recall the case of an Arab from the Palestinian Authority, a few years ago, putting all his funds into a one-way ticket to Jordan, being operated on, and then put out on the street without fare home. Palestinian Arabs accuse the IDF of murdering Palestinian Arabs for their organs. I haven't heard of Egyptians bidding for the organs. Then, again, Egyptians boycott Israel as a matter of principle. COINS OF PATRIARCH JOSEPH FOUND IN EGYPT Examining material in the Museum of Egypt, archeologists found coins from the time of Hebrew patriarch Joseph, the country's Treasurer. Some of the coins bore his name and likeness, as well as the date (Wajih Al-Saqqar in Al-Ahram, via MEMRI, in www.imra.org.il, 9/25). This is the first historical evidence I have heard confirming the Biblical account of the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt. That was pre-Islam. The Muslim population in Egypt derives from the invading Arabs, and the Coptic minority are the aboriginal Egyptians. This story gives one a perspective across the millennia that makes one wonder must squabbles consume us today. For more on discoveries from ancient times, go to http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m11d4-Israeli-archeologists-answer-Arabs-on- Temple-Mount-in-Jerusalem JEWS WITHIN SIGHT OF GAZA TOLD TO ABANDON HOUSES Arabs have smuggled longer-range anti-tank missiles into Gaza. Accordingly, Israeli security officials have advised citizens residing within line-of-sight of Gaza to abandon their houses (www.imra.org.il, 9/25). Is this what our Secretaries of State have in mind when they mention the "vision" of an independent Arab state side-by-side with Israel?\ If Israelis have to abandon houses near Gaza, how intense and effective was the war in Gaza? What kind of protection do the governments of Israel give its people? JIHAD AT FORT HOOD? One of my Internet sources perceives the mass-murder at Fort Hood as jihad, and the authorities as pursuing political correctness in denying it and as withholding confirming evidence. The source claimed that the authorities did not identify the gunman as a Muslim. Not true of the NY Times and Wall St. Journal of 11/6. They related all the facts they could gather, without withholding anything. The accounts suffer from the usual problems of same-day and next-day reporting. Thus there were errors or contradictions, unresolved if even noticed. That is why I disapprove of people's general desire to get news immediately. It is not as if they must make weighty decisions or any decisions based on such news. And if they must, better to get the facts straight first. My New York newspapers did not raise the question, as did my Internet source, whether the attack was jihad. There is some evidence to suppose it is, but I think a conclusion now would be premature. Let us wait and be sure, then rush and err. It would be like the Goldstone UN report reaching its conclusions before investigating, even before setting out. There have been instances of Muslims attacking fellow U.S. troops. The military should consider that a problem to figuring out a solution for. I don't know about jihad in Texas, but it is in New York, where two jihadists were arrested. ABBAS SAYS HE WON'T RUN IN PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY Both the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal carried the story of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas saying he won't run for office, again. They were aware that he's made such statements before, for leverage. This time, he left himself opportunities to keep office anyway. They stated the reason he gave as if necessarily true, that the U.S. is biased in favor of Israel because it accepted and praised Israel's unprecedented major building freeze that Abbas wanted to be a total building freeze in the Territories and eastern Jerusalem (11/6). Politicians give reasons for effect. There may be other, more potent reasons. Abbas had painted himself into a corner by suddenly raising this new pre-condition for negotiation, that Israel won't accept in totality. Abbas thought that because Obama agreed with the demand, he would get Netanyahu to accede to it 100%. His threat to quit may have been made in the hope of getting more U.S. pressure on Israel, because the U.S. has pretended that Abbas is the only thing standing in the way of a takeover and he is the only one who would make peace. His various demands and policy statements, however, preclude peace and even reserve the right to make war. The Administration thought that a 90% concession just to start negotiation sufficed. That does not make them biased toward Israel. Rather, the Administration wants a deal signed that would be biased against Israel, but which the Administration would pretend to be peacemaking. I don't think peace is coming this generation. If I did, I would be indignant at Abbas for delaying negotiation by making unwarranted demands that might, themselves, be the subject of negotiation. Indeed, making last-minute demands is a tactic the Arabs have done, before. Making further demands after an agreement was reached, is another. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A ONE JEWISH STATE SOLUTION
Posted by Ted Belman, November 7, 2009. |
|
Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Hussein Ibish the author of "What's Wrong With the One-State Agenda?" on The Fantasy World of One-Staters. Ibish was one of the speakers at the J Street Convention. Ibish thought that the J Street tent was too big to find a consensus and it would have to create some cohesion and a central message before it could be effective. Ibish said: I mean people ranging from the sort of centrist-center left, all the way to post-Zionists, anti-Zionists, who were there, too. It's not ultimately a group that's going to form, I think, a functional coalition. Right now, they're finding their feet. This is normal, it's inevitable — but at a certain point, I think they have to clarify what they are, who their constituency is, what they stand for, who they are, who they're not. They've been more successful in creating a space for themselves as a new voice that is compelling, but at other moments it's looked like where they were simply positioning themselves as the alternative to AIPAC. And my sense of things is that, initially, that they would look too much to their rivals. But sooner rather than later, they're going to have to just move on and start to define themselves in a much more coherent and pro-active way, not just in contrast to the traditional Jewish organizations but also to distinguish themselves from people in the Jewish community whose criticism of Israel makes them anathema to the mainstream of the community. They can't go there and I think they've tried not to go there. I think he is entirely wrong in this because he assumes that the goal of J Street is to attract a substantial number of Jews and thus speak for a major segment of the Jewish community. But what they really want to do is undermine the Jewish state. They are not pro-Israel they are anti-Israel. They will never compromise their ideology to get more support. But I was more interested in what he had to say about the fantasy of the one state solution that some are touting now. He thought it was a fantasy because hardly any Israelis would agree to it. He totally rejected the belief "that through the application of what they (the one staters) call BDS — Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions — globally that they can crush the will of the Israelis and break the Zionist movement." He said: Anyone who thinks that is plausible in the foreseeable future doesn't understand the nature of the American relationship with Israel. The commitment of the U.S., not just the government but American society, is to the survival and security of the Israeli state. And then there's another aspect, which is the extent to which Israeli institutions, organizations and corporations are interwoven at a very fundamental level with many of those in the U.S. Furthermore, he says, the world has moved on. These people are trapped in the language of the Fifties and Sixties. You're talking about a worldview is anachronistic in the most fundamental sense. It doesn't recognize any of the changes that have taken place since then. For example, the strategic situation that's emerged in the Middle East, where the Arab states and the Arabs generally have a lot of other things to worry about other than Israel. This is a world in which a lot of Gulf states are extremely concerned about Iraq, and where there are Arab states — Jordan and Egypt — that have treaties with Israel, where Syria has a motive to be civil with Israel that is unpleasant but completely stable, and where it's a very different environment than simply the Arabs and Israelis are enemies. It is easy to understand why these supporters of Israel and a two state solution would consider the expansion of settlements an obstacle to the two state solution. That's why they supported Obama's demand for a freeze, in part, if not in whole. But what about Israel. Israelis are in favour of building in Jerusalem but less supportive of building in the rest of Judea and Samaria. Those who support continued construction do not support a two state solution save for those who firmly believe that only through such construction can the Arabs be forced to make a deal. Time would not be on the side of the Arabs. If construction were to stop entirely, the Arabs could wait another hundred years to destroy Israel. Our American friends should understand this. Israel should too. Israel can't have it both ways. She can't favour a two state solution and at the same time expand the settlement endeavour. Perhaps the Netanyahu government has come to this conclusion and therefor has frozen all new construction in favour of renewed negotiations. But the opposition to such a freeze is very strong. The opposition to withdrawing from Judea and Samaria is even stronger. Netanyahu's current policy is not aimed at the same end result as envisioned by Israel's friends in the US, namely, two states living in peace. He doesn't believe it is possible. Netanyahu is aiming for limited sovereignty, only, for the Arabs, otherwise known as autonomy. I would argue that the two staters are also pursuing a fantasy. To believe that such a solution is possible is to ignore that neither party wants to make the necessary compromises. It also ignores how intractable the problems are. What is missing from the predominant view is a third possibility, namely, one where the one state is not a bi-national state but a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. If Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria, the Jewish residents in the expanded Israel, would outnumber the Arab residents, 2:1 for the foreseeable future. [1] Jewish citizens would exceed Arab citizens by even a greater majority. The Arabs would be granted citizenship over time according to western norms e.g. they must speak the language, swear loyalty, do national service and so on. Basic Laws would be passed to ensure that Israel remain a Jewish state. This would not be unusual as many states affilliate with Christianity or Islam in their constitutions. The Arab citizens would simply have to accept that. It is either that or autonomy only, over Area "A" only. This is about 40% of Judea and Samaria. Pursuing such alternate solutions would have the best chance of success if the US committed to it. Ted Belman
Footnote [1] http://www.israeldemography.com/ Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
ISLAMIST TERROR STRIKES AGAIN
Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, November 7, 2009. |
|
Islamist terror strikes US again This was written by Ralph Peters and it appeared today in the New York Post. |
|
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam. What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting. This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror. Period. When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist." But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld. And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism." And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears. Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn't killed on the spot. Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty. Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he'll have the last laugh. But Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood. Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor. Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities. Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption. There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on? For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him. Get ready for the apologias. We've already heard from the terrorist's family that "he's a good American." In their world, maybe he is. But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense? A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized. Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace." I guarantee you that the Obama administration's non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead. Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il |
|
MALICIOUS LEFTIST CHARGES
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 7, 2009. | |
|
1. Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu: I wanted to write to you about that ship full of Iranian arms that the Israeli navy apprehended on its way to delivering them to the Hezb'Allah terrorists last week. The FRANCOP ship was carrying hundreds of tons of Iranian weapons of various types. Israel seized the arms and let the ship proceed to Beirut. Mister Prime Minister, I really feel that Israel behaved improperly in this matter. After all, these weapons and bombs are Iranian and belong to Iran. They are properly the property of Tehran. Israel seized things that do not belong to it! This is why I hereby appeal to you in the name of all decent and honest Israelis. The stolen property must be returned at once to its proper and legal owners. Israel must restore the bombs to Tehran, it must return all the explosives immediately to the Ayatollahs of Iran. At once, I insist. From a B-2 stealth bomber above the skies of Tehran! Thank you for listening! Prof. Steven Plaut
The Yaakov Teitel case prompts baseless leftist generalizations,
accusations. The article below was written by Hagai Segal
and it appeared today in Ynet News
| |
|
Certain camps in Israel were sorry to hear that Yaakov Teitel acted alone, or almost alone. They were disappointed to see that he looks a little crazy. They were dreaming of something bigger and more intelligent, so along with him it would be possible to convict an entire camp and a certain ideology. In the face of this disappointment, they pulled out the old and tired myths about the conspiracy of silence and quiet understanding between the law enforcement establishment and the settlers. All sorts of experts were wondering aloud why the Shin Bet needed 12 years to resolve two murders involving Arabs victims. These lamentations gave the impression that all murder cases in Israel are resolved quickly, while only investigations into right-wing crimes are conducted lazily. This impression was meant to paint the entire settlement enterprise in mafia-like colors. Therefore, it would be good to note that the community of Shvut Rachel, where Teitel resided, was named after a settler whose murderers were never captured. Rachela Druck, a mother of seven children, was murdered 18 years ago en route to a demonstration in Tel Aviv. Isaac Rofe from Jerusalem was shot to death along with her. Their relatives have not yet seen the murderers sitting at court. Long list of unresolved cases The case of Rachela Druck and Isaac Rofe also disproves the claim that the Shin Bet and police redoubled their efforts to nab Teitle only after he hurt Jews. Druck and Rofe were Jewish, yet nonetheless their case remains unresolved. The files can probably be found in the Shin Bet archive next to the unresolved murder cases of teenager Rami Haba from Elon Moreh (1987), Yair Mendelson from Dolev (1991), Ofra Felix from Alon Moreh (1995,) and several other such cases. To this day, we also don't know who murdered soldier Hadas Kadmi in the Carmel forest (1984) or who butchered Nava Elimelech, a child from Bat Yam, in 1982. At some point, investigators gave up, because this is the way of the world. Yet rightists never accused them of deliberate negligence. The Yesha Council also refrained from hinting that in the Shin Bet's view Jewish blood is cheaper than Arab blood. Such malicious accusations, if we're dealing with generalizations already, always come from the Left.
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
RE ISRAEL'S SORRY STATE OF ITS PUBLIC RELATIONS, BERNARD J. SHAPIRO IS SPOT ON!
Posted by Paul Lademain, November 7, 2009. | ||
|
Salutations to Unity Coalition for Israel. We ask you to inform Mr. Bernard J. Shapiro that we echo his sentiments (published online by UCI on August 21, 2008) with respect to his opinion re: Israel's sorry state of its public relations. We, too, are frequently dismayed by the ingratiating tone of "the Israel Project". Ms. Mizrahi upbrades us for being too "rude and 'in your face' ". Herein below is our reply to Jennifer's recent admonition, urging us to temper our opinions. We won't. Our reasons for raising our voices against the media dog-pile against Israel — whilst the rest of the world countenances Islamic butchery of hundreds of thousands in Africa and Algeria — is set forth in our letter, below. We hope you will forward it on to Mr. Shapiro. | ||
|
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: ENDLESS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 7, 2009. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) As there seem to be an inordinate number of issues of deep concern facing us, I find myself posting daily again (in spite of my determination to do so less frequently). Please Heaven, may matters look a bit brighter soon. ~~~~~~~~~~ Iran. THE topic of greatest significance right now. It's been obvious from the start that Iran was not going to buy into the deal offered by the UN, in partnership with the US, France and Russia, that would have called for Iran to ship low-enriched uranium out of the country. But we've watched the Iranians conduct themselves in predictable form: dragging out their response. They still haven't officially given an answer, but today they came one step closer when Iranian parliamentarian Alaeddin Boroujerdi said no uranium was going to be shipped out of the country. What made news following this was an interview that Russian president Dmitry Medvedev gave to the German Der Spiegel magazine, which suggests that if there is not progress with Iran sanctions may be necessary. This was of interest because Russia has been a major stumbling block with regard to effective sanctions. But I found his very wishy-washy statement to be anything but reassuring: "If the Iranian leadership takes a less constructive position, then anything is possible in theory...we wouldn't want this to end with international sanctions because sanctions, as a rule, take us in a very complex and dangerous direction. But if there is no movement forward, nobody is ruling out such a scenario." ~~~~~~~~~~ Russia has its own vested interests and is playing its own game right now. Of more concern to me is the US. Caroline Glick, in her column yesterday, addressed Obama policy vis-a-vis Iran, and her comments merit serious attention: "On Wednesday morning...scores of thousands of Iranians in cities throughout the country took advantage of the regime's planned demonstrations celebrating the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran to protest against the regime. These regime opponents willingly placed themselves in front of the batons, tear gas cannons and guns of Iranian regime goons to protest June's stolen presidential election and to call for the overthrow of the mullahs' regime of tyranny and its replacement with a democracy. And what was Obama's response? "Obama's pledge not to support the anti-regime protesters was part of a larger message in which the president of the United States effectively groveled at the mullahs' feet and begged them to allow the US to enrich uranium for them. ~~~~~~~~~~ And what about the Obama administration's response to the Israel capture of the arms ship Francop? Glick has confirmed my original impression, that there was none of substance: "[The capture of the ship] has had no discernible impact on American policy. The US did not denounce either Syria or Iran for breaching the UN Security Council resolution barring Iranian arms shipments as well as the Security Council resolution prohibiting nations from arming Hezbollah. The US did not state that in response to what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called a 'smoking gun,' it will reconsider its decision to send an ambassador to Damascus or its commitment to appeasing Iran through its nuclear talks in Geneva..." http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1257455195053&pagename =JPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ Here it is again, advanced one more step: The threat of Palestinian violence that I've been watching. According to YNet, a senior Fatah official has now said that if "serious progress was not made soon in peace talks" then Fatah would consider reverting to "popular warfare." This source said an increasing number of Fatah "operatives" were pushing for violent resistance. Operatives is the terms used in the YNet article. In Israeli lingo it is frequently associated with terrorists. Looks like this means the guys who would commit violent acts are clambering for the word that it's time for the "go ahead." Said the official: "We are not talking about terror attacks and weapons, but we are talking about protests and [throwing] stones, like the anti-fence protests, and about strikes and protests by the people, so that the world understands that the next step will be unpleasant and we go back to the way things were before Oslo." ~~~~~~~~~~ Two thoughts occur to me here. The first is that this might be a threat, just as we're seeing other threats from the Palestinians at the moment: If we don't want this to happen, we had better freeze those settlements immediately. Or if Obama doesn't want this, he had better lean mighty hard on us. I am a bit disinclined to take this as only a threat, however, because this is not an isolated reference to a reversion to violence. And when something is repeated multiple times, there's more of a chance that there's something to it. But then, I respond to the threat that we'll go back to the way things were before Oslo and I laugh. What the person making this statement wants to do is tell the world that there is a "peace process" that was started with Oslo — and which theoretically brought improved conditions — and that the whole thing might be lost if there is not forward progress. Well, hell, I'd go back to before Oslo any day. And that's not just because it would mean we would not be tied into some concept of a "Palestinian entity" (Oslo did not refer to a Palestinian state). The reality is that the very worst terrorism took place after Oslo — specifically during the Second Intifada that began in 2000 as Arafat's response to the peace offer made by Ehud Barak, who was then prime minister. Many more Israeli Jews have been killed in terrorist attacks since Oslo than before. ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me return here to the killings in Fort Hood. It's possible to dismiss this incident as the action of one mentally deranged person, and a politically correct atmosphere encourages that interpretation. Not only am I greatly dubious of this take, I would warn Americans to not be complacent with regard to what happened. Israel National News reports that he shouted Allah Akbar before he began shooting. If this is true, it is damning. As every Israeli knows, this is the cry of the jihadist before he begins a terror rampage. JINSA — the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs — is an agency that demonstrates considerable level-headedness. And JINSA, in its most recent report (# 937), addressing the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, says, "It is no longer unthinkable." "JINSA has long followed stories about attacks planned and executed against American military personnel. After the conviction in April of three Muslim men charged with conspiring to kill American soldiers at Ft. Dix...A defense attorney called the sentence 'unusually lengthy' in a case where 'no one was harmed.' The Deputy U.S. Attorney replied, 'These men do not deserve leniency because of the good work of the FBI. They should not receive some benefit because there are not some dead soldiers lying on the ground.' ~~~~~~~~~~ I share here as well what was written on the subject, on Frontpage, by Robert Spencer. An authority on jihad, he maintains the highly respected "Jihad Watch" site: "...Major Hasan's motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened — and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored. "...he identified himself as Palestinian [though American born] and was a devout Muslim — so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran's many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today's world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them. ~~~~~~~~~~ I now have the names of the nations that voted with Israel and the US in the General Assembly, against endorsing the Goldstone Report: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru (a Pacific island nation), the Netherlands, Palau (a Pacific island nation), Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine. (Thanks, Jeff) What I see here in this pathetically small grouping of nations of honor is the presence of east European states — actually outnumbering the western European nations. A reminder, once again, of where our future alliances are likely to be. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA ON FT. HOOD: COVER YOUR EARS & CLOSE YOUR EYES
Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, November 7, 2009. |
|
This is by Mark J. Koenig and it appeared in NewsReal
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/06/ obama-on-ft-hood-cover-your-ears-close-your-eyes/ |
|
It took all of about one minute and 30 seconds on Friday morning to comment on Thursday's Ft. Hood massacre before moving on to comments regarding the economy. We were admonished thus: "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." Exactly what IS one to conclude about this incident in which 13 were killed and 30 injured by a Muslim officer in the United States Army who according to witnesses shouted "Allahu Akbar" before gunning down innocent bystanders? That he was a victim of harassment who simply "snapped?" An unfortunate victim of "post-traumatic stress disorder" who had never been anywhere near a war zone? A random nutcase? What sort of mass insanity allows such claims to be taken seriously in the first place? Unfortunately our President is not alone in urging caution regarding an event that should be cause for outrage on multiple levels in the mind of any rational human being. The vast majority of media coverage followed the same politically-correct template we have come to expect, taking care to avoid any discussion of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor in the attack. It can in fact be argued that this was the PRIMARY factor motivating Nidal Malik Hasan, and this case seems to grow stronger by the hour with each new fact released. Not to acknowledge that this horrific act was by any objective measure the very definition of a terrorist attack is to put our society and our nation at risk for more of the same. Here we have a man who openly and repeatedly expressed sympathy for the enemy in wartime to fellow soldiers and even his superior officer, and despite this was recently (May of this year) promoted from the rank of Captain to Major. Hasan had posted statements on the Internet expressing solidarity with Muslim suicide bombers — a fact which was evidently investigated and then promptly dismissed as being of no consequence. He had reportedly given presentations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on why infidels should convert to Islam. This is not only shocking but profoundly disturbing, as it indicates that our military has been infiltrated at a very high level by a fifth column. Institutionalized political correctness poses a grave danger. It prevents not only our military, but other vital institutions within our society from identifying and subsequently eliminating malignant elements. There are reportedly over 15,000 Muslim soldiers currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and more are being actively recruited by its leadership. Clearly, while not every Muslim American soldier places loyalty to his jihadist brethren above his sworn duty to protect his country, such individuals do exist and must be screened out rather than promoted. Our military has been fatally compromised. When will we put an end to this madness?
The real problem with this attitude of Obama is that by ignoring this problem, you're only making it worse. As I opined yesterday elsewhere, 'the attack should serve as a reminder that the war on terrorism continues unabated. The U.S. may have gotten a new president, but that doesn't mean it can just ignore the extremist-muslim problem that exists in America and in the rest of the world.'
Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il
|
|
"THIRSTING" THE "PALESTINIANS"
Posted by Ari Bussel, November 7, 2009. |
|
A lecture Downtown Los Angeles by a self-declared "Palestinian from Palestine" was titled: Israel's control of water as a tool of Apartheid and means of ethnic cleansing." Following the talk, I was asked for my opinion. I replied: Nothing should surprise me any more. According to the speaker, America's counterpart, Israel, is thirsting the "Palestinians" out of "their own" land. There is much to learn from Israel about water: from reclamation to desalination methods, from agriculture in arid areas to existence in the desert. Israel has perfected over the last century age-old methods, devised new ones and has turned the desert into a blossoming Eden. Israel's drip irrigation, for instance, has become a leading export to countries around the world: a simple, ingenious and highly effective method that benefits humanity. The basic premise is simple: without water the Middle East cannot exist. Water, thus, is a resource that may lead to wars as its scarcity grows. Knowing this adds responsibility to everyone's shoulders. Solutions are created neither by force nor by blame. Since water resources are shared and over-usage by one has major repercussions on one's neighbors, cooperation and mutual respect are imperative. Israel thus has to deal with her neighbors, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The speaker had no intention to look at facts or figures. His goal was to bring about a boycott of Israel, its institutions and economy, and do it in whatever manner "speaks to the local population," less humanitarian in nature, just political. I guess water is sexy enough to appeal to us, Southern Californians. One must remember not to live beyond one's means. This is different than being wasteful. As the population grows, pressures are exerted on already limited water supplies. Israel is employing various solutions, including bombarding clouds when conditions are ripe to induce rain; a new technology of "producing water from thin air" is currently being developed; and Israel has been very creative in using grey water to grow flowers, fruits and vegetables and to water lawns and vegetation in its cities. For the speaker, reclaiming water is a form of Apartheid, exemplifying how using a serious subject matter can be twisted as a platform of propaganda for the purpose of attacking others. Good for the (Jewish) Israelis but not good enough for the Arabs, insulting even. The Israelis face a 30% increase in water rates-equally applied to all, irrespective of one's religion, skin color, political affiliation or economic status. The speaker tells it differently: rates are increased targeting only "his people." The audience sits, astonished, and feels compelled to act against Israel. If only the truth were known. Israel has connected Arab towns to its running water system and has introduced modern irrigation technologies to the area. Per capita water consumption in Arab-populated Judea and Samaria grew dramatically, along with a doubling in the population size, while it continues to drop among the Jewish population (by two thirds over the period from 1967 to 2008). Rather than complain, one must focus on ways to conserve and invest in infrastructure and new technologies. Regrettably, the Arabs are too busy digging secret tunnels, building rockets and smuggling explosives to focus on basic needs of their people. It is easy to come forward and cry, "Wolf, Wolf, Israel is guilty" although facts on the ground do not support any such allegations. It is easy to close one's eyes when a sewage facility collapses because the Gazans were siphoning money off during its construction and stealing the materials from which it was supposed to have been built. The damage will remain for decades to come. The disastrous results played well into their hands. Now they can claim — after causing the damage themselves — "90-95 per cent of its water is contaminated and unfit for human consumption. Effectively using common waterborne diseases as a propaganda weapon." Conveniently, a speaker arrives to cast blame on Israel for causing "further deterioration of the water and sanitation situation in Gaza, which has reached crisis point." He demands "access to an equitable share of the shared water resources." He accuses Israel of "thirsting the Palestinians" just as she has allegedly deprived humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza. Despite the truth that convoys, hundreds of trucks long, crossed the border every day from Israel to Gaza, even as rockets were being aimed at Israel's civilian populations, the speaker continues in his quest to attack Israel, damage its reputation and call for action against it. Many of these daily convoys were turned back from within Gaza, during the height of Operation Cast Lead, due to the fact the international organizations' warehouses were full to capacity because Hamas prevented the distribution of food and medical supplies or were stealing the items. The "Palestinians" are using water as the new public relations tool to incite a Boycott of Israel. Be careful, those at the helm of the divestment efforts, lest your wishes come true. The "Palestinians" will not be able to survive on as little water as they did forty years ago. They have grown accustomed to the good life — life with Israel as their benefactor. If the faucet were to close, the devastation to them would be horrendous. Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
TREATING THE SYMPTOM INSTEAD OF THE DISEASE
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 7, 2009. |
|
Recently, my youngest daughter, Elana Judith, came down with a case of the flu — probably swine flu, says the doctor. While we were discussing various treatments, he emphasized the importance of not simply masking the symptoms but treating the actual disease. I knew that — but wisdom, anyway. And this relates to the seemingly perpetual mess in the Middle East as well. You see, we're always treating symptoms there too — especially regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict — unless you buy into the Arab line that Israel is the source of all evil. Case in point... Secretary of State Clinton made a hasty visit to North Africa — both Egypt and Morocco — to kiss Arab leaders' derrieres for her previous "mistake." Her crime? She dared to praise Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's temporary halt to allowing more Judeans — Jews — to live in Judea, a place where they lived and owned land for millennia up until their slaughter by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. Over a million Arabs — many hostile to Israel and supporters of those who would see it destroyed and its people slaughtered — can live in the Jewish State without fear, but how dare Jews live in a small part of Judea. Only in the early 20th century were Judea and Samaria also given the name "West Bank" to distinguish that area from the new Arab state created on the east bank of the Jordan River and today known as Jordan. The latter, by the way, sits on almost 80% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine and declared that no Jew could ever live there. When the Emirate of Transjordan conquered the west bank in the '48 fighting, that area also became off limits to Jews while Arabs had already been flocking into it and elsewhere in the Mandate from all over the region. That's how Transjordan became Jordan, and so much for the Arab claim that Jews got all or most of the land. I truly feel sorry for the interested, reading public. They must get tired of hearing the same claims and counter claims over and over again. And we who try to set the record straight are tired of this too. But what is our choice — to not respond to Arab assertions and outright lies? So, please bear with me... First of all, the settlement issue that has Hillary and her boss hot and bothered — Jewish towns/settlements, that is (Arabs' are proclaimed kosher here) — is largely all about whether Israel gets the necessary territorial buffer promised to it after the 1967 war via Resolution 242 and supported by past American leaders or not. It is about whether sanity prevails or Israel allows itself to be bullied by those practicing hypocrisy in the worst way. Read my last article, Between Samoa and Samaria for further clarification if necessary. Secondly, I'm concerned over Netanyahu's offer too...so Arabs have company in this corner. Who knows what he actually offered if Hillary gave him some praise. She's definitely no fan of Jewish leaders who act like they still have their private parts intact...regardless of what too many card playing Jewish grandmas like to think. Israelis did not vote Bibi into office to elect yet another yes massah stooge for an American State Department which fought against Israel's very existence from the getgo and remains hostile and largely Arabist in orientation to this very day. Hillary responded at her subsequent meeting with Arab foreign ministers in Marrakesh by virtually ordering Israel to halt resettlement of Jews anywhere in Judea or Samaria — the other part of the West Bank. And notice, Hillary also got Netanyahu to blackball his own foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman — a secretary of state's appropriate counterpart — because Lieberman has the cohones to tell it like it is. This is yet another cause of concern regarding some of our hopes that things would really be different with the new Israeli leadership. Okay — back to symptoms and diseases... Some say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is too complex to resolve. It may not be resolved — but not because it is too complex. The conflict between Jew and Arab is indeed a mere symptom of a far more serious disease — one that far too many academic "experts" refuse to even touch with a ten foot pole. It's much easier (and less problematic to professional careers given funding realities and other "opportunities" which may be lost) to merely treat the "symptom." So, the disease is usually totally ignored. What's the symptom, you ask? Anyone, besides Arabs, demanding a slice of political justice in what Arabs claim to be purely Arab patrimony. Think of it...There was Hillary in "Arab" North Africa. And what was she up to? Reassuring Arabs that Israel will remain a 9-15 mile wide sub rump state, perpetually at their mercy under threat of invasion, terrorism, and being severed in half. Israel is simply expected to forget about the establishment of real and secure borders — not previously imposed armistice lines — that the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 called for after the 1967 fighting which started as a result of an Arab blockade of Israel and other hostile acts. Former American presidents and secretary of states, such as Johnson, Reagan, and Shultz, American military leaders, all of the architects of the final draft of 242, and the last president before Obama, George W. Bush, understood this and the need for a real territorial compromise here. As I have supplied many of their exact statements in previous articles, I'll refrain from doing so now. Yes, there was Hillary in "Arab" North Africa demanding the creation of the Arabs' 22nd state (and second one in "Palestine") at the sole, microscopic state of the Jews' expense. And, all the while simply playing deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of tens of millions of native, non-Arab North African people, the Imazighen ( Berbers), who — together with numerous native North African Jews (who had earlier fled the Roman conquest of Israel/Judaea) — resisted the murderous jihad and forced Arabization process for centuries — clear up until the present day. Ibn Khaldun, perhaps the greatest Muslim scholar of all time, wrote of this forced Arabization of the Berbers and their brave resistance to it six centuries ago. He also wrote of the alliance of the Jews and Imazhigen, under the leadership of the Jewish queen, Dahiyah al-Kahina (the priestess), to fight the Arab invaders, settlers, colonizers, and conquerors of their lands. Today, most of North Africa's (including Egypt's) Jews have fled, moving to Israel, France, the Americas, and elsewhere — part of that other side of the refugee problem that is rarely spoken about. Tens of millions of native Imazighen, however, remain. If they are willing to do what Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali told an Israeli author Israel must do to be "accepted" in the region — consent to Arabization like he, one of the most famous of Egypt's Copts, and many other millions of these Egyptian native, pre-Arab people have been forced to do after Egypt's own Arab conquest in the 7th century C.E., then they too may gain acceptance. Today, if one really wants to know what's happening with the Copts, one is forced to consult with those who have fled their native land. Murder, burned down churches, intimidation, and never knowing what the morrow will bring — i.e., the plight of the dhimmi Jew or Christian in Arab Muslim lands — is the reality back home. And all of the above is virtually ignored on the world scene — certainly by Hillary and the Arabist State Department she now leads. Yet, the Copts at least warranted one brief, flash of a second mention by President Obama in his earlier, now famous Cairo speech. Not so, however, for North Africa's Imazighen, mostly west of Egypt. Most of the world acts as if these tens of millions of native people don't even exist — in other words, have bought into the Arab game plan hook, line, and sinker...the real disease that no one will even acknowledge, let alone treat. Imazighen who do not consent to this forced Arabization — forsaking their own language, culture, and so forth — do so at the risk of their own lives. Many have indeed been killed for such reasons over recent decades let alone before. As Hillary was joining the stick-it-to-the Jews Arab foreign ministers' party in Morocco, Amazigh parents were increasingly being told that they could not even name their own children with traditional names but must use Arab/Islamic ones instead. Please pay close attention to a few excerpts included in a Special Dispatch of MEMRI on May 3, 2007 written by Belkacem Lounes of the World Amazigh Congress as he responded to Libya's Mu'ammar Qaddafi's denial of the very existence of the Amazigh people: "The people of whom you speak...speak their own Amazigh language daily...every day live their Amazigh identity...What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people...30 million in North Africa? You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts his identity will be a traitor...identical problems in Algeria and Morocco (right where Hillary was joining Arabs in lecturing Jews)...There is no worse colonialism than internal colonialism — that of the Pan-Arabist claim that seeks to dominate our people. It is surely Arabism — an imperialist ideology that refuses diversity — that constitutes an offense to history and truth..." Or, how about these excerpts and paraphrases from the New English Review on January 18, 2008 and reported in North-of-Africa.com on July 3, 2009: " In Algeria, Berbers were forbidden to use their own language, Tamazight...riots erupted, reported in France but ignored elsewhere in the West...America, of course, had been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO (the Arabian American Oil Company) propaganda, a payoff to the Saudis by Big Oil, to allow the latter to produce and market Arab oil. So, ARAMCO's message to America was that there is just an Arab world in this region in which there are no Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen...and, of course, no Berbers and no Jews — they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe for everyone in this region is just Arab." The American State Department has been in bed with ARAMCO since its creation — get the picture? So, there it is folks, plain and simple...the disease. With the collapse of the over four century old Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I, Arabs proclaimed themselves, in the relatively new nationalist age emerging in the region, to be sole benefactors and political heirs to the entire area. Hundreds of thousands of gassed and otherwise massacred Kurds; genocide against literally millions of black Africans in the Sudan and elsewhere; murder, subjugation, and intimidation of Imazighen, Copts, Assyrian, pre-Arab Lebanese, and others; and perpetual jihad against "their" kilab yahud Jew dogs has been the Arab legacy here. In order to just be allowed to exist, one better not rock the boat. And the world is silent about it all. It's those checkpoints and a security barrier that Jews erect to stop Arabs from blowing up their kids which are the real problem and that Israel got taken to an international court for. Or, better yet, scores of millions of non-Arabs are expected to live as "Arabs" in some two dozen states, but how dare some Arabs live in someone else's! That's the real travesty...Sure, and as I like to say, I'm also the Passover Bunny. Don't laugh — that's the Arab mindset which is accepted by the current American administration (and forever by the State Department) and for which Israel is chastised for not accepting. So, this is the story ignored like the plague by too many academic "experts," the mainstream media, the United Nauseating Nations, the Foggy Folks, and far too many others as well. It is the disease that plagues the entire Middle East and North Africa (and beyond as well) — the politically incorrect but very real subjugating intolerance of Arabs towards allowing any others — not only Jews in Israel (one half of whom who were refugees from the "Arab" World) — a tiny slice of the dignity and rights they demand solely for themselves but which all peoples deserve. And when I state all peoples, I do not include so-called "Palestinians" here. However one defines that only recently and deliberately concocted term, "Palestinians" are but a tiny fraction of the greater Arab people. In the words of Arab spokesmen themselves, like the P.L.O's own Zuheir Mohsen, the term was adopted merely to negate the dreams of Jews. Speaking of "stateless Palestinians" in the same breath as thirty-five million stateless Kurds, for example, only makes a mockery of the plight of a truly stateless people. Using Arab logic here (done as a propaganda ploy to turn themselves into the "new, stateless Jews"), then Kurds should also rename themselves after the numerous different areas they inhabit and then demand the creation of not (finally) one state but a dozen for themselves in the region. Ditto for the Imazighen. While we're at it, let's create another Jewish state in part of Morocco — where Hillary recently returned from (quiet, Jerry...don't you know that Morocco has been fairly tolerant in recent history towards its Jews...do you want to cause trouble?). More Jews are from Morocco — and, along with the Imazighen, pre-date the Arabs there by centuries than there were Arabs who got to have Kuwait. The Arab-Israeli conflct, indeed, is but a symptom of this far greater disease. And it's much easier to treat the symptom by blaming the victim and making it go away than with dealing with the real problem. Neither the Arabs' more honest Hamas nor the Arabs' latter day Arafatian Fatah's Abbas has any intention of recognizing a state of the Jews nor allowing it to exist in peace — regardless of who is doing the whitewashing. to such enemies, Israel owes nothing except exponential payback. Why a 22nd state for Arabs constructed mostly on non-Arab peoples' lands, while scores of millions of the region's non-Arab peoples have to fight and die daily to just have the right to speak their own language and for the most basic of human and other political rights? And when will there be a United Nations Goldstone Report exposing such true crimes against humanity? My new book, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East — The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective, gets into all of this in great detail — issues usually ignored by a wide assortment of the world's hypocrites, practitioners of the double standard supreme, and pusillanimous sycophants of the Arab petrodollar. Quest...is ready to order now at 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
|
|
WHY WAS MALIK NADAL HASAN IN THE U.S. MILITARY?
Posted by Paul L. Williams, November 6, 2009. |
|
Major Malik Nadal Hasan, who opened fire on American troops at Fort Hood, was an Army psychiatrist who decried the U.S. invasion of Muslim lands, condemned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and voiced his support of the global jihad. But he was never taken to task for his views by his commanding officers and never reprimanded for his anti-American tirades. Hasan was a devout Muslim who was born in Virginia and attended Virginia Tech. He despised Christians and Jews and the principles of American democracy. Why was a radical jihadist serving in the U.S. Army? Why was he granted rank and privilege until he drew his weapons and proceeded to mow down 43 soldiers, killing 12 and wounding 31, on a "secure" military post. The answers to these questions come from the 14th Annual Arab International Festival, which was held in Dearborn, Michigan from June 19 to 21. 
The event was sponsored not only by the Ford Motor Company (we thought they were bankrupt) and the American Arab Chamber of Commerce but also (get this) by the FBI, the CIA and various branches of the U.S. Armed Services, including the Army. The 250,000 people who attended the event munched on rolled pita sandwiches, shawarma, tabouli, hummus and baklava. The men, in many cases, wore throbs and ghutras; the women were draped in black burqas, or western jeans, accented with veils. The ribbon cutting, which got the festival underway, was conducted by State Senator Irma Clarke Coleman, Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano, and Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly. Representatives from the all branches of the U.S. Military — Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force Armed forces — promised American citizenship to every Mid-Eastern immigrant willing to enlist — as long as they were Muslims — Christians and Jews were excluded from the offer. G.I. Issued uniforms were emblazoned with Arabic script in case prospective recruits could not understand terms such as "United States Army". The FBI, not to be undone, set up a booth to recruit Muslim agents, and the CIA conducted raffles in order to entice young Islamists to enter the cloistered world of U.S. Intelligence. The FBI, not to be undone, set up a booth to recruit Muslim agents, and the CIA conducted raffles in order to entice young Islamists to enter the cloistered world of U.S. Intelligence. The few Christians, who dared to venture forth on Warren Street to attend the festive gathering, were prohibited by law from distributing religious tracts and materials. The order, which prohibited religious freedom to the Christians, came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds. While there never has been a disruption of the public peace by Christians during the annual event, the Dearborn police kept vigilant watch for any Baptist or Pentecostal intrepid enough to violate the ruling to suppress their religious freedom. No such stout-hearted soul appeared with tract, rosary, or Bible in hand, except for an inspired group of young Arab Christians and ex-Muslims. Rick Warren's disciples and the Joel Osteen militia were conspicuously absent as innocent Christians were set upon with violence and threats. Serving their Islamic masters, the Dearborn Police defied their oath of office to protect the violent 5th columnists and joined in the unconstitutional intimidation of the Christians. No native-born American Christian had the guts to stand with the victims of Islamic Jihad in Dearbornistan. Of course, the Muslims were not prohibited from distributing their tracts (mostly to the African Americans in attendance) and selling Islamic books and materials. Fay Beydoun of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn told the Detroit News there was "no problem" with the Christians being at the event, "but we do have to think about the safety of everyone." The ruling by Judge Edmonds caused Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, to quip: "It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks." But why complain? Christians by the hundreds, representing major local and national mainline denominations were more than pleased to fly into Dearborn, to act as dutiful dhimmis by cleaning the streets, attending to the Muslim children, and maintaining the Porta-Potties. And the Army managed to obtain over 40 Muslim recruits. A few came to serve at Fort Hood under Major Hasan. Retired Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan at Fort Hood, told Fox News he heard the gunman say at a conference that Muslims should stand up and "fight against the aggressors." Lee said that at first, he and his colleagues thought Hasan meant that Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan should join forces with the U.S. But, based on other comments Hasan made, it became clear he was encouraging Muslims to resist U.S. forces, Lee said. Hasan, according to Lee, expressed happiness about the shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim convert outside an Arkansas recruiting center in June.
This was published as
"Modern Army Seeks Medieval Muslims" and it appeared on the webite of
www.thelastcursade.org
|
These are Readers' Comments to the original article:
|
Marlene Langert · 2 weeks ago Since this type of behavior has been going on for many, many years, how come the army kept him and educated him through medical school, internship and specialty to be a psychiatist of all things. A position where already trouble soldiers come to him for help and he tries to prosylitize them? Maybe the army was not aware of that before Walter Reed, but since then, they were. What were they thinking or not thinking. If they had sent him to Afganistan, he would have definitely been a spy for the other side. Are there any more like him. I would venture to say many. In my opinion, including Obama. |
|
Igor Mel'cuk, FRSC · 2 weeks ago It is HIGH time to start taking things very seriously. All people of Muslim background in the USA must be checked and double-checked — and, if in a position to do harm, they should take an oath of allegiance on the Qur'an During the last was, the government interned the Japanese Americans, but Muslims are 10 billion times more dangerous. The Muslim organizations in the States must be forcefully asked to condemn similar behavior officially and very publicly; otherwise, they should be shut down and their assets seized. Wake up, America — lest it will be too late. |
|
Norman Hauptman · 2 weeks ago I feel strongly that his superiors sent to to the war zone for
This incident and others may cause the Government to disallow Muslims to serve anywhere in the U.S. Military, esp in time of war Those who sent him should be given a fair trial in a court martial and suitably punished, |
|
Ben 42p · 2 weeks ago
66:2. Allâh has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allâh is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. Given al-taqeyya, what good is a Muslim's oath of office? |
|
Neil · 2 weeks ago After Pearl Harbor imagine nazi sympatthizers or pro samarai elements working openly in the US military? We must stop all the political correctness immediately!!! [Edited portion — see admin comment below] |
UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."
"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"
|
FROM ISRAEL: CATCHING UP
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 6, 2009. |
|
Before Shabbat begins, I want to touch base on a handful of subjects, most mentioned yesterday: The UN vote on Goldstone was taken, and, as we knew it would, it passed. Attempts by Western nations to negotiate with the Arab states a compromise resolution failed. The Arabs figured they had enough third world votes to put it through and simply proceeded. The vote: 114-18, with 44 abstentions. Israel and the United States, voted against, of course, as did Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic. That leaves 12 other states that also voted nay, and I have not yet been able to identify them. The European vote, disappointingly, was split, with both Britain and France — craven in their inability to take a stand — simply abstaining. ~~~~~~~~~~ From our foreign ministry came this response: "Israel rejects the Assembly's decision, which bears no connection to the reality which Israel faces. In operation Cast Lead, the IDF showed standards of fighting and morality that were higher than those of any of the resolution's initiators. ~~~~~~~~~~ In point of fact, Israel has now filed an official grievance with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN Security Council, following the capture of the arms ship: "The intended route of the Francop, coupled with the types of weaponry found on board, raise serious concerns that this incident also constitutes a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and 1373." Resolution 1373 of 2001, among other things, prohibits states from "providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts" This would apply to Iran, supplying weapons to Hezbollah. Resolution 1701, hammered out at the end of our most recent war in Lebanon (i.e., our war with Hezbollah) in 2006, was designed to prevent the re-arming of Hezbollah and to keep the area south of the Litani River free of any armed presence except Lebanese army and UNIFIL. It is forbidden to provide any entity in Lebanon with weapons or military equipment. What is more, it is forbidden to allow planes or ships to be utilized in the transport of such weapons. The Israeli grievance thus also said; "Iran's national shipping company (IRISL) has been repeatedly found to be involved in transporting weapons and other banned items in violation of UN Security Council resolutions." Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his statement after the contents of the ship were uncovered, called what Iran was doing a war crime. What is now being pushed by our diplomats is a position internationally in which countries would refuse to work with the Iranian shipping line at all (which would serve to severely weaken Iran). I hope you will not hold your breath waiting for an appropriate UN response. Better chastise us than go after Iran. ~~~~~~~~~~ Also as expected, Abbas has declared his intention not to run again in the presidential election. This was not a tactic, he said, and his decision was final. Although there was a flurry of phone calls to Abbas from world leaders, more than not, the reaction was tepid. There was no huge and horrified outcry — although Fatah is planning a demonstration to take place in the next few days, to urge him to stay. The statement from our government was that this was an internal matter in which we should not get involved. There was no response to the heated accusations by Abbas that our refusal to totally freeze building was killing the "peace process." Netanyahu did make a statement saying that if Abbas had the courage to do so, he could be a partner for peace. Nor, do I believe, did the US bite with regard to accusations. One wonders if Obama perceives the way in which he has created this situation by raising expectations. Hamas forthrightly accused Abbas of playing games. Its message to Abbas was that it was time to stop waiting for Israel and the US to change, to admit that negotiations had failed, and to turn towards Hamas and reconciliation. By today a senior member of the Fatah council, Mohammed Shtaya, told Al-Jazeera that there was a good chance that Abbas would change his mind — if there was a significant shift in the political situation. ~~~~~~~~~~ How about this! I have been making the assumption that when he came to the States next week, Netanyahu would be meeting with Obama. I have invested energy in speculating on what would be discussed. Nor have I been alone in this, as I've been in communication with others very much in the know who have been making the same assumption. In fact, one news source cited Barak, whose pronouncements on arranging a peace plan with Obama to sell to the PA made me very nervous. Barak, it seems, talks off the top of his head, in line with what he wishes would happen. But according to the news today, there are no plans in place for Netanyahu and Obama to meet. The prime minister is going to address the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities. The GA is the single largest gathering of Jews within an organizational context in America, and Netanyahu has a very legitimate agenda in terms of strengthening Israel-Diaspora ties and helping American Jews to better understand Israel. News sources report that before Obama agrees to meet with Netanyahu, he wants something in return. In return for a meeting? This from the man who believes in dialogue with enemies?? If this is the case, I will be rather pleased if our prime minister does not meet with the president, because it means he refuses to be coerced. What I have just picked up, however, is information about Obama speaking at the GA as well. Hmmm... And no meeting scheduled but perhaps an informal meeting on the sidelines? ~~~~~~~~~~ According to the Guardian, Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design. Don't know about you, but this makes my blood run cold. After Shabbat I hope to have more to say about the IAEA and its destructive head, ElBaradei. At any rate, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has said that talk of our attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is not an idle threat. According to defense analyst Yaakov Katz: "I believe the option is viable and is ready. In other words, the question for today for Israel is not a 'can or can't we'... it's a question on a political level of 'should we or shouldn't we?'" If we do end up deciding that we must hit Iran, I wonder if Obama will understand the degree to which he will have made this necessary. ~~~~~~~~~~ The news is a bit mind-boggling: A Muslin US soldier, Nidal Malik Hasan, using two weapons, one a semi-automatic, last night killed 12 and wounded 31 at Fort Hood, the largest US army base — a base from which troops are dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan. A US-born citizen of Jordanian heritage, Hasan is a psychiatrist (first reported dead, it seems he is not). He was scheduled to be shipped out to Iraq. A great deal of information has yet to be uncovered. See this commentary by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA:
~~~~~~~~~~ Lori Lowenthal Marcus, co-founder of Z Street (ziostreet.wordpress.com) attended the J Street Conference and has written about it. Her description is well worth reading:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE MULLAHS' BIG WEEK
Posted by Susana K-M, November 6, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick |
|
At first glance, this past week seems like a week that Iran's mullahs would very much like to forget. Early Wednesday morning, IDF naval commandos boarded the merchant ship Francop and diverted it to the naval base at Ashdod. There the IDF displayed its cargo of three thousand rockets and various and other sundry ordnance useful only to terror forces. The Francop originated in Iran and was intercepted en route to Iran's Hizbullah proxy force in Lebanon via Iran's Arab toady Syria. As Israel's political leadership noted, this shipment constitutes hard proof that Iran is actively sponsoring terrorist armies in Lebanon, and doing so in full breach of binding UN Security Council resolutions. The commando raid also exposed the depth of Syria's collusion with Iran in arming Hizbullah. After Israel's seizure of the Francop, voices claiming that Syria is but a bit player in the terror game can be laughed off the international stage. 
Israel's interception of the Francop came a week after Yemeni forces seized an Iranian ship transporting armor-piercing weapons to Houthi Shiite rebels in northern Yemen. As Saudi Arabia's al Watan reported over the weekend, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are training Houthi rebels in Eritrea and sponsoring their insurgency against the Yemini regime. Earlier in October, the Hansa India, which sailed from Iran to Germany, fell under suspicion as it made its way to Syria. It was diverted from Egypt to Malta where its cargo of bullets and industrial materials intended for weapons production was removed. Wednesday morning, just as Israel was announcing the capture of the Francop, scores of thousands of Iranians in cities throughout the country took advantage of the regime's planned demonstrations celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran to protest against the regime. These regime opponents willingly placed themselves in front of the batons, tear gas cannons and guns of Iranian regime goons to protest June's stolen presidential election and to call for the overthrow of the mullahs' regime of tyranny and its replacement with a democracy. The protesters turned regime supporters' calls for "Death to America," and "Death to Israel," into big, deadly jokes by calling out, "Death to the Dictator," (that is, Supreme ruler Ali Khamenei), and "Death to Russia." Far from embracing the regime's thirty-year war against the US and the nation-state based international system, representatives of the "Green Revolution," asked the US to forgive Iran for taking 52 US embassy personnel hostage in 1979. Back in Israel, for the past two weeks some 1,400 US military forces have been deployed throughout the country for the annual Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise with the IDF. Although Juniper Cobra is a routine maneuver, this year's exercise was unprecedented in size and scope. Observers claim that there have never been so many American generals in Israel at one time. No previous Israeli-American joint exercise has been conducted with such a high profile. And Israeli leaders did not hesitate to name the enemy in this year's exercise. This year's Juniper Cobra exercise, they said, was part of the two nations' preparations for a joint response to a potential Iranian strike against Israel. The obvious message Israel and the US hoped to transmit to Iran was that the strategic alliance between the two countries remains strong. All in all then, on the surface, this past week seemed like a horrible week for the mullahs. But appearances can be deceiving. Unfortunately and counterintuitively, the past week has been one of the best weeks the mullahs have had for a long, long time. Certainly, it was the best week the Iranian regime has had since it falsified the results of the June 12 presidential elections. In January 2002, the IDF commandeered the Iranian Karine-A weapons ship en route to Gaza. The Karine-A was carrying a tenth of the weapons that the Francop was carrying. But the impact the Israeli commando mission then had on Israel's political position was more than ten times greater than the political impact of this week's successful operation. The exposure then of Iran's support for Palestinian Authority-backed terror forces caused the Bush administration to abandon its previous acceptance of Yassir Arafat as a legitimate political leader. That in turn paved the way for Israel's launch of Operation Defensive Shield three months later. In that operation Israel wrested military control over Judea and Samaria away from Palestinian militias and terror cells. Wednesday's raid has had no discernible impact on US policy. The US did not denounce either Syria or Iran for breaching the UN Security Council resolution barring Iranian arms shipments as well as the Security Council resolution prohibiting nations from arming Hizbullah. The US did not state that in response to what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called a "smoking gun," it will reconsider its decision to send an ambassador to Damascus or its commitment to appeasing Iran through its nuclear talks in Geneva. The only thing a State Department official could bring himself to say was that the US is concerned about "Hizbullah's efforts to rearm in direct violation of various UN Security Council resolutions," and remark that the groups remains, "a significant threat to peace and security in Lebanon and the region." Despite the government's energetic efforts to use the Francop interception as a means to convince the nations of the world to unite against Iranian-backed terror, no one seems willing to acknowledge the clear strategic implications of Iran's exports of terror weaponry. Today no one is any more willing to treat Iran as the enemy of the international system it has been for thirty years than they were before Israel exposed the Francopcargo of terror for all the world to see. And the US-led international community's refusal to take any action against Iran in response to this latest evidence of its rogue behavior is a great victory for the mullahs. Thirty years after their first criminal challenge to the US and the free world as a whole, no one seems to care when their criminality is so graphically exposed. With the international community making its unwillingness to confront Iran for its support of global terrorism clear, the greatest single threat to the Iranian regime today is the Iranian people. Since the likes of Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the June 12 Presidential elections, the Iranian people have daily risked death in their desperate and courageous bid to overthrow the regime. The Iranian opposition movement announced weeks ago that its members would be out in force at the anniversary rallies on Wednesday. And on Wednesday, the protesters begged the world for support. They called out to US President Barack Obama, "You're either with us or with them." But Obama — in full appeasement mode — issued a statement ahead of Wednesday's "Death to America" rallies announcing, "We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs." That is, when asked to choose between Iran's freedom riders or their oppressors, he chose the oppressors. The US is with the mullahs against the Iranian people. No doubt Obama's statement brought contemptuous smirks to faces of the illegitimate leaders in Teheran. As for the Juniper Cobra exercise, far from being a cause for concern for Teheran, it is a cause for celebration. As Iran's centrifuges churn on, by loudly voicing its determination to defend Israel if Israel is attacked by Iran, the US signaled that it is willing to take its chances with a nuclear-armed Iran. More than anything, Juniper Cobra demonstrated that the Obama administration has abandoned its previously stated pledge that it will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Rather than working with Israel to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the US is using Juniper Cobra to noisily demonstrate that it merely hopes to deter Iran from using nuclear weapons once it acquires them. While this was perhaps the mullahs' greatest reason for rejoicing this week, three additional developments no doubt also warmed the cockles of their hearts. First, Obama's pledge not to support the anti-regime protesters was part of a larger message in which the President of the United States effectively groveled at the mullahs' feet and begged them to allow the US to enrich uranium for them. Obama said, "I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We have recognized Iran's international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran's request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community." And when Khamenei responded to Obama's obsequious bowing and scraping by saying that negotiating with the US was a "naïve and perverted" enterprise, the Obama administration had nothing to say. The White House won't even acknowledge that the Iranians have already rejected the IAEA brokered deal to have the US, France and Russia enrich uranium for them. Indeed, rather than accept that the Iranians are playing them for fools, administration officials were furious at Israel for Defense Minister Ehud Barak's announcement early last week that their proposed deal with Iran would have little impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program. According to Channel 10, the White House demanded that Netanyahu applaud their efforts. They threatened Israel with unspecified sanctions if he failed to announce his support for their pathetic attempts at appeasement. And so he did. And about five minutes after Netanyahu applauded the Americans for their brilliant offer to enrich uranium for Iran, the Iranians rejected their offer as insufficient. Finally, Obama has threatened that if Iran rejects his nuclear appeasement offer the US will move swiftly to enact painful sanctions against it. But with the UN the only international institution the administration believes can legitimately initiate sanctions, and with the UN currently busy discussing the Goldstone report accusing Israel of committing war crimes in its campaign against Iran's Hamas proxy in Gaza, no one can expect any movement on yet another sanctions resolution against Iran any time soon. (And as to Gaza, neither the US nor anyone else had any significant reaction to Israel's revelation Tuesday that Hamas successfully tested an Iranian missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv.) Today we are in a waiting period. At the end of this period, either Iran will emerge as a nuclear power or Iran will see itself disarmed of nuclear power, its regime humbled, and its terror proxies deterred. Through their actions again this week, the US and the international community as a whole have demonstrated their preferred outcome. It must be fervently hoped that like the brave Iranian people themselves, Israel will not bend to their will.
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com.
The cartoon is by Dry Bones, and is not part of the original article.
|
|
AXIS OF IDIOTS
Posted by Yatza, November 6, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Seasoned Sceptic website and Tatiana Mendoza, From Tahya's Table, who writes, "This guy has nailed it." The essay was written by J. D. Pendry, Retired Sergeant Major, USMC |
|
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief." Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001. John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it. John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John. Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers — the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers — cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum. American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.. You are America's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it. Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Semper Fi,
Contact Yakov-11@bezeqint.net |
|
ISRAEL REMEMBERS FOREIGN VICTIMS OF TERRORISM; WHAT MOVES ADVOCATES OF
ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL?; JORDAN'S QUEEN BLAMES ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL REMEMBERS FOREIGN VICTIMS OF TERRORISM In behalf of her country, Israel's Ambassador to the UN expressed condolences and grief for the recent victims of terrorism: 150 innocents in Baghdad,100 in Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Pakistan, six United Nations employees in Kabul, and earlier "victims of terrorism in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Bali, Lockerbie, Riyadh, Amman, Mindanao, Istanbul, Nairobi, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Sinai, Buenos Aires, Mumbai, Beslan, Islamabad, Algiers." Instead of pursuing the barbarians responsible, including member states that smuggle weapons and terrorists, Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said, hatred impels the UN to campaign with a tainted report against victims of terrorism: the people of Israel. "Justice Goldstone himself publicly conceded that if his fact-finding mission had been a judicial inquiry, a member of his team would have been disqualified for outright bias against Israel. Nevertheless, the report makes sweeping judicial determinations of criminal wrongdoing in the absence of crucial information. It makes explosive charges against Israel yet the evidence provided to support such accusations is at best uncorroborated, and at worst false. In certain cases, the report makes conclusions based upon the absence of evidence to the contrary. In others, the author's mere opinions serve as the evidence." Justice Goldstone himself admitted that the Mission had deliberately selected incidents so as to evade the complex dilemmas of confronting threats in civilian areas. The report ignores the reality of terror activity and the complexity of military challenges in fighting terrorists in urban warfare. It ignores overwhelming evidence that Hamas intentionally operated from densely populated areas and from within hospitals and mosques, and booby-trapped civilian structures. The report makes no reference to the recruitment and exploitation of civilians by Hamas and its use of human shields. It undermines every democracy defending itself against terrorist attacks." [it does refer to that, but just by accepting Hamas' denial, contrary to evidence it didn't pursue but exists.] "Time and again, the report inverts Israel's unprecedented extensive efforts to save civilian lives as proof that any civilian casualties were therefore deliberate. This is not honest fact finding." On two of the most important issues of our time, jihad and terrorism, the UN is counter-productive. WHAT MOVES ADVOCATES OF ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL? Some Israeli leftists advocate Israeli withdrawal under various guises. The guises are dressed up in rational-sounding clothes. It is not a rational tenet. It is an emotional one, practically religious. A foremost advocate of full Israeli withdrawal, Yossi Beilin, explained the basis for his advocacy of withdrawal. He attributed it to a belief that "he couldn't see living in a world in which peace couldn't be reached with the Arabs." That belief is a matter of faith. To true believers, it is not subject to analysis or discussion. If these leftists acknowledged their messianic zeal for Israeli withdrawal, more people would recognized their irrationality and discount their statements. Whereas snake-oil salesman knew their wares were fake, these leftists don't think theirs are fake. Their arguments, however, are fake. They manipulate debate. For example they ignore or deny security consequences of withdrawal. After all, they think that withdrawal would bring peace and therefore security. They condemn non-believers in withdrawal as enemies of peace (Dr. Aaron Lerner, (www.imra.org.il, 10/22). Their name-calling is harsh. They would seem more idealistic if they called non-believers enablers of war. But who is an enabler of war requires a rational, historical analysis. I have made that analysis. I find that in general, those who attempt to appease totalitarian imperialists, including jihadists, enabled wars. Those who appeased the U.S. by removing checkpoints enabled terrorism. Those who made Israel withdraw enabled terrorism and even war. Nevertheless, leftist withdrawal advocates persist in their disproved dogma beyond the point of sanity, like hard-core Communist fellow travelers who stuck with the Soviet Union through purges, gulag, aggression, and anti-Zionism. For another example, trying to manipulate discussion, some of the leftists misstate history, to whitewash Muslim Arab wrongdoing and blacken the doings of Zionist leaders. Some even support verbally and in the street terrorism against innocent Jews in their own country. Those far leftists have carried their ideology to a psychotic extreme. For another example, they offer unwarranted assurances. They suggest withdrawal in return for better arms technology (that soon becomes obsolete), for international "guarantees" (that the State Dept. fails to enforce or even forgets), for an ability to send forces back in that turns out not to be easy, for signed pacts that don't include measurable standards and enforcement, for theories that history doesn't matter, that borders are not important, that the conflict is territorial when it is religious, that most of the Palestinian Arabs (who are only part of the Arab-Israel conflict) want peace, that a better standard of living would bring the Arabs to want peace, and so on. Any assumption will do, because they don't evaluate it. The land-for-peace dogma persists despite its failures and the other evidence against it, because those leftists don't question dogma and Israel's enemies won't question it. I think that every policy should be reviewed. When our Presidents proclaim their goal is another Arab Palestinian state, they put it as a matter of faith. They take it for granted, as the prevailing wisdom of the day. I ask, why that goal? What would happen if it were attained? So much for leftist Jewish advocates of Israeli withdrawal. Now ask yourselves what motivates the Arabs, the State Dept., the USSR, the EU, and most of the media to advocate the indefensible proposals for withdrawal. CHINA SELLS GASOLINE TO IRAN Through intermediaries, China is selling Iran up to 40,000 barrel of gasoline a day. This may end any ability to impose stiff enough sanctions on Iran to halt its nuclear weapons development (www.imra.org.il, 9/25). U.S. foreign policy is unrealistic, naïve, hasty, and ignorant of local issues and mores. It wages some wars needlessly and needs other wars it does not fight. It gets into some out of emotion and some via conspiracy. It may quit when about to win, suffering all the losses of war and gaining none of the goals. As it learns to fight with fewer casualties, its tolerance for casualties goes down even faster. On the other hand, I think that the U.S. is learning that its resources are limited — its politicians prefer wasting them on domestic lobbies. Its military has quietly but effectively assisted foreign countries fight jihadist insurgencies. Will it evaluate such efforts rationally, or let politics cloud the issues? JORDAN'S QUEEN AT YALE BLAMES ISRAEL Jordan's Queen Rania addressed Yale University, where she blamed the Palestinian Arabs' problems on Israel, and Yale U. President Richard Levin announced a Queen Rania fellowship for Middle Eastern studies. She said that the Palestinian Arabs are in despair from years of instability, losing land, olive trees, and livelihoods, "being kicked out of the homes in which their families have lived for generations," suffering from "identity theft" for 60 years, and "having no place to call their own." She accused Israel of "holding the entire region a hostage to continuing confrontation." (www.imra.org.il, 9/25.) There are more than a score of Arab states. Why should another subset of Arabs have a state? Actually, Palestinian Arabs do have a state, Jordan, the Queen's state. Her government does not want to take in refugee descendants, because the last time it did, the harbored Arabs were organized by terrorists to try to take over Jordan. That is not Israel's fault. Most Arab states and the Palestinian Authority reject Israel, boycott it, and refuse to negotiate with it. They hold Israel hostage to continuing confrontation. Most of the refugees had not lived in Israel for generations. Most of them were not kicked out of their houses, but fled by orders of foreign Arab armies, including that of the Queen's dynasty, and from their own failed attempt to kick the Jews out of their houses. However, her dynasty did kick thousands of Jews out of their houses, in the Old City and in Judea-Samaria. As for identity theft, the Palestinian Arabs fabricated the notion of "Palestinians" being a separate nationality, the claim that Jesus was a "Palestinian," and the claim that there were no Jewish temples or society in the country in ancient times. Arabs have been sneaking into Israel, squatting on land, and destroying or rustling Israeli crops. Their hopes, that they despair of attaining, are for conquest and murder. The Arabs' problems are of their own making. Queen Rania has gotten the whole story wrong. She falsified history for propaganda. That's not education. Do students at Yale and other universities get the true story? What kind of education do they get? How does their education serve their country? After her defamatory rant, why did the University accept her money to influence education in America? Her particular gift was small, but overall, the problem is big. CLINTON URGES BOTH SIDES TO SET ASIDE DIFFERENCES Sec. of State Clinton urged both sides, the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, "to set aside their historic differences" and negotiate peace (www.imra.org.il, 11/4). What does she mean, both sides, Palestinian Arabs and Israel? The other side from Israel is the Arab world. What does she mean, historical differences? The Palestinian Arabs haven't a history, as far as I'm concerned, it's all current events. Why is she asking Israel to set aside differences, when it has not set up pre-conditions for negotiation, the Arabs have, Abbas does? Nor does it occur to her that what the Arabs want to negotiate is not peace but Israel's emasculation. To see whether Clinton sets aside her own differences, go here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ENDORSES REPORT ON GAZA; ISRAEL REJECTS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION
Posted by Daily Alert, November 6, 2009. |
|
"UN General Assembly Endorses Report on Gaza"
The UN General Assembly on Thursday voted 114 to 18, with 44 abstentions, to endorse the report by a Human Rights Council panel led by South African judge Richard Goldstone that said there was evidence that both Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas committed war crimes during the Gaza war last winter. The assembly's resolution also pushes for Security Council attention. France, Britain and Russia were among the countries that abstained, and the U.S. voted against the resolution, suggesting that Council action is unlikely. "Israel Rejects General Assembly Resolution"
The large number of member states who voted against or abstained demonstrates clearly that the resolution does not have the support of the "moral majority" of UN members. Israel rejects the resolution of the UN General Assembly, which is completely detached from the realities on the ground. During the Gaza operation, the Israel Defense Forces demonstrated higher military and moral standards than each and every one of this resolution's instigators. Israel, like any other democratic nation, maintains the right to self-defense and will continue to act to protect the lives of its citizens from the threat of international terrorism. "Netanyahu: The IDF Is a Moral Army Without Peer"
Prime Minister Netanyahu said Tuesday: The international community has "chosen to assemble and condemn the IDF and the State of Israel, and to try and undermine our legitimate right to defend ourselves. I would like to make it as clear as possible: This will neither deter us nor prevent us from continuing to act in order to defend Israeli citizens because Israeli citizens know the truth, that the IDF is a moral army without peer, either qualitatively or morally. We know that it is the IDF and the security services of the State of Israel that stand against the war criminals who plan to perpetrate war crimes against Israeli citizens. I think that the time has come for the international community, at least its more responsible countries, to recognize the truth and not promote a lie." "Goldstone, Gold Debate UN Report on Gaza"
International jurist Richard Goldstone offered a spirited defense Thursday of his bitterly disputed UN report on Gaza at Brandeis University, where he faced an equally spirited rebuttal from former Israeli diplomat Dore Gold, who called the report "the most serious and vicious indictment of the State of Israel bearing the seal of the United Nations" since an infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism in 1975. Gold said the Goldstone report all but ignored Israel's right to defend itself despite years of Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings. "There's no question there was enormous damage in Gaza," Gold said. "But why doesn't Hamas appear as a responsible party for what happened? Who booby-trapped the buildings in Gaza? Who launched an eight-year war against Israel? Who built tunnels under people's homes? The Hamas political leadership, which seems to get off the hook." "Visual Presentation by Amb. Gold at Gaza Debate"
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 |
|
FOOTPRINTS OF RADICAL ISLAM? — ASSIGN THE FOX TO GUARD THE HENHOUSE
Posted by Gadi Eshel, November 6, 2009. |
|
This comment comes from Bob Hall. 
Arik Alikhan Well, these days a genuine "change" has been inaugurated in America: the fox is going to guard the henhouse. Tomorrow, it goes without saying, the wolves will be herding the sheep! Obama Appoints two devout Muslims to homeland security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already? Obama and Janet Napolitano Appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim as
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to announce that the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). http://www.adc.org/
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified
as a devout Catholic, Jew or Protestant...? Just wondering Doesn't
this make you feel safer already?? Devout Muslims being appointed
to critical Homeland Security positions? That should make our
homeland much safer, huh!! Was it not men of the "Devout Muslim
Faith" that flew planes into U.S. buildings not too long ago. What
the heck is this president thinking? This announcement was made on
Aug 20. Why are we just now hearing about it???
Is today's horrific shooting spree related to radical Islam?
This is today's Washington Post's initial take, below:
There is a Photo Gallery accompanying the story.
|
|
He prayed every day at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, a devout Muslim who, despite asking to be discharged from the U.S. Army, was on the eve of his first deployment to war. Yesterday, authorities said Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, a 39-year-old Arlington-born psychiatrist, shot and killed at least 12 people at Fort Hood, Tex. In an interview, his aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, said he had endured name-calling and harassment about his Muslim faith for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and had sought for several years to be discharged from the military. "I know what that is like," she said. "Some people can take it, and some cannot. He had listened to all of that, and he wanted out of the military, and they would not let him leave even after he offered to repay" for his medical training. An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. George Wright, said he could not confirm that Hasan requested a discharge. As authorities scrambled to figure out what happened at Fort Hood, a hazy and contradictory picture emerged of a man who received his medical training from the military and spent his career in the Army, yet allegedly turned so violently against his own. Hasan spent nearly all of his professional life at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District, caring for the victims of trauma, yet he spoke openly of his deep opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hasan, who was shot while being taken into custody, was reported in stable condition at a hospital Thursday night, authorities said. The Associated Press reported that Hasan attracted the attention of law enforcement authorities in recent months after an Internet posting under the screen name "NidalHasan" compared Islamic suicide bombers to Japanese kamikaze pilots. "To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate," the posting read. "It's more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause." He steered clear of female colleagues, co-workers said, and despite devout religious practices, listed himself in Army records as having no religious preference. A longtime Walter Reed colleague who referred patients to psychiatrists said co-workers avoided sending service members to Hasan because of his unusual manner and solitary work habits. Hasan is a 1997 graduate of Virginia Tech who went on to get a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda. From 2003 through last summer, he was an intern, resident and then fellow at Walter Reed, where he worked as a liaison between wounded soldiers and the hospital's psychiatry staff. He was also a fellow at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress at the Bethesda military medical school. He had been affected by the physical and mental injuries he saw while working as a psychiatrist at Walter Reed for nearly eight years, according to his aunt. "He must have snapped," Noel Hasan said. "They ignored him. It was not hard to know when he was upset. He was not a fighter, even as a child and young man. But when he became upset, his face turns red." She said Hasan had consulted with an attorney about getting out of the service. On the rare occasions when he spoke of his work in any detail, the aunt said, Hasan told her of soldiers wracked by what they had seen. One patient had suffered burns to his face so intense "that his face had nearly melted," she said. "He told us how upsetting that was to him." Hasan "did not make many friends" and "did not make friends fast," his aunt said. He had no girlfriend and was not married. "He would tell us the military was his life," she said. The psychiatrist once said that "Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor" and that the United States shouldn't be fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, according to an interview with Col. Terry Lee, a co-worker, on Fox News. At the Muslim Community Center, Hasan stood out because he would sometimes show up in Army fatigues, said Faizul Khan, the former imam there. "He came to mosque one or two times to see if there were any suitable girls to marry," Khan said. "I don't think he ever had a match, because he had too many conditions. He wanted a girl who was very religious, prays five times a day." In search of a partner in marriage, Hasan wrote in an application filed with a local Muslim matching service that "I am quiet and reserved until more familiar with person. Funny, caring and personable." "He was a very quiet and private person. I can't say that people knew him very well other than attending prayers," said Arshad Qureshi, chairman of the board of trustees at the Muslim Community Center of Silver Spring. "You didn't see him attend anything — school for children or celebrations. He did not go out of the way to engage people. We have thousands of people who come through to pray; he was just one of them." A co-worker at Walter Reed said Hasan would not allow his photo to be taken with female co-workers, which became an issue during Christmas season when employees often took group photos. Co-workers would find a solo photo of Hasan and post it on the bulletin board without his permission. Lee told Fox News that Hasan "was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out. . . . When things weren't going that way, he became more agitated, more frustrated with the conflicts over there. . . . He made his views well known about how he felt about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan." And when he talked about fighting "the aggressor," he said that his fellow soldiers "should stand up and help the armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan," Lee said. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told reporters after a briefing on the shootings that Hasan was born in Virginia to parents who emigrated from Jordan. The congressman said that Hasan "took a lot of advanced training in shooting." Hasan was polite and respectful, according to 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, who was treated by the psychiatrist at Walter Reed while recovering from a gunshot wound suffered in Iraq. Whiteside remembers Hasan as serious. During his initial evaluation of her, she tried to make light when he coughed by saying, "Bless you." Hasan replied that he had coughed and not sneezed. Hasan was "like my sons," his aunt said, spending holidays and free time at her house. Born at Arlington Hospital, Nidal Hasan graduated from high school in Roanoke, where his parents had moved. He enlisted in the Army after high school and attended Virginia Tech, majoring in biochemistry. Hasan's parents died about 10 years ago. He had joined the military over their objections, Noel Hasan said. She said he has two brothers, Eyad, a businessman in Sterling, and Anas, a lawyer in Jerusalem. When Army officials called Eyad Hasan to relay the news from Fort Hood on Thursday, Noel Hasan said, the brother "fainted when he heard it." Initially, she said, Eyad was told his brother was injured and in surgery and later was erroneously told he had died. Hasan was an avid Redskins fan. "That was his main entertainment," his aunt said. "He was not a movie watcher. He worked hard and had been studying for years. He buried himself in his work." Noel Hasan was unaware of her nephew's pending deployment. "He didn't call or send an e-mail saying anything like that," she said. His last e-mail to her, she said, was a little more than a week ago "and it was just, "Hi, Aunt Noel. How are you doing?' " Contact Gadi Eshel by email at gadi.eshel@ptk.co.il |
|
TERRORISM IN AMERICA: FROM ONE STAGE TO ANOTHER
Posted by Walid Phares, November 6, 2009. |
|
Major Nidal Malik Hasan on the morning of November 5, 2009 in Fort Hood, Texas (Photo: "GETTY ") The Fort Hood killings, perpetrated by Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a psychiatric by training, no matter what the judiciary reports will conclude is for now the largest single Terror act in America since 9/11. This quantitative finding will take into consideration dramatic change in the data released by authorities. The shooting inside a US military installation that led to the killing of many personnel compels us to ponder. Over the past few years and months authorities have stopped attempts on similar attacks. The Fort Dix Jihadi plot, dismantled in 2006, aimed at performing a killing of military personnel inside the base. Other cells, dismantled in Georgia, New York and North Carolina also had plans for attacking military installations on US soil. But more importantly a number of lone wolves have also expressed intentions to attack military personnel. This year, a person by the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, shot two US military at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock, killing one. In cyberspace Jihadi threats against US military in the homeland and against American cities has been ongoing. Information collected by authorities, including from suspects and indicted individuals has shown a pattern by the Jihadists (militants or propagandists) indicating their intentions to strike at military and security installations. Such incident in Fort Hood, whatever is the personal motive, falls in the category of demonization of the US and its military. Meaning, whatever were the causes of the individual aggression, the latter was legitimized by the perception that America is the "enemy." Investigation will show quickly if the motives are strictly personal or ideological, or a hybrid set of motives. All depends on the early investigation made available to the public. According to Retired Colonel Terry Lee, who was interviewed by Fox News and who knew Major Malik Nadal Hasan, the latter has made several statements indicating his ideological attitude such as: "The killing of the soldier in Arkansas and any attack against US military inside the homeland is legitimate because of American military involvement in the Middle East." Terry detailed remarks made by the killer "against US policy and in support of potential suicide attacks inside the country." Obviously, these statements by former Colonel Terry needs to be analyzed and verified. While waiting for these investigations to be released, analytical projection based on the historical context, on the specific circumstances of engagement between the Jihadist propaganda and the United States for the past eight years and the type of attack involving an individual in the military leaves us — at this point — with the projection that the ideological factor is part of the motives leading to the shooting. Psychological factors are to be looked at seriously but the ideological component –legitimacy of attacking US military — needs also to be investigated: For the latter element was the alibi fueling the psychological factor, if indeed that was the case. Although I would place this attack within a wider context involving the evolution of what we call homegrown radicalization, I would recommend waiting for at least the early findings of investigators. This is where the judicial investigation and expert analysis may depart for a little while until more information is made available and correct the analytical projections. Meanwhile, if indeed it has any link to ideology or its derivatives, it will then be the single largest Terror attack in America (regardless of its homegrown origin or not, of the psychological reason or not) since 9/11. In that case, what the world has seen and is eager to learn about cannot be described just as "horrific outburst of violence" performed on American military, rather is part of an ideological war, generated by radicalization, and inciting individuals to perform such acts. Lone wolf or not, organized or not, fully self aware perpetrator or not, influenced by overseas or not, this massacre of servicemen has moved America from one stage to another.
Dr. Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow and Director of
the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies. He was born and raised in Lebanon.
|
|
MALIK NIDAL HASAN
Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, November 5, 2009. |
|
This latest media bloodbath both sickens and outrages. We knew instantaneously on November 5th that the networks and radio stations were basically hiding the name of the Ft. Hood military man who had shot and killed 13 and wounded dozens of others because — hint — it was a (surprise!) muslim moniker. It was whispered once, then retracted for hours, as people remained disingenuously agnostic on what the name/names could possibly be. We say "media bloodbath" because the networks and papers were characteristically chary of telling the facts as they glaringly presented themselves. This has in the past contributed to a sense of imperviousness among those who would commit atrocities, especially in the name of cultish sects that call themselves religions. When the inevitable emerged, the name dribbled out, word was, he had 'converted' to islam. Until, of course, his cousin later said, he had been muslim ... from birth. Hasan the military psychiatrist had been on probation in grad school for efforts to evangelize into his faith. In a local mosque, he had listed his place of origin — which in reality had been Kentucky — as "Palestine," a mythical state that does not and never has existed. Especially as a place of a group of undifferentiated people who were arab, and muslim, but of no particular flag or fidelity, save to islam. A tribal group that squatted and made up a history. It took until 8 pm, when the crime had been committed near 1 pm, seven hours earlier, to figure out that the murdering assassin, Malik Nidal Hasan, was ...um...still alive, and not shot dead, azs has been announced for the preceding seven hours. He was 'stab le' in a hospital, under guard. Seven hours of disinformation. Why pay media for reportage they do absolutely nothing with or about? They don't report news, they guess and approximate, tiptoeing around truths they fear, with their delicate and uninformed sensibilities. Feet-on-the-ground actual reporting seems a totally alien strategy to these stand-ins for the public need to know. We all knew that they were using the regular mantra of "It is not clear why he or they did this... we are investigating." The top media all mimicked the same measured untruth. That ALWAYS translates into "We are afraid to cause a ruckus by prematurely suggesting it was of hateful origin, and the religion in the background of this and every such incident is islam, that plucky ol' religion of peace..." ...When it is crystal clear why he did the deed. And who it was doing it. Even Fox, because Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia owns 10% of stock in FNC, was too damned careful, though they knew the truth, to connect the glaring dots. As to the military, those at Ft. hood and elsewhere: How could investigators sit on the inflammatory and terror-connected computer posts he made for months — and let it come to this? Why should good men die for others' political correctness? The deaths of these wonderful 13 innocents, and the suffering of the 31 maimed by this dreadful poseur and obvious sleeper jihadist, are on the doorstep of homeland security and the somnambulist [military] FBI. Inexcusable. Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at mdsddm@rcn.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: STAYING STRONG
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 5, 2009. |
|
Israel is launching a massive PR campaign in the face of the capture of the arms ship yesterday. All ambassadors to Israel from foreign nations were summoned to the Ashdod port to see for themselves, as Foreign Minister Lieberman put it, "lethal weapons meant entirely to be aimed at civilians." More than 3,000 missiles were on this ship. I am waiting — having picked up nothing yet — for a response on this from Obama. There he is, making nice with Iran. How will he deal with the information that has been released regarding the weapons ship? Will it still be business as usual, and will he still be "going that extra mile"? ~~~~~~~~~~ Various munitions experts have done a first examination of the cache of weapons. The weapons came in boxes that had markings on them in various languages: Chinese, Russian, Spanish and English. In some cases there were other languages on the weapons themselves. The thought is that at least some of these were manufactured elsewhere and then shipped to Iran. The Katyusha rockets, for example, seem to have been manufactured in Russia. Unquestionably, however, many containers were marked boldly with "IRISL" — the mark of the Iranian shipping lines. The IDF believes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is behind the shipment. ~~~~~~~~~~ Other information not yet available when I wrote yesterday has now come to light: [] The ship, the Francop, is owned by the Dohle company in Germany, and was rented to the Cypriot shipping company UFS. [] While the shipment began in Iran, UFS was not involved the entire way. About 10 days ago, an Iranian cargo ship left the Bandar Abbas Port in Iran, and carried its cargo — via the Arabian Sea and the Suez Canal — to the Egyptian port of Damietta, which is near the canal. There it was unloaded, and then the crates were re-loaded onto the Francop. Its scheduled route in the Mediterranean would have brought it to Cyprus, Lebanon, and then Syria. I have picked up no indication that the Egyptians had any clue as to what was in the containers loaded and unloaded in their port. My assumption is that they did not. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is hoped that this incident will have the effect of enhancing the effectiveness of economic sanctions against Iran. As I understand this, shipping companies that might have looked the other way in terms of carry commercial cargo from Iran will now be nervous about what they are truly carrying and more reluctant to cooperate. This is the reasoning, at any rate. ~~~~~~~~~~ In spite of incredible intelligence and a stunning operation, Israel knows it is impossible to stop all of the smuggling of arms into Lebanon for use by Hezbollah. This, quite simply, is because of Syrian participation. It is common knowledge — I've reported on this several times over the last couple of years — that at night trucks carrying weapons cross over Syria's border into Lebanon. UNIFIL more or less stays clear. That is, it is being done under the noses of the international force charged with preventing the re-arming of Hezbollah. Similarly, it is known that a route exists that brings weapons from Iran to Hamas in Gaza. The weapons are brought by ship to the port in Sudan on the coast of the Red Sea, and then are brought north overground into southern Egypt, and then up to Gaza. Our air force hit such a convoy of trucks last January. It is an Iranian interest to keep its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, well armed. Right now it is thought that Iran is particularly concerned with doing this because Hezbollah and Hamas would be utilized in attacks against Israel, were Israel to hit Iranian military installations. ~~~~~~~~~~ In this instance, a ship was used rather than trucks because of the enormous amount of weaponry being transported. The IDF has indicated that this is weaponry for an army, not a terrorist operation. These crates, which have now been transferred to storage in two IDF warehouses in central Israel, required some 32 trucks to transport them. Except for some research, the weapons will not be utilized. ~~~~~~~~~~ Looks as if the vote in the General Assembly on the Goldstone Report may not take place until tomorrow. It is my understanding that the American delegation has absented itself from debate. ~~~~~~~~~~ With regard to that report, Jihad Watch has called our attention to a piece in Al Jazeera from October 28 that cites Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC — the Organization of Islamic Conference. According to him, the Conference was the "initiator" of a war crimes inquiry into our actions in Gaza. "On January 3, during the attacks on Gaza, we convened the executive committee of the OIC on a ministerial level. It was decided that the OIC group in Geneva should ask the Human Rights Council to convene and consider the possibility of sending a fact-finding mission to Gaza. Figures... ~~~~~~~~~~ In the same interview, Ihsanoglu indicated that OIC was doing everything possible to protect the al-Aksa Mosque from destruction due to excavations by Israel beneath it. "We hope that the political will of the 57 member states of the OIC will be able to levy international pressure — through various channels — on Israel to stop threatening the al-Aksa Mosque... Nice organization... ~~~~~~~~~~ The latest on the mass confusion that passes for Palestinian politics: The big news right now is that a PA official has informed the media that Abbas says he won't be running for president in the next elections. Abbas was said to have made this announcement at a meeting of the executive committee of the PLO. According to Yasser Abed Rabbo, who heads the committee, he could not be dissuaded from this decision and will be making his formal announcement later today. My first response was, "Yea, sure," for Abbas has made such threats many times in the past. And guess what??? "Experts (which 'experts'?) believe that unless enormous international pressure is exerted on Israel to change its settlement policy, Abbas will remain true to his word and refrain from running for re-election." So we have more game-playing and one more Abbas ploy. Even if he does "announce" after this goes out, don't take his word for it, please. Right now the PLO is lamenting that there is no realistic candidate to replace Abbas. Sounds a bit strange to me: Abbas has no clout on the street, is not respected in his own party. He's knee-deep in corruption and has a past directly linked to terrorism. There's been talk for some time with regard to who might succeed. ~~~~~~~~~~ And, as you consider the above, factor this in, as well: Just yesterday, according to the Egyptian news service Asharq Al-Awsat, representatives of the Egyptian Intelligence Agency and certain groups within Fatah are saying that Abbas does not really intend to hold elections on January 24, as he had announced he would. He only made the announcement to pressure Hamas into signing the Egyptian reconciliation agreement. He knows having elections just in the West Bank would not be a good idea. But then, if he is not going to hold elections for president in 2-1/2 months, and we don't know when they're going to be held, does it really matter now if he's going to run? For the interim, he's still in office and can declare what he wishes. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, Hamas official Khalil Al-Haya is saying that from the Hamas perspective the Egyptian-mediated proposal is "still alive, if it is implemented in one package." They want all the parties to come together and discuss matters. ~~~~~~~~~~ With all the talk of whether Abbas will come to the negotiating table, we must also consider the ramifications of Fatah signing that reconciliation with Hamas. For Hamas is still adamantly against recognizing Israel, honoring Oslo accords, and renouncing terrorism (aka "resistance against the occupation"). What happens to Obama's Middle East policy then? ~~~~~~~~~~ Yet one more factor must be mentioned. I spoke yesterday about what Fatah may be up to when it declares that the "two-state solution" is dead, and it's time to say so. I considered a number of alternatives, but omitted one possibility that would have serious implications, were it to catch on internationally. "No two-states?" they are starting to say. "Then let's have one bi-national state." Would be the end of us. And so... as I remain uneasy about where Netanyahu may be going, and as I search my heart in terms of how to assess him, I come up with this, in addition to everything else: Here's a valid reason for him to play the game, and display eagerness to begin those negotiations (which, to my discomfort, is what he has been doing). He has to be able to say: "What one-state? We're here, we're ready to start without pre-conditions. It's the Palestinians who are the stumbling block." ~~~~~~~~~~ By the way, I have learned that Minister of Information Yuli Edelstein (Likud) will be accompanying Netanyahu to Washington along with Barak. Edelstein is tough, and he tells it like it is. And this was a reassurance. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" This story is a source of pride, which merits sharing with others, to help them understand Israel. Captain Gerry Casey, of Ireland, has been serving with the UN Peacekeeping Force here. (I am a bit vague on what force they are referring to — UNIFIL?) When he came, he and his wife were seeking care for their youngest child, Rachel, then 16 months, who has Down Syndrome and a heart defect. They were connected with Shalva, the Association for Mentally & Physically Challenged Children in Israel, which provides services for children with special needs and intensive support for their families. It is a very special institution. Now that the Caseys are leaving, they wanted to say goodbye, and thank you, to Shalva, which did so much for their daughter, and has taught them techniques for coping as well. A special ceremony was held, to which Gerry invited people who worked with him in the UN Peacekeeping Division — people from various nations, who had to be given speedy visas to enter Israel. These people, who hail from various places in the world, now understand much better what Israel is about; a great deal of good will has been generated. Use this link to see a video about this:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
LEGAL STANDARD IN ARABIA; COCA COLA CO. DENIES EGYPT PERSECUTED JEWS;
PROTEST CLINTON WHITEWASH OF FATAH TERROR
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 5, 2009. |
|
P.A. DENIES JEWISH HISTORY IN LAND OF ISRAEL On Palestinian Authority (P.A.) TV, historian Nabil Alqam denied an Jewish history in the Land of Israel. What about the many Jewish archeological finds, which Israel has been publicizing in recent years. These include Hebrew coins and official seals naming Biblical characters. Oh, says Mr. Alqam, Israel fabricates those. Instead, he fabricated a "Palestinian," Arab, and Muslim history there going back 4,000 years. "Placing Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in Israel in biblical times is historically impossible: 1. The name 'Palestine' as a replacement for the Land of Judea/Israel was
coined by Rome only in 136 C.E., and for nearly 2,000 years Jews were the
only Palestinians the world recognized.
The Palestinian Arab attempt to deny Jewish claim to the country started more than a decade ago (Palestinian Media Watch, www.imra.org.il, 11/4). I suppose they would say that the lack of Arab artifacts before the 600s is because Israel doesn't mention them? Let the P.A. tell this nonsense to the Christians, whose Bible includes the Hebrew Testament and whose Christian Testament depicts Jesus as a Jew! ISLAMIST LEGAL STANDARD, IN ARABIAN PENINSULA Yemeni rebels say they discovered that S. Arabia allows the Yemeni government to use a Saudi base and territory for attacking rebel forces near the border. The rebels call the Saudi practice "flagrant aggression." They threaten to retaliate. S. Arabia claims that its crackdown on domestic terrorism has crippled it, making terrorists easier to apprehend. The government also claims that the terrorists no longer can use charitable fronts for raising funds (www.imra.org.il, 11/4). Rebellion is aggression. Assisting a neighboring government to put down a rebellion is not aggression. International law holds that governments are supposed to repress terrorists. Unfortunately, Saudi officials and wealthy people continue donating to charitable fronts for foreign terrorist organizations. So do Muslims in other countries, including the U.S.. ISRAEL ON GOLDSTONE DANGER & P.A. HYPOCRISY Israel's Foreign Min. Lieberman urged his diplomats to advise UN members to disapprove the Goldstone report, lest its improper standard prevent victims of terrorism from properly defending themselves. Min. Lieberman also asked them to spread the word about the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) temerity in demanding gestures from Israel, just to discuss peace, while the P.A. continues to allow terrorism against Israel and conducts diplomatic efforts to undermine Israel (www.imra.org.il, 11/4). Israel would become a precedent for coddling Islamist terrorism elsewhere. Meanwhile, Israel tries to build up the P.A.. Israel should reconsider. COCA COLA CO. DENIES EGYPT HAD PERSECUTED JEWS A Jewish family from Egypt sued Coca Cola Company for occupying property there which the Nasser regime had confiscated from them when it persecuted the Jewish population in the 1960s. The suit contends that when the Company took over the property in 1994, it knew the circumstances of its availability to them. The lawsuit began 12 years ago, but the Company preoccupied the courts with technical matters. Now the substantive issues finally are about to be heard. The suit states "...that Nasser systematically persecuted Egypt's Jews, and that his anti-Jewish program included police detention of Jews, the sequestration of Jewish-owned businesses and property, depriving Jews of Egyptian citizenship, and the expulsion of Jews from Egypt. Incredibly, Coca-Cola disputed the truth of these statements." Zionist Organization of American provides historical and regional context. The Arab world did not treat Jews as full citizens. With Israel's formation, persecution intensified. Almost 900,000 Jews were expelled! In Egypt, the Jewish population of 75,000 fell to under 200. Coca Cola company should not benefit from this persecution, and to retain its benefit, deny that there was persecution (11/3 press release from the New York based ZOA, of which I am a member). IDF TELLS NEW OFFICERS TO UPHOLD ETHICS Greeting graduating IDF officers, Chief of Staff Ashkenazi told them to uphold Israel's high ethical standards of combat. He anticipates the next warfare would be like that in Gaza, where terrorists fire from civilian facilities. They must protect civilians, he told them, while fighting. Let Israel set the standard for the world on this, was his message. But fight they must, so the terrorists don't gain from their low ethical standards of combat (www.imra.org.il, 11/3). This is the sort of Israeli military training of which Israel's critics are unaware. The IDF still has the old Zionist ethos and pride in ethical combat, which it calls "purity of arms." PROTEST CLINTON WHITEWASH OF FATAH TERROR (1) The recent Fatah Conference and its key leaders rejected final peace with Israel, upheld terrorism, praised terrorists, and allied itself to Iran; (2) Sen. Spector therefore urged Sec. of State Clinton to withhold Fatah funds; (3) Clinton whitewashed Fatah; and (4) The Zionist Organization of America contested her defense of those anti-American terrorists. Previously, Sen. Spector had written to Clinton of his concern at the U.S. financing the Fatah regime, whose Conference featured "posters of children brandishing weapons." "...senior Fatah officials routinely referenced and glorified perpetrators of terrorism." Speakers "continuously championed the notion that Palestinians maintain the right to commit violence against Israel ..." "In fact, as the ZOA documented at the time, the August 2009 Fatah Conference reaffirmed Fatah's refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state, glorified terrorists living and dead by name, praised the 'armed struggle,' insisted on the so-called 'right of return,' [designed to destroy Israel] and rejected an end of claims in any future peace agreement with Israel." Although the U.S. and major media label Fatah "moderate," former PA PM Ahmed Qureia praised suicide bombers who killed dozens. Other "Fatah officials urged the continuation of armed resistance and asserted that Fatah would not recognize the State of Israel." Among them were Abbas, Fatah Executive Committee head Marwan Barghouti, Fahmi Al-Za'arir, senior Fatah official Jibril Rajoub, and Husam Khader. ZOA states that Clinton's response to Specter mistakenly characterized the Conference as having showed 'a broad consensus supporting President Abbas, negotiations with Israel, and the two-state solution.' "...she whitewashed the anti-peace, pro-terror, anti-Israel themes of this Conference by inaccurately stating that, "At the Congress, President Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah leadership reaffirmed Fatah's strategic choice to support a peaceful resolution of the conflict and respect for the Quartet principles, including previous commitments of the PLO. [The Conference did support Abbas, as Clinton states, but he shared the Conference's pro-terrorism. She is relying on his false label of "moderate" to suggest that its support of him is to their credit.] In its own letter to Clinton, ZOA maintains, "These are not merely the unrepresentative views of 'some individual Fatah delegates' as you maintain in your letter to Senator Specter — they are unequivocal statements of support for terrorism by well-known, senior leaders of Fatah from Mahmoud Abbas down. Nor can it be said, as you contend in your letter, that these statements do not reflect the platform of the Fatah Conference. On the contrary, the Fatah platform calls for increased international pressure on Israel, opposes any normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states and refuses to declare that Fatah has no further demands from Israel beyond a peace settlement. The platform also calls for a 'strategic channel with Iran to be opened' — at a time Iran is defying the world by seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. These facts are a matter of public record." Abbas did denounce terrorism. He reiterated the Arab position, however, that Arab attacks on Israeli civilians are not terrorism. Therefore, his endorsement agreements against terrorism, that the Palestinian Authority has not honored since they were signed 16 years ago, are not credible. Reminding Clinton of her former position, ZOA added, "As Senator, you distinguished yourself by pointing to the poisonous and vile incitement to hatred and murder that permeates the Palestinian Authority. You even said that such incitement would have 'dire consequences for peace for generations to come' and that 'It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PA TV, is complicit' in terrorist attacks and that we should condition U.S. aid to the PA on a 'cessation of Palestinian propaganda and hateful rhetoric.' Such rhetoric cannot be dismissed as it glorifies murderers and incites others to emulate their example." The Fatah conference reveals the real challenge to peace (11/3 press release by the New York-based ZOA, of which I am a member). Although the conference contradicts the Fatah label of "moderate," it is on the basis of that label that Israel is urged to make concessions and try to negotiate a lasting peace. Genuine moderates would denounce and dismantle terrorism. Sen. Clinton's unexplained turnabout on terrorism is disturbing. It makes the tenure of Pres. Obama even more disturbing. TOWN PLANNED FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS Crown Prince Khalifa of Bahrain complained that too many Palestinian Arabs live in refugee camps. The upscale settlement of Rawabi is being planned to house 40,000 Palestinian Arabs six miles north of Ramallah. Is that the solution? Not likely. The advertising indicated that the settlement's future residents will be from the ruling class. Why don't Palestinian and other Arab leaders provide more for the needy descendants of refugees? "Because 'Palestinian' is a relatively artificial category, and a weakly felt one. The track record dating back to 1947 provides little evidence that the Palestinians' new-found national identity trumps their clan, religious, political, or class differences. In Israel, we shuddered at the barbarism of the Fatah-Hamas fratricide in Gaza in 2006 — the Palestinian "wakseh" or humiliation — when Palestinian families were gunned down by other Palestinians and political opponents were thrown from tall buildings." By contrast, writes Lenny Ben-David, "During the waves of immigration to Israel of Soviet and Ethiopian Jewry in the 1980s and 1990s, I recall dozens of my neighbors donating furniture to the new immigrants and assigning companions to help settle them in the neighborhood and maneuver through the absorption bureaucracy. Children were happy to tithe from their toys for the new kids on the block who arrived with nothing. If only such a spirit were evident among the Palestinians." [I remember this inter-Jewish sharing in Israel.] Another reason is the "right of return" dogma that seeks to keep refugee families in place, yearning for their ancestors' houses [many of which are gone]. This condition keeps them ready to fight Israel and keeps pressure on Israel. If they moved to nice new settlements, many of them might settle down and refuse to be cannon fodder. At least, so it is feared (www.imra.org.il, 9/23). EGYPTIAN JOURNALIST ARGUES FOR "NORMALIZATION" Egyptian Journalist Hala Mustafa, criticized for having met with the Israeli Ambassador, told an interviewer that the Arabs should normalize relations with Israel. He would define normalize differently over the years, as standards change. He thinks it no longer is a bargaining chip. In any case, reserving it has not gained anything. It certainly didn't stop a succession of wars. The Arabs, unlike Israelis, he thinks, have failed to keep up with the modern world. As a result, Israelis know how to deal with other cultures. They can depict Arab society as extremist (MEMRI in www.imra.org.il, 11/4). I infer from his wording that he would normalize, as a way of behaving, without reforming the Arabs' goals for Israel. He therefore is dangerous, because his way would lull suspicions unjustifiably. Israel doesn't try to depict Arab society as extremist. It discusses Arab actions and goals against Israel. For all of Israel's supposed modern know-how, Saudi Arabia is the Mideastern state that hires public relations firms, pays for the favor of U.S. diplomats, and gets American university Middle East Centers' support. The Organization of Islamic Conference and the UN have managed to get Israel seen as extremist. Israeli leftists get "settlers" painted as extremist. ISRAEL INTERCEPTS SHIP CARRYING IRANIAN ARMS The Israeli Navy intercepted a cargo ship carrying arms from Iran. Apparently the arms were to be smuggled into Gaza. Iran uses ships carrying foreign flags to avoid suspicion. Such shipments violated international law and UN resolutions (www.imra.org.il, 11/4). S. ARABIA WARNED, DO NOT FINGERPRINT IRANIAN PILGRIMS Iran warned Saudi Arabia not to fingerprint pilgrims arriving from Iran. Why, that treats them as terrorists, criminals. If S. Arabia persists, then Iran would fingerprint Saudi visitors (www.imra.org.il, 11/4). I recall that at more than one pilgrimage to Mecca, Iranian visitors violated the rules and used the pilgrimage as cover for subversive activities. NEW COMBAT ROLE FOR ISRAELI WOMEN The IDF has experimented successfully with female combat troops who gather intelligence. They enter a suspicious area, observe, report to stationary intelligence units, and perhaps fight (www.imra.org.il, 11/4). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
MIDDLE EAST MINORITIES
Posted by Steve Kramer, November 5, 2009. |
|
Israeli-Arabs overwhelmingly identify first as Arabs, Muslims, or Palestinians, and only last as Israelis. Regardless of their identification, they are the largest minority in Israel, constituting about 20% of the population. Lately, Israel has achieved notoriety as an "apartheid, racist state" in the United Nations and throughout the world. As an example, former president Jimmy Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," soared to the top of the New York Times bestseller list when it was published in 2006. Among anti-Zionists, the term "apartheid" usually describes Israel's treatment of Palestinians while "racist" is the term used to describe Israel's treatment of Israeli-Arabs. I believe that the first instance is totally false and diminishes the horrors of the former South Africa apartheid regime; I won't even address it. The subject of this article is the second instance: whether Israel's government treats its Israeli-Arab minority in a racist manner. Historically, the Middle East has been home to many minorities, who still reside there today: Kurds, Druze, Copts, Assyrians, etc. The majority, Arabs, are composed of many peoples of varying skin color, united primarily by language and culture. Jews have been a minority among the Arabs for centuries, from at least 586 BCE, when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and Jews were dispersed in all directions. Before the time of Mohammed, Jewish nomads roamed the eastern section of the Middle East, a monotheistic minority among the pagan Arab and Aryan tribes. Until the rise of Mohammed in 622 CE, the Jewish tribes held their own. The province of Khaibar, for example, located north of Medina, was inhabited by various Jewish tribes who built seven fortresses there. After Mohammed began his war to convert all the nomadic tribes to his new religion, the Banu Nadir tribe deserted the prophet's camp and sought refuge in Khaibar, where they led the other Jewish tribes to resist Mohammad's invasion in 628. The Jews retreated to their fortresses and bravely defended themselves before eventually surrendering. Mohammad allowed them to remain in Khaibar only after paying a monetary tribute to their conqueror. (www.jewishencyclopedia.com) In his book "Arabs in History", Bernard Lewis, dean of Middle Eastern scholars, wrote: "The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately succeeded in dominating them. The Jews, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked .... as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews. (www.eretzyisroel.org) But the Jews didn't disappear from Arabia, Iran and N. Africa after the Muslim conquest. They (and any Christians) lived as dhimmis — infidels with inferior status — among the Arabs. As dhimmis, the Jews were forced to live apart from the Muslims, to wear special garments, to pay extraordinary taxes, and above all, to remain in an inferior position to their Muslim overlords. In addition, they suffered from periodic pogroms. Even in the "Golden Age" of Jewish life under Muslim sovereignty (8th-12th centuries in Spain and Portugal), the strictures of dhimmitude remained in effect. The Jews continued to live among the Muslims in the eastern Middle East and North Africa until the 20th century. There had always been a trickle of "Arab" Jews immigrating to Jerusalem, but after Israel's independence in 1948, and the Six Day War of 1967, the Jews were driven from Muslim lands, fleeing their homes and livelihoods with only what they could carry. This nearly-forgotten exodus of about 800,000 Jews was absorbed primarily by the young State of Israel, whose population doubled soon after independence. The Jews from Muslim lands lived in tent cities in Israel's desert until they were able to move to better accommodations. Starting from a (generally) more backward condition than the European Jewish refugees, some Sephardic Jews (from N. Africa) and Mizrahi Jews (from Arabia and Iran) even today consider themselves second-class Israeli citizens. Nevertheless, because of better education and increasing "intermarriage" with lighter-skinned Jews, whatever prejudice they face is fast evaporating. I've established that the Middle East has its share of minorities, including Jews. In Israel, there are Jews who believe they are second-class citizens and victims of racism. This group comes primarily from those who emigrated from Muslim lands. Many Israeli-Arabs, especially the overwhelming majority who are Muslim, feel the same. Israeli-Arabs have the largest families of all ethnicities in Israel, far less post-secondary education, few working wives, and towns suffering from a lack of local investment in infrastructure due to the high rate of tax delinquency. In addition, there is a booming black market economy, which necessitates hiding income and assets. However, none of these social and economic factors stop Israeli-Arabs from voting, from attending colleges or universities, or from becoming wealthy. It does, however, differentiate them from Jewish Israelis. (Ultra-Orthodox Jews share some of the same traits of Israeli-Arabs, notably huge families, and join them at the bottom rung of Israel's economic ladder.) Christian Israeli-Arabs, about 9% of the Arab population, are proof that being an Arab doesn't automatically bring racist or second-class status. Christian Arabs have prospered in Israel. This is probably because they have the least number of children in their families, the highest levels of education, and are solidly middle-class. Israel, which originally had a socialist economy and whose kibbutzim (rural, communal settlements) were a pure form of communism, today mimics the United States with a huge gap between haves and have-nots. As in America, it's easy, but simplistic, to point to race as the cause of social disparity. There's little doubt that Israel's Arab citizens have some handicaps compared to the average Jewish Israeli, but their status as citizens includes the same rights as all other Israelis. Israeli-Arabs do feel marginalized in Israel, but that's primarily because Israel defines itself as the State of the Jews. Nevertheless, Israel is one of the most vibrant democracies in the world and the only democracy in the Middle East. When Israeli-Arabs claim to be second-class or victims of racism, I say, "Compared to what?" Where is the exodus of desperate Israeli-Arabs to Muslim countries? Fuggedaboutit! If Israeli-Arabs do suffer from some racism in Israel, it's no different than they would find in any other Western country — and evidently — better than they would expect to find in any Muslim country in the Middle East. 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." |
|
GROUNDBREAKING PROSTHETIC HAND
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 5, 2009. |
|
Applause For The SmartHand: Human-machine Interface Is Essential Link In Groundbreaking Prosthetic Hand |
|
ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2009) In one sense, our hands define our humanity. Our opposable thumbs and our hands' unique structure allow us to write, paint, and play the piano. Those who lose their hands as a result of accident, conflict or disease often feel they've lost more than mere utility. A new invention from Tel Aviv University researchers may change that. Prof. Yosi Shacham-Diamand of TAU's Department of Engineering, working with a team of European Union scientists, has successfully wired a state-of-the-art artificial hand to existing nerve endings in the stump of a severed arm. The device, called "SmartHand," resembles — in function, sensitivity and appearance — a real hand. Robin af Ekenstam of Sweden, the project's first human subject, has not only been able to complete extremely complicated tasks like eating and writing, he reports he is also able to "feel" his fingers once again. In short, Prof. Shacham-Diamand and his team have seamlessly rewired Ekenstam's mind to his SmartHand. Linking mind and machine Prof. Shacham-Diamand's contribution to the project, on which TAU collaborated with Sweden's Lund University, is the interface between the body's nerves and the device's electronics. "Perfectly good nerve endings remain at the stem of a severed limb," the researcher says. "Our team is building the interface between the device and the nerves in the arm, connecting cognitive neuroscience with state-of-the-art information technologies." Prof. Shacham-Diamand runs one of the top labs in the world for nano-bio-interfacing science: the Department of Electrical Engineering — Physical Electronics Lab under the Bernard L. Schwartz Chair for Nano-scale Information Technologies. "Our challenge," remarks Prof. Shacham-Diamand, "was to make an electrode that was not only flexible, but could be implanted in the human body and function properly for at least 20 years." The artificial SmartHand, built by a team of top European Union scientists, will belong to Ekenstam, the test subject, as long as he wishes. "After only a few training sessions, he is operating the artificial hand as though it's his own," says Prof. Shacham-Diamand. "We've built in tactile sensors too, so the information transfer goes two ways. These allow Ekenstam to do difficult tasks like eating and writing." Complexity of a challenging magnitude Ekenstam told a television interviewer, "I am using muscles which I haven't used for years. I grab something hard, and then I can feel it in the fingertips, which is strange, as I don't have them anymore. It's amazing." This particular multi-million dollar project focused on hands, but the TAU/EU team could also have built bionic legs to be wired to the brain. The team first chose to build a hand, however, because of its unique challenges. "The fingers in the hand are the most complex appendages we have," Prof. Shacham-Diamand observes. "The brain needs to synchronise the movement of each digit in a very complicated way." With the help of the TAU team, the SmartHand project was able to integrate recent advances in today's "intelligent" prosthetic hands with all the basic features of a flesh-and-blood hand. Four electric motors and 40 sensors are activated when the SmartHand touches an object, not only replicating the movement of a human hand, but also providing the wearer with a sensation of feeling and touch. While the prototype looks very "bionic" now, in the future SmartHand scientists plan to equip it with artificial skin that will give the brain even more tactile feedback. The researchers will also study amputees equipped with the SmartHand to understand how to improve the device over time. The SmartHand project is funded by the E.U. Sixth Framework Programme. TAU's SmartHand partners include ARTS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Italy), Aalborg University (Denmark), Tyndall Institute (Ireland), Össur (Iceland) and SciTech Link HB (Sweden).
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.
This article was adapted from materials provided by American Friends
of Tel Aviv University. It appeared in ScienceDaily.
|
|
COVER. COLORS AND CATS IN MOTION
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 4, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to to see more of his graphic art at http://fred343-fredfoolswithfotos.blogspot.com/ |
|
FROM ISRAEL: NON-STOP VIGILANCE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 4, 2009. |
|
The Francop, a cargo ship (AP) A 140 meter long cargo ship, called the Francop, was boarded by elite Israeli navy commando forces of the Shayetet 13 unit last night outside of Cyprus, some 100 nautical miles west of Israel in the Mediterranean. The ship was in deep sea and the navy used small boats to approach it Our forces, which encountered no resistance from the crew, uncovered a cache of some hundreds of tons of weapons in dozens of containers, hidden behind what appeared to be civilian cargo. The weapons included a large number of 22 mm. Katyusha rockets, assault rifles, mortar shells, grenades and anti-aircraft platforms not previously found in the region. These weapons were sent by Iran, and were destined for Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. ~~~~~~~~~~ The vessel was being operated by a Cypriot charter company called UFS, and was flying an Antiguan flag. It had apparently originated its journey in Iran, had stopped at Damietta Port in Egypt, and was bound for Limassol, Cyprus. Following this, it was due to anchor tomorrow in Beirut and then continue on to Latakia Port in Syria by the weekend. This particular ship routinely docks in these various ports. Military Intelligence had been following it since it started on its journey, and the operation was well-planned in advance. A representative of UFS said the company had no idea what was inside the containers: "We knew that we were delivering containers, but we are not legally permitted to check what is inside them. This is the responsibility of the customs authorities at the ports where we anchor. We do not know what happened on the ship. We are waiting...for answers. "This is the first time something like this happens to us. I hope this will not damage the relations between Cyprus and Israel, because it is just business for us." And indeed, Israeli navy authorities are convinced that the crew had no idea what was in the containers. ~~~~~~~~~~ Its cargo is currently being unloaded at the Ashdod port for further inspection. 
Containers aboard the Iranian vessel carrying arms for Hezbollah at the port in Ashdod on Wednesday. (Ilan Assayag) This echoes the incident of the Karine A weapons ship, which was intercepted near Gaza in 2002, carrying a weighty cache of weapons from Iran. However, Israel Navy Chief Brig. Gen. Rani Ben-Yehuda said, "The quantity of arms seized on the weapons ship Francop is ten times or even more than the quantity of weapons on the Karine-A ship." Enough to arm Hezbollah for a month of fighting with Israel. Blood-curdling. ~~~~~~~~~~ Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem denied that the Francop was carrying weapons. He said [commercial] goods were being brought to the port in Damascus and that the Israeli forces are "pirates." Why do they bother, when we've unloaded the ship and know what it carried? I've learned: this is very much the Arab style, and a great bewilderment to the Western mind. Mouallem, it should be mentioned, is in Teheran for a two day visit, and declared that "no nation could harm the relations between Syria and Iran." ~~~~~~~~~~ There are words of praise from the Israeli government for the success of this operation. And with it, words of warning as to the intentions of Iran and the need for that non-stop vigilance. Prime Minister Netanyahu said these weapons were meant for Israel cities. From Foreign Minister Barak: "This is another success in the incessant battle against the smuggling of arms and military buildup by terrorist organizations who threaten Israel's security," And appropriate words from opposition leader Tzipi Livni (Kadima): "We all today praise the Navy and IDF over the seizure of the ship — it's not a controversial matter. There are issues over which there are no coalition and opposition. We are all partners in the people of Israel's war on terror — whether it's Hamas, Hezbollah or other supporters [of terror]. Well done." ~~~~~~~~~~ We know who are friends are. Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution urging President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose unequivocally any endorsement of the Goldstone Report. The vote was 344-36, with 22 representatives voting present. A resounding and much appreciated display of support. ~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly is meeting on the issue of that report. With some 40 speakers scheduled, discussion is expected to continue into tomorrow before a vote is taken. Egypt, a nation with which we are ostensibly at peace, is taking full advantage of this forum to slam us. Its ambassador to the UN, Magued Abdel Aziz, was the first to take the floor. He said: "[The report] verifies grave violations of international law by Israel during the Gaza campaign... it was revenge against civilians and it went against international law... This kind of blatant violation of human right must be stopped." This is the same Egypt whose soldiers sometimes shoot African refugees in the back. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Senegalese spoke on behalf of the Palestinians, and Sweden spoke on behalf of the EU. The Syrian ambassador also addressed the assembly. What a line-up. Our ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, told the assembly that the report was "conceived in hate and executed in sin," and that the Goldstone commission was a "politicized body with predetermined conclusions." The decision of the Human Rights Council to move the report to the General Assembly was, she said, "a cynical political maneuver." In closing she said that this debate would hinder and not further peace. And who was listening in that assembled body? ~~~~~~~~~~ The stark juxtaposition of the above two events, occurring on the same day, cannot pass unnoticed: We are facing the development of ever-greater military capabilities on the part of the enemies at our borders. This awareness was certainly forced upon us by the capture of the arms shipment from Iran. We know that wars are likely not far away. And at the same time we are fighting within the international diplomatic arena for our right to defend ourselves against those enemies. It's obscene. ~~~~~~~~~~ On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu is flying to Washington for meetings and taking Defense Minister Barak with him. In spite of my best efforts to learn what their agenda will be, I have been able to learn nothing of substance. Am I uneasy? I cannot deny that I am. Hopefully Netanyahu will focus on Iran. ~~~~~~~~~~ It seems the Obama administration is finally willing to acknowledge that the Israeli-Palestinian "peace negotiations" are going nowhere quickly. According to the Washington Post today, the US government has now concluded that high-level talks are not likely to start any time soon. And so it hopes instead to promote lower level talks that will maintain some momentum, which will theoretically pick up steam over time. ~~~~~~~~~~ At a new conference today, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared that if Israel continues to expand settlements and the US doesn't stop it, then the Palestinians may have to abandon the goal of an independent state. It may be time, he said, for PA president Mahmoud Abbas to "tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option." What nonsense this is. I clarify again: There is no building by Israel going on in Judea and Samaria that is "expanding settlements." The understanding we had with the US government prior to Obama, and which is being honored by us, is that the perimeters of our communities are not to be expanded; building is being done within those communities. What is more, Abbas negotiated with Olmert even while Israel was building in Judea and Samaria. This does not stop negotiations. In theory (please G-d, only in theory), any communities that fell within territory that is allotted to a Palestinian state could be dismantled. Depending on how we read this, this statement may be a way of bowing out of participation in peace negotiations (which they don't want), while putting the onus on us. Or it may be a way to coerce us to do more — or to frighten the US into pressuring us further. I spoke yesterday about the expectation of violence. Claiming there is no possibility of a "two state solution" might also be a way of setting the stage for violence. Over and over I am reminded of the complexity of this situation — the personalities involved, the various goals, the behind-the-scene maneuvering, the play-acting. From one source I am picking up PA statements so convoluted with regard to what the Palestinians demand and what has been promised that I won't even attempt to analyze it here. I will simply note it, and then table it watchfully, until I can make further sense of it.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
US/UN SPONSOR LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH; HAMAS HAS ROCKETS TO T-A; IRAN DUPES OBAMA & IAEA; ARCHEOLOGISTS ANSWER ARABS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 4, 2009. |
|
ARAB MK BARAKEH ARRESTED FOR MULTIPLE ASSAULTS Arab MK Barakeh was arrested for four crimes of assault and interference with police arresting other assailants. His violence included punching and attempted choking (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/2). ISRAELI MURDERED ARABS Yaakov Teitel, a resident of Kfar Adumim in the Jordan Valley, was arrested for several murders of Arabs for ideological reasons. His interrogator found that Mr. Teitel did it without consulting rabbis or his wife (who would have opposed). Although spokesmen for all groups agree that people should not be attacked just because of their ethnic identity, the media stereotyped all settlers as likely to be similarly violent, just because of their residence location. The media claimed that the left is not violent (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/2). When the gag order on the case was lifted, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that the country repudiates the killers' actions. Dr. Aaron Lerner contrasted that Israeli attitude with the attitude and actions of the Palestinian Authority: "Yaakov Teitel will have his day in Israeli court and, if convicted, spend a good part of the remainder of his life behind bars." Almost every week, leftists lead Arabs to violence against soldiers at the security fence or against Jews and their crops in the Territories. ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC CONFERENCE (OIC) The OIC meeting condemned Israel "aggression" on the Temple Mount. Actually, it was ordinary police response to rock throwers. It suggested spending millions to counteract the large sums Israel allegedly spends to strip the City of its Muslim heritage What stripping? (www.imra.org.il, 11/1.) JORDAN HOSTS CONFERENCE ON JERUSALEM King Abdullah of Jordan hosted an international conference on Jerusalem. "The conference also comes within Jordan's efforts to safeguard Islamic and Christian sites in Jerusalem at a time when Israel seeks to Judaize the holy city and obliterate its history and culture." (www.imra.org.il, 10/3). Jordan is recognized as having rights over the mosque on the Temple Mount. It's safeguarding of Christian sites is odd, considering that after Jordan seized the Old City of Jerusalem, it increasingly imposed restrictions on Christians and their access to holy sites. During the period of Jordanian control, Jordan's king never visited the mosque or the Old City, and let trash accumulate all around the Temple Mount, impeding access to it. Israel does not obscure the history of Jerusalem. Israelis relate the full history of the City, most of which is non-Muslim. The Muslims ignore or pretend the Jewish millennia did not exist. The Muslims often do what they accuse Israel of. U.S. CO-SPONSORS UN LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH Working with Egypt, which limits its people's freedom of speech, the American delegation at the Human Rights Council co-sponsored UN limits on free speech. "The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that 'the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities.. .which include taking action against anything meeting the description of 'negative racial and religious stereotyping.' It also purports to 'recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media' and supports 'the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct' in relation to 'combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.'" "Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights 'of religions' instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion — as defined by government — to curtail it." The EU insisted that the protection is only for individuals, not religions, but was ignored (Anne Bayevsky at www.EYEontheUN.org in (www.imra.org.il, 10/5). The Muslims define defamation as what we would call objective scholarly discussion of Islam and factual complaints about what some Muslims groups do. Europe bans "hate speech" based not on defamation, just on criticism. They apply it to shield Islam from criticism, but do not shield non-Muslims from actual defamation and death threats. In effect, Obama has bolstered that way. The U.S. Constitution allows those who feel themselves slandered or libeled to sue for damages. They have to prove falsehood and malicious intent. Truth is a defense against the complaint. In addition, those who feel slandered have the right of free speech and press to rebut. Why did Obama more to delete our Bill of Rights? By contrast, Pres. Bush boycotted the UN Human Rights Council. NEO-CONS & OBAMA President Obama's foreign policy is a shambles. Iran is cheating on development of nuclear weapons, N. Korea is devising another way to manufacture them, Syria continues arming Hizbullah, NATO won't send more troops to Afghanistan, Poland and the Czech Republic are shocked at Obama's withdrawal of the offer of anti-missile defense, and Russia acts as a spoiler but nevertheless complains that the U.S. is being difficult. Obama's appeasement is met with contempt. As a result of these problems, the neo-conservatives are being heard more. One of them is Bret Stephens. He described some of the neo-con theories. Neo-cons extrapolate that rogue states' domestic oppression would be mirrored by their foreign policies. Neo-cons expect rogue states to cheat on treaties. They do not believe that Russia or Syria will be persuaded to change. Hence, neo-cons do not expect much from the deals by Obama with such states. "Governments that are answerable to their own people and accountable to a rule of law tend to respect the rights of their neighbors, honor their treaty commitments, and abide by the international rules of the road. By contrast, regimes that prey on their own citizens are likely to prey on their neighbors as well. Their word is the opposite of their bond." Neo-cons depend on U.S. moral, political, and military strength. They cite the Philippines, and Iraq as impelled to democratize by U.S. moral force. [There are other and some better examples.] When the U.S. stands up to dictators on human rights, their people get some relief. When the U.S. falters, the dictators become more oppressive. Dictators do not disarm voluntarily. Libya dropped nuclear weapons development when the U.S. dispatched a huge force to Iraq. Neo-cons erred in over-estimating how long Americans could stay the course and in how much foreigners would fight for their own liberty. Now that U.S. policy seems based on how attractive Obama is, the world is seeking a sober U.S. policy (Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 10/8). HAMAS NOW HAS ROCKETS FOR TEL AVIV Hamas has smuggled or developed rockets having a range of 60 kms, putting Tel Aviv within their range (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). Tel Aviv is known for its appeasement-minded leftism. If Tel Aviv finds itself bombarded, its leftists might demand military action. An unnecessary war is in Gaza's future. The Israeli notion of spending a fortune to armor-plate rooftops gets ever more absurd as the range of the rockets expands, as predicted. PALESTINIAN BRUTALITY ACCEPTED BY WEST Judge by Western acceptance of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) brutality against its own people, whether people criticize Israeli treatment of Palestinian Arabs because they care about those Arabs or as a pretext for venting bigotry against Jews The Wall St. Journal Europe poses the question now, because a week ago, the Daily Mail quoted senior P.A. official Haitham Arar on personal abuse, and last January, Mail On Sunday detailed P.A. regular beatings, whippings, attacks with electric drills [not just on Halloween], murder, and rape against opponents of Abbas' Fatah. Mostly, the West ignores this organized brutality. Despite the criminal nature of the P.A., which the P.A. does not deny, the West continues and increases hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidy, passing a billion dollars. Britain's reaction was to send officers to train the P.A. not to torture prisoners. When Britain is accused of assisting in U.S. interrogation of prisoners, people threaten to put its leaders on trial. When Israel fights to stop Hamas rocket bombardment of Israel, the UN threatens it with war crimes trials. [Earlier articles showed that Israel acted humanely in that war, Hamas did not, claims to the contrary notwithstanding.] "But when the West funnels billions to a Palestinian government whose abuses are brazen and ongoing, there is mainly silence." Al-Hayat Al-Jadida What an unmerciful double standard! It shows insincerity or cynicism in those who ostensibly care about Palestinian Arabs. It also undermines the case, which is not made so much as asserted as axiomatic, that the Palestinian Authority should be given sovereignty and without having to prove itself worthy. What is the real reason and why the rush? Why is the P.A. treated as a sacred cow? The reasons to withhold such subsidies, aside from the West being in a recession, are ethical and practical. Ethical: one should not subsidize systematic brutality. Practical: The P.A. is allied to the jihad to impose barbaric and oppressive ways upon the whole world. IRAN DUPES OBAMA & IAEA ON NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT With encouragement from Obama, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) made a deal with Iran to send fuel abroad for partial enrichment. The understanding was that this would prevent Iran from total enrichment that nuclear weapons require. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki now makes clear that what Iran ships abroad is in addition to what it enriches domestically (www.imra.org.il, 11/3). Iran duped Obama and IAEA. The deal was flawed, anyway, because the partially enriched fuel it gets back could be all the more readily boosted to total enrichment. Remember, this kind of enrichment is only for weapons grade fuel, not for producing electricity. This shows Iran's malign intent and its duplicity. This deal is another instance of the IAEA acting more as running interference for Iran. So much for the Democrats' solution for everything, regulation! One has to wonder about a supposedly bright President so easily duped by the notorious duplicitous. When I was an active systems analyst, before proposing a system I had designed, I examined it for flaws. Same should be done before proposing a deal with Iran. Why wasn't it? Iran, the Arabs, and N. Korea routinely say an agreement has been made, then deny it or revoke it, especially after having absorbed the price paid for their agreement. Our policymakers need overcome naivete and blind faith in their power of persuasion. We cannot persuade fanatics. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY CALLS CLINTON CORRUPT LIAR Sec. of State Clinton praised Israel for making "unprecedented" concessions on settlements, and blamed the" Palestinian Authority (P.A.) "for not resuming peace talks without prior conditions." For that, the P.A. daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, called Clinton a corrupt liar. It accused her of having taken an Israeli bribe [no evidence cited, the Palestinian Arabs don't bother with evidence]. It accompanied its accusations with a cartoon of the U.S. being controlled by an antisemitic stereotype of a Jew (Palestinian Media Watch www.imra.org.il, 11/3). Don't worry, you won't have hundreds of thousands of Jews on a riotous rampage over the cartoons, which are untruthful and offensive! Clinton does lie, as in her claim that all U.S. Presidents considered Jewish settlements illegal. But name-calling is not the proper way to resolve political disputes. What angered the Arabs? Clinton wants to get concluded negotiations that would favor them. Their inordinate, increasing demands stalled negotiations. In Netanyahu, she found a willing dupe who froze most new construction in Judea-Samaria, but not in Jerusalem, although the demand for a freeze has no legal or ethical basis, especially not while the Arabs build new settlements, many illegally. That slight compromise on a temporary matter riled the Arabs, who want to humiliate Israel and make it seem to be in the wrong, to the point that they won't proceed to get major concessions. She criticized them just a little, but the notorious Arab shame-honor syndrome magnifies it in their eyes. She is their 90% ally, but how they mistreat and mistrust her! She should reconsider whether these are people who warrant concessions and statehood. I find their behavior too volatile and vicious, PM Netanyahu should reconsider whether he should retard Zionist national development for no good reason, in behalf of an anti-Israel U.S. President whose policies are failing, and in behalf of dedicated jihadist enemies of Israel. He knows that no new agreement is going to bring peace any more than did earlier and violated ones. Is he under some compulsion to act against his country's interest? A freeze was not required in the Oslo accords nor in the Road Map. Those documents did require the P.A. to take certain steps toward peace, such as to stop inciting bigotry and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. The P.A. did not take those steps. Therefore, Israel is under no obligation to the P.A., but the P.A. is under obligation to Israel. ISRAELI ARCHEOLOGISTS ANSWER PALESTINIAN ARABS Palestinian Authority (P.A.) officials keep asserting claims that there was no ancient Jewish temple on the Mount or in Jerusalem, nor an ancient Jewish population which has had a continuous presence since then, nor evidence there were. Instead, the P.A. officials claim that the ancient people there were "Palestinians," i.e. Arabs, though the Arab influx came with the Muslim invasions about seven hundred years after the Temple period. In serendipitous refutation, Israeli archeologists keep finding Hebrew artifacts in Jerusalem up to about 300 years after the Temple period. One of the main sources is the long-term excavation under the Old City walls [not near the mosque]. Recently, a large 2,000 year-old Jewish ritual bath was found there. It would have been alongside the Temple in its last days ((www.imra.org.il, 9/23). Like the story of mankind's evolution, missing pieces in the story of the ancient Jewish presence keep surfacing. ARABS LOSE SUITS AGAINST JERUSALEM EXCAVATION Israel's Supreme Court ruled against two Arab lawsuits against archeological excavation in the City of David part of Jerusalem. Excavation south of the southern wall of the Old City revealed remains from the Second Temple period, a public building from the Late Roman period, and remains from the Early Islamic period. " All of the remains were scientifically excavated, in meticulous work, whilst photographing and documenting everything." The second excavation uncovered a (known but hitherto covered over) well-preserved drainage canal, in which one can walk upright for dozens of meters. The Israeli Antiquities Authority finds the lawsuits politically motivated. Judge Arbel ruled that the excavation is underground and not under petitioners' property, which suffered only minor damage if any. The public and world's interest in uncovering this history is overriding (www.imra.org.il, 9/23). GOLDSTONE, PERSONALLY Judge Goldstone wrote an Op.-Ed. in the Jerusalem Post that one prerequisite for peace would be Israeli recognition of Hamas. Many people think that because Goldstone is of Jewish origin, he cannot be unfair to Israel. False assumption. Some of my fellow Jews reject the Jewish religion and Jewish national loyalty. They are Jewish in name only. Some have adopted a leftist ideology that is hostile to Jewish sovereignty. Such Jews dominate several Israeli university social studies faculties. One of the most anti-Zionist is Hebrew University. For years, Goldstone was on the Hebrew University Board of Governors and ran its Friends of Hebrew University office (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/23). I do not assume that on the Board, he was anti-Zionist, though it is likely. Let's see his record, if one had been kept. But elsewhere we reported that he also was on the Board of Human Rights Watch, another Israel-bashing organization whose defective methodology he apparently carried over to the UN mission. To expect Israel to recognize Hamas, which hates Jews so much it exists to destroy their state and kill them, is absurd. Someone with such misconceived rationales should not have been head of the UN mission. If he had a healthy interest in peace, he would say that a prerequisite for peace is for Hamas to recognize Israel. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
POLICY SUBJECT TO GEOGRAPHY
Posted by Truth Provider, November 4, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, Just like Arafat used to do, Secretary Hilary Clinton speaks with forked tongue. What she says is not based on convictions or logical policies, it depends on her geographical location. While in Israel she says one thing and the day after, in Arab countries, she says exactly the opposite.
But today, after the Republicans wrote a big message on Obama's
wall and the Congress voted 344 to 36 in favor of Israel The Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are legal and viable by any international standard. All Netanyahu needs to do now is state the above fact (in red) clearly and wait three years at most for the Obama administration to end its one term. Your Truth Provider,
To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
OBAMA IS LEARNING FROM THE IDF
Posted by Daily Alert, November 4 2009. |
|
This was written by Aluf Benn and it appeared today in Haaretz |
|
Israel's critics in the United States portray it as a strategic burden. They argue that during the Cold War there was value in cooperating with the Israel Defense Forces, which gave the Americans useful information on Soviet weapons systems used by Arab armies. But the Soviet Union collapsed and all the value Israel offered to U.S. national security evaporated with it. These critics are wrong in a big way: The U.S. military effort against Al-Qaida and the Taliban is based on a doctrine developed by Israel. The IDF was a global leader in targeting terrorists from the air. When Israel embarked on its assassinations policy in the summer of 2001, the United States condemned it. Several weeks later the Twin Towers were brought down in a terrorist attack and Washington's approach changed. Instead of condemning Israel, the Americans simply copied its methods, foreign sources say. Unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), armed with missiles, started being used to kill terrorists, first in Yemen and later in Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. President Barack Obama has proved to be an enthusiastic student of the doctrine of targeted killings, even more than his predecessor George W. Bush. According to the New America Foundation, between taking office in January and early October, the Obama administration authorized 42 UCAV strikes. Bush authorized 40 such attacks during his three final years in office. Six senior Taliban and Al-Qaida figures were killed in Obama-ordered operations, as were some 450 others. Judge Richard Goldstone would be advised to note that a quarter of those killed were civilians, while the rest were low-grade fighters. The assassination three months ago of Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, also killed 11 civilians, including his sister and father-in-law, much like the Israeli bombing that killed Salah Shehadeh along with his relatives and neighbors in 2002. Human rights groups have warned that the United States is violating international law, but the Obama administration is not particularly moved by this. According to The New Yorker, CIA chief Leon Panetta has described the UCAV attacks as "the only game in town." American antiterrorist experts with close ties to the administration told Jane Mayer, who wrote the article in The New Yorker, that the United States has no more-efficient weapon against Al-Qaida. The Pentagon has been accelerating its procurement of UCAVs and is cutting down on its development of manned fighters. Palestinian eyewitnesses and human rights groups have claimed for several years now that the IDF has been using UCAVs in its aerial operations in the Gaza Strip. The UCAV is the West's response to suicide bombings and terrorist rocket attacks by Islamist groups. It can be described as the Jewish mother's aircraft: the operator sits far from the front and combat is sterile. There are no sirens, no blood, no smell of gunpowder and corpses, and most of all, no risk to the attacker and no casualties on that side. A debate has been raging in the United States on whether it is appropriate to use a weapons system that does not expose its user to the horrors of battle. There are also concerns about the inherent appeal of robot warfare; at first the attacks are only against senior terrorist figures. Success encourages the lowering of standards to include lesser-grade targets until UCAVs are used every time there is a sign of the enemy or information about the presence of a wanted terrorist on the ground. The number of sorties has risen, and with it the number of civilian casualties. It would be interesting to know if Obama, who is due to decide on the future of the war in Afghanistan, knows from whom the Americans have learned the modern doctrine of antiterrorism warfare, and whether he is grateful to the IDF. 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 |
|
LEFTIST HYSTERIA OVER MINISTRY OF EDUCATION NON-APPOINTMENT
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 4, 2009. | |
|
1. Israel's Left is hysterical. Led by Haaretz, it is having
conniptions over the fact that the Minister of Education from the
Likud declined to appoint a leftist professor from Tel Aviv University
to head a ministry panel to design new school programs in the "Culture
and Legacy of Israel." The professor is Ron Margolin, who teaches
comparative religion. The minister preferred Prof. Benjamin
Ish-Shalom, founder of the Beit Morasha Jewish studies center in
Jerusalem. Margolin had been a deputy to bimbo Yuli Tamir when she
had run the ministry (she is best remembered for introducing "Nakba
studies" into the schools to mourn Israel's existence and also for
denouncing those who oppose "female circumcision" in the Third World).
Margolin, a groupie of Martin Buber, had proposed eliminating a lot of
Jewish content from school studies about Judaism.
Now why is this story so amusing? For one, the director of the ministry of education under Minister Saar is now Shimshon Shoshani, a Meretz person. Second, here we have Haaretz whining that someone is barred from a governmental appointment supposedly because he is a leftist. But Haaretz, which censors and bars writers from appearing in its own newspaper if they are not far Leftists, has never had a word to say about the many departments at Israeli universities in which no non-leftists are permitted to teach. And besides, since when is not appointing a leftist to a post some sort of crime? Since when is political power a leftist entitlement? 2. In recent days the headlines in Israel have been filled with news about grizzly murders. It is important to keep these stories in perspective. As horrific as they are, Israel is still a relative-low-crime safe place to live. The first of the stories involves the murder of an entire family of Jews in Rishon, 6 people over 3 generations, including 2 small children. The victims had immigrated form the old USSR. The murderer was a non-Jew who had entered Israel somehow under the Law of Return. He was a serial criminal back in Russia and after he arrived Russia had asked Israel to extradite him to face criminal charges. Stupidly, Israel refused. Israel sometimes refuses to extradite criminals when there is any suspicion that anti-Semitic motives could lie behind the prosecution overseas, but this obviously was not the case. The murderer killed them because the father of the family had fired him from a job as a waiter. The killer was an alcoholic and drug user. Bizarrely, he had earlier been employed as a security guard to protect a media moghul in Israel who was being threatened by the late comic Dudu Topaz, who committed suicide after being arrested. In the aftermath of the mass murder, suddenly there is a transient media posturing by some politicians to adopt capital punishment in Israel, but "only when children have been murdered." Here is a better idea: Israel needs wholesale capital punishment for terrorists, regardless of the age of their victims, and it should also be applied to criminal murderers and violent rapists and maybe also traitors. Anyway, the other gruesome story involves a deranged American immigrant named Jack Teitel. As you no doubt already know, Teitel went on a spree of killings and attempted killings. He is suspected of placing the bomb outside Sternhell's home and now is accused of having murdered two Israeli policemen. Teitel is religious and lived in the West Bank. Israel's McCarthyist Left is having a field day with this. You see, they are screaming in totalitarian unison, Right-wingers and religious people are all murderers! An Op-Ed in YNET by a leftie called openly for suppression of the freedom of speech of religious people and demanded that all Orthodox be collectively regarded as criminal. Every crime by a religious rightist, and Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir come to mind, extends the hegemony over the country by the Leftist Ascendancy by a decade! The third murder was of Shabtai Kalmanovich, who had been a KGB spy in Israel. Notice the Left is not screaming that this makes all leftists suspect as traitors and spies. In any case, Kalmanovich was gunned down in what looks like a gangland shooting in Moscow this week. He evidently was involved in mob activities. Some rumors say he may have been a double agent informing on the KGB. 3. Italy takes action against its Holocaust Deniers and anti-Semitic faculty members:
How come Ben Gurion University refuses to do so? 4. Where do anti-Semitic pseudo-historians at Tel Aviv University
come from? See the answer:
5. Palestine's Missing Critics — Where's the outrage for
Ramallah's atrocities?
6. Since early November is the silly time in Israel, where all the conspiracy nuts come forth, we repost to you:
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
ALLAH ORDERED JEWS INTO ERETZ-ISRAEL; IT'S TIME TO LEARN FROM
ENEMIES; OBAMA NOBEL VERY CURIOUS!
Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 3, 2009. |
|
Koran: Allah (G-d) Ordered Jews into Eretz-Israel! If Hamas, Hezbollah and 'the rest' are fighting a Holy Jihad against the infidel invader then what do they make of the following passages from the Koran? The Pan-Islamists, from Ahmadinejad, to Haniya, Nassrallah make claims that the Jews are invaders. Some have even made claims that Jews never even existed upon the land and that there is no religious link between the Jews and Jerusalem (hmm... wasn't Jesus a Jew? Didn't Mohammed himself fight the Jews of Medina?) or any part of Israel... At the same time Mohammed was honest and acknowledged the special relationship of the Jewish people with G-d and the land He gave them: [Sura 5:20] Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews), "O my people, remember GOD's blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people." [Sura 5:21] "O my people, enter the holy land (Israel) that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers." Later in the Koran, in order to make it clear and leave no doubts that the Jewish G-d had given ownership of the land to and set the mission of the Jews, Mohammed took additional time to repeat the writing of the Torah in Sura 7 about the Jews and Moses: [Sura 7:137] "We let the oppressed people inherit the land, east and west, and we blessed it. The blessed commands of your Lord were thus fulfilled for the Children of Israel, to reward them for their steadfastness, and we annihilated the works of Pharaoh and his people and everything they harvested." [Sura 7:144] He said, "O Moses, I have chosen you (the Jews), out of all the people, with My messages and by speaking to you. Therefore, take what I have given you and be appreciative." Therefore, even according to the Koran, the prophet Mohammeds writings, the Jews were ordered into Eretz-Israel by Allah (G-d)! What is shocking is that most Muslims have never heard of it and never were taught these passages by their mullahs! These parts of the Koran have also been deliberately removed from any discussion of Islamic doctrine by not just Muslim but also Western Islamic scholars! Jews Defend Muslims. Switzerland's biggest Jewish groups have described a far-right push to ban mosque minarets as a threat to religious harmony and the integration of Muslims. Islam is the second largest religion in Switzerland after Christianity with 310,000 followers out of a population of 7.5 million. Jews are Routinly Terorised in Their Own Country. Last Saturday: Arabs threw a firebomb at an Israeli vehicle on a road near Ramallah. Arabs threw stones at an Israeli vehicle near Beitar Ilit. Food for Thought.
Confronting anti-Semitism and Islamic lies is quite a straightforward and quite a noble task, which is eagerly supported by many politically correct members of the public. Unfortunately, it is activity only — just a diversion! Our enemies are quite happy that we are squandering our time, energy and funds on it. Maintaining focus on the Jewish National goal in pursuit of Zionist ideals is a more important and difficult mission! Unshameful Liar. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during her visit to Jerusalem that freezing construction in the West Bank is not and has never been a precondition for relaunching the peace process. (What else was it?) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected a proposal by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to relaunch peace talks. IDF Mutiny at the Western Wall. An unprecedented mutiny took place at the swearing-in ceremony of Shimshon Battalion soldiers at the Kotel last week. Immediately after being sworn in, some of the soldiers raised large signs which said "Shimshon Battalion does not carry out evictions at Homesh." Parents of soldiers also raised similar signs at the same moment. Two Israel soldiers were expelled from their brigade and given 20 days in military prison a few days later. More Anti-Semitic Bigotry. Marks & Spencer has been criticised for excluding Israel from its online international delivery scheme, despite the service being on offer to shoppers in Libya, Syria and Lebanon. The company this week declined to explain its reasons. Tortured by PA! The Palestinian Authority, led by the Fatah party commonly uses torture on prisoners. A London newspaper said that many of the torture victims were too afraid to talk of their ordeal. It quoted one young man who disclosed he had been "assaulted with a high-voltage device with electrodes 'like fingers.'" The PA is heavily funded by overseas contributions as well as taxes collected for it by the Israeli government. (Where is the International Condemnation or UN Investigation?) It Is Time to Learn from Enemies. In spite of the promises that Israel will not set up a committee to check charges made by the Goldstone Report, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu instructed Justice Minister Ya'akov Ne'eman to assemble a professional staff to submit proposals for dealing with the report. (PA/Hamas, as they have routinely done with any criticism, simply ignore the Goldstone Report!) Quote of the Week: "The government is freezing building in Judea and Samaria and dismantling outposts, at the same time that thousands of homes, warehouses, and other structures build illegally are spread throughout the Negev, with police ignoring the illegal activities of Bedouin lawbreakers" — MK Aryeh Eldad, head of the Hatikvah party. The Greatest Arab Achivement. A group of Lebanese chefs prepared a plate of hummus containing 1,350 kilograms of chickpeas in order to break the Guinness world record for the largest platter of hummus. The previous record was held by Israel. (Even this 'achievement' is a copy of a Jewish one!) UN's Duplicity on Illegal Homes. Jerusalem has razed five more illegal Arab structures including the homes of several Arab terrorists who carried out attacks while bearing Israeli identity cards. Nearly 70 homes have been demolished this year, but government officials previously have estimated that approximately 40,000 Arab homes in the capital have been built without permits. Immediately, the United Nations called on Israel to halt the demolition of Palestinian homes. (No such calls have been issued by 'Ugly Nothing' after Israel demolished 'illegal' homes of Jews in Judea and Samaria and evicted 8,500 Jews from Gaza five years ago!) Still the Best Islamic Produce. According to a UN report, Afghanistan, even while at war, is growing most of the opium in the world used to make heroin. ''90% of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan,'' said Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the UN office against drugs and crime. Anti-Patriot Vindictiveness of Israel's Legal System. A Jerusalem court cancelled indictments against two Zionist activists. Despite the fact that three years had passed since the indictments were handed down, police had failed to supply the evidence they to support claim, that the activists had attacked the officers. (In order to terrorize Jewish patriots morally and financially, it is quite common practice that baseless charges against them are dragged on for years by the Israeli legal system.) Delusional Forever. George Mitchell, the special United States envoy to the Middle East, said on Thursday evening that it was too early to call his efforts to renew talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority a failure. (It is time to look at implementation of another Two-States solution — the Sinai Option!) Hypocricy of the Headlines. Spain supports Palestinian statehood on 1967 borders. — Foreign Minister of Spain Miguel Angel Moratinos — I support the end of Spanish and French occupation of the Basque region. Why is it not in headlines? Dont Blame Israel for Failure. Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are unlikely to resume in the near future, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said: "The gap is still wide and Israel does not give a single sign of meeting its obligations under the road map..." (What sign have so-called the Palestinians made, beside the violence and rocket attacks, in pursuit of peace? They aren't even able to maintain peace among themselves!) Declare Peace Now Illegal. Member of Knesset Danny Danon (Likud) is working on legislation that would prohibit groups funded by foreign governments (in order to support the policies of Israel's enemies) from political activity and require them to register as foreign agents. Danon feels that Peace Now should be outlawed under the definitions of his proposed legislation. Obama Nobel Very Curious at Least! by Gil Ronen Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S President Barack Obama was a "very curious" decision, according to former Israeli envoy in Washington Yoram Ettinger: "In the international arena, Obama has failed thus far, both in the struggle against Iran which is constantly threatening and ignoring his calls, and regarding North Korea which is also hurling insults at him and continuing to threaten world peace... As for Al Qaeda — the fighting in Afghanistan is getting fiercer since he entered the White House and the situation in Iraq has not improved. In addition, Putin is advancing his aspirations which threaten the republics." Note: U.S. President Barak Obama has extended, for the second time, an allowance for the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Washington office. Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
MUSLIMS: WHERE ARE THE PROOFS?
Posted by Brother Shane, November 3, 2009. |
|
This was written by Cherson and it appeared July 17, 2008
on the FaithFreedom organization
I love this... |
|
Islam is the only true religion, you say. And where are the proofs? If you are the followers of the only true religion, then your God must help you. Look at the Jews; in spite of all the misfortunes, they managed to build the state you can only be envious of. It does not matter, if they got help form someone or not — YOU the Muslims get a lot more help than Israel, but still live many times worse. What matters is that they COULD build the prosperous state in just 60 years-and you, in 600, COULD NOT. Besides, they, with around 5 million people living in the country the size of New Jersey and without any oil or any natural resources whatsoever, beat you in all the wars you started. It does not matter, if America helped them or not; America helped Israel, and the USSR gave much more help to you. What matters is that they beat you. When a tiny country without any natural resources beat the block of countries which exceeds it 40 times in population, 100 times in territory and I do not even know how many times in natural resources — I call this a Miracle. If this happens 2 times in a row, it means that the God Almighty pays special attention to this tiny country. And if it happens 5 times in a row, I have no explanation except that this tiny people are, indeed, elected by God. So, the God Of Israel Helps His People. Look at the Christians. They ALSO live better than you, and they are stronger than you, in spite of the two bloodiest wars in just the last 70 years. So, their God helps them, too. And what about YOUR God? Your Allah? Judging by how you the Muslims live today (in Egypt, one of the most advanced and "prosperous" among the Islamic countries, 43% of the population live on, or better to say, starve on 1.5 dollars a day), it looks like your God has not helped you too much. You live on the verge of hunger, importing from 35% to 55% of the food you consume — with that the climatic conditions in the Arab countries are much better than, let's say, in Israel, which is, nonetheless, one of the world EXPORTERS of food. On the site of The Arab League you can find the list of the Muslims (mainly Arabs) whose contribution influenced the development of world civilization. The list is very impressive, but there is one feature the Arabs prefer not to talk about: it ends by the XIII century. Muslims, you spend on R&D (researches and development) only 0.4% of your rachitic GDP while Cuba, not a technological giant, spends 1.26% and Japan spends 2.9% of its enormous GDP on the scientific researches. I repeat: ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, and not on the investigations on the nature of Jiins and Hoors! According to UNESCO, 27% of Arab males and 49% of females (58 million of people, in total) are illiterate. Have you decided to copy your illiterate prophet in this, too, Muslims? If so, you should not have to weep that scientifically and technologically, you are at the level of Tropical Africa; you are where you have to be! But looks like you want to go further than your prophet! An average Arab studies 3.4 years (less-only in Tropical Africa). In Saudi Arabia, the richest of all the Arab countries, more than 25% of University graduates are the specialists in theology, and quite seriously investigate such a "serious" problem as the nature of hermaphrodites and what part of heritage the hermaphrodites have to get: the one of a woman-or the one of a man. Militarily, you are nothing. And without the American and European arms, you are even less than nothing. If it were not for the American and European arms, you would now have the weapons your forefathers used at Hittin and Poitier: sables and arches. I shall not humiliate you, Muslims, by comparing you to the USA or Japan (Japanese religiously are Pagans, by the way); near them you would look like an ant in the shadow of the elephant. It would be enough to say that the total GDP of the entire Arab world is somewhere close to $504-552 billion, which is roughly 1.8 to 2 times the gross state product of the State of Massachusetts. Let's compare your achievements with the achievements of some small country. Israel, for example: Jews, 5 million people living on a piece of land a bit more than a football camp, managed to develop the tank which is considered among the best tanks in the world. Where are YOUR tanks, Muslims? Your most modern variant of the battle field tank was that famous camel that Aisha was sitting on during The Battle of the Camel. After that-nothing you have done nothing. Israelis military plane, the "Levi", was initially built more than 30 years ago and is still serving in the armies of some Latin American countries. Where are YOUR planes, Muslims? The last Islamic flying apparatus I heard of was AlBuraq. Israel is one of the world's pharmaceutical leaders. Millions of people in the world are saved annually thanks to Israelis pharmaceutical achievements. What are YOUR pharmaceutical achievements, Muslims? The famous
advice by your "prophet" to drink camel urine as the All Cure
medicine? Narrated Abu Qilaba: "Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or
'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the
Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink
their milk and urine (as a medicine)...
In high-tech, to compare you — and Israel ...It's not even amusing. But maybe your Allah provided you with the level of life so high that and these "long-nosed sons of apes and monkeys" will tomorrow die of envy? No, they will not die. An average Israeli earns 1200-1400 dollars a
month. And an average Arab? 150 — 200 dollars.
Of course, you can go on calling them "apes", "monkeys", "long-nosed thieves" ...Maybe it will make you feel better. But for sure, it will not make you LIVE better. What are the proofs that your religion is the only true, then? Moreover, Muslims, there is a very strict dependence: the more you pray-the worse you live, and less is the role you play in the world. For the last 600 years, you could not have even approached the Glory of Umayyads or Abbasids dynasties. But, hey, wait a moment! There WAS a moment of Glory of Islam, and Muslims have demonstrated to the world that they CAN create things to be remembered and admired by the future generations! The Islamic Golden Age, 8-12 centuries. You just look at the names! Omar Khayam (1048-1122), Al-Zahrawi (936-1013), Al-Khowarizmi (780-850); Al-Biruni (973-1050), Al-Kindi (801-873), Al-Battani (850-929 CE), Ibn-Sina (973-1037), Abdallah al-Ma'arri (973-1057), Omar Khayam (1048-1122), Ibn-Rushd (1128-1198) and Jalaluddin Rumi (Birth 1207) However, there is something very interesting about that period of the Islamic Golden Age — from the time preceding and following that period. The Golden Age of Islam strangely coincides in time with the birth and development of the Islamic doctrine called Mutazili, originated during the period of 'Abbasid Caliphate' (749-847 AD). I call it "Islamic doctrine", but, as a matter of fact, Mutazili means "the deserter of Islam"! This theological doctrine originated in the 8th century in al-Basrah, Iraq, when Wasil Ibn´Atta after a theological discussion left to the people the teaching lessons of al-Hassan al-Basri. Thus, Ibn´Atta and his followers were labelled by these opponents "Mutazili" which means "deserter of Islam". The Mutazili theology expanded on the logic and rationalism of Greek philosophy, seeking to combine them with Islam, and show that they were inherently compatible. And do you know what questions were raised and openly debated by Muslims theologians and scholars at THAT time? For example, they calmly discussed, whether the Quran was created or if it was eternal. And do you know the conclusion of the discussion? The Mu'tazila scholars decided that the Quran had been created by Muhammad that it was not the Word of God. And nobody cut their heads, hands, feet and other important and not so important parts off their bodies. Among other questions openly, and without fear, discussed by the Islamic scholars at that time was whether or not evil was created by God, the issue of Predestination vs. Free Will, whether God's attributes in the Qur'an were to be interpreted allegorically or literally, and whether sinning believers would have eternal punishment in Hell. You may have thought that the Islamic leaders of that time ran around with swords in hand to cut off the heads of the "heretics"? Nothing of the kind. The doctrine that the Quran was not the Word of God but was created by Muhammad, which amounts to absolute heresy as per Classical Islam, was promoted by the, then Abbasid Caliph Haroon al-Rasheed (763-809), and was made the official court belief by his son, the great Caliph al-Mamun. Caliph al-Mamun even instituted inquisition-style persecution, called Mihna in Arabic meaning Ordeal (833-848), for those who would not accept the Mutazili ideology instead of Quranic Islam. You just imagine: until the 12th century the Muslims quite tolerantly accepted the idea that the Quran had been created by Muhammad, and did not run like a horde of amoc-driven hashish-smokers, to kill anyone who would dare to say this. And the Caliphate of Haroon AlRasheed and his son The Great Caliph al-Mamun are still remembered by the people for its freedom of thought and for that unbelievable push it gave to the sciences, literature, arts, technologies. But then... Mu'tazila belief system had a weak point; it was actively promoted by the Islamic Caliphs and was popular amongst the educated and intellectual elites — but did not reach the common mass. The dogmatic pro-Quran Muslims (today we should call them fundamentalists or Islamofascists) used this weak point in Mu'tazila. The dogmatic Quranic or Sunni Islam slowly started to dominate the Muslim thoughts and later Imam al-Ghazalli (d. 1111), the famous Ahadith-collector, provoked riots by challenging the rational thinking of Mu'tazila belief since it could not prove the reality of Allah. Famous intellectuals, such as Ibn-Sina, Ibn-Rusd, al-Ma'arri and Omar Khayam were called heretics or apostates by the Islamic zealots, such as Imam Ghazali. Subsequently, Mutazili started losing ground to the assaults of the Fundamentalist Muslims and finally lost patronage of the rulers and high officials. By the 13th Century, Mutazili was dead — and with that ended the so-called Golden Age of Islam. And since then — a lot of "AllahHuAkbar", a lot of prostrating, exaggerated attention to the formal side of Islam, suicide belts, burkhas, veils — on one side, and poverty, misery, hunger, backwardness — on the other. Fundamentalist Sunni Islam put an end to the development of Islamic World — and led it to stagnation, poverty and backwardness. Now, at least, I hope Muslims know who they have to hate. Contact Brother Shane at wisevirgin_777@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SHADES OF GRAY
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 3, 2009. |
|
In my last posting I expressed concern that Netanyahu had gone too far down a slippery slope with his unofficial agreement to freeze building in Judea and Samaria (after current building commitments are complete). I still feel so, but certain comments I've encountered have brought me back to my computer to say that I view my assessment of what he's done in shades of gray, and not a stark black and white. After posting, I received the inevitable comments (not many in number, actually) saying in essence, "See! I knew he couldn't be trusted. He's planning to give the country away." Well, I'm here to say that I, for one, don't know anything of the sort. Because Binyamin Netanyahu, for all his faults, is not Ehud Olmert, who couldn't wait to offer Abbas 98% of Judea and Samaria plus part of Jerusalem. Nor — thank Heaven — is he Tzipi Livni. I believe that he "gets it" in a way that neither of these individuals does. I know that his key advisor, Ron Dermer, is no left-winger, and that right now there is only silence from persons within his government such as Moshe Ya'alon and Bennie Begin. And I believe that whether his judgment turns out to be flawed or not, Netanyahu is basing his decisions on factors far more complex and nuanced than a simple desire to see a sovereign Palestinian state established in all, or most, of the land we reclaimed in 1967. ~~~~~~~~~~ MK Aryeh Eldad (Ihud Leumi — not part of the coalition) leveled a stinging critique of Netanyahu, charging that no other prime minister "[ever] put a stranglehold on Jewish settlement as Netanyahu has done." (a nod to Judith N here) Well, he's correct, but... The "but" is that no Israeli prime minister since Oslo has coped with an American president like Barack Obama; this means we cannot judge Netanyahu according to how other prime ministers behaved. The other prime ministers never faced the DEMAND that Netanyahu has. It might be said that facing off against Obama requires even more resilience and "no power" than the other prime ministers needed. But I would hate to be in Netanyahu's shoes right now. As those of you who read my postings regularly are well aware, Obama reneged on commitments made by (Bill) Clinton and Bush that acknowledged our right to continue to build inside communities in Judea and Samaria, with certain specific provisos. Obama, instead, made the demand that we stop completely, and that this be done as a pre-condition to negotiations. He ultimately dropped the second part of that demand precisely because Netanyahu did balk. But what Obama had done was set up a dynamic that made Abbas more intransigent, so that now the PA was echoing him and saying they wouldn't come to the table unless there was a freeze (even though they had willingly negotiated with Olmert with no freeze). Obama had backed himself into a corner. (I'll come back to this theme below.) There are those who would say that a corner is the best place for Obama to be, and that Netanyahu should have left him there. But here are shades of gray, for there are a vast number of implications to letting the American president hang out to dry. I don't know what was said between Netanyahu and Mitchell last week, in light of this impasse. I only know that the offer by Netanyahu followed — not that it turned out to be good enough for Abbas anyway. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then, lastly, we have this: The UN General Assembly is meeting in special session today to consider the Goldstone Report. There will be a debate on a draft resolution put together by the Arabs that was circulated on Monday; it would call on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to bring the report to the Security Council. It would also call on Israel to launch a full investigation into the charges of the report. (This is something Netanyahu has declined to do, I think wisely: it would suggest guilt. The IDF has already investigated and answered all charges. Enough.) This entire scenario is very ugly. That the resolution will pass is almost a certainty. What is being negotiated at present is whether it will receive the support of Western nations. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding in international law, as Security Council resolutions are, they are merely recommendations. But this resolution will carry far more clout and legitimacy if the Western nations support it. Here I want to point out what an (unnamed) Israeli official in New York said about this resolution, according to YNet: "At a time when we are debating restarting peace talks, this is not helpful to anyone." I read this and thought, "Ah ha!" Shades of gray. Has any other prime minister of Israel since Oslo faced a situation like this? Maybe, just maybe, Netanyahu knows what he's doing. Maybe we are so beleaguered, and so much in need of support from the West right now that a certain appearance of "give" on our part is necessary. Or we'll be the ones left to hang out to dry. At any rate, I think we all need to consider the complexity and the dangers of our current situation before we presume to judge our prime minister in black and white terms. ~~~~~~~~~~ Returning to that corner that Obama backed himself into: The Palestinians are quite upset with Obama, and Clinton. They think that leaving Jerusalem out of the equation and continuing to build 3,000 units before a freeze is put in place is no freeze at all. Reports Khaled Abu Toameh, one PA official in Ramallah said that the "mask has fallen off the face" of Obama. Once again, said this official, the US has shown that it is not an "honest broker" because of its "bias" towards Israel. It's difficult not to be amused by this. Obama, biased towards Israel? What this means, of course, is that Obama is not acting totally on behalf of the Palestinians. They said that Obama should "force" Israel to freeze construction. Force us? He couldn't force them to come to the table, but us he should force. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then the Palestinians fell back on their default position, which is threat of violence: Declared Nabil Abu Rudaineh, an Abbas spokesman, there may be a volcanic eruption because of Netanyahu's refusal to halt settlement construction. This reminds me of nothing more than a three year old who says, "If you don't give me candy right now, I'm going to hold my breath until I explode." I make fun, because the Palestinians are always making these threats (just as Abbas has threatened to resign about a hundred times). This is not the way a moderate group, interested in conciliation and negotiation, would act — although no one seems to notice this, or care. At the end of the day, however, it's not funny. Because down the road I do expect violence. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to Clinton, the Palestinians are annoyed that she said in her press conference that the US would not be demanding more of Israel and that the offer made by Netanyahu was "unprecedented." (The truth is that she knew no more would be forthcoming from Israel, and she was thrilled for what was conceded.) It is no surprise then that Clinton did a bit of backtracking after this. In Morocco, she said that the Israeli policy, while a positive step in the right direction, still fell short of what she would characterize as the US position on settlements. She had offered praise to Israel, she said, as "positive reinforcement." ~~~~~~~~~~ That Obama has backed himself into a corner with the Palestinians pales in comparison to how he's backed himself in a corner with Iran. The implications here are shameful and frightening. On this, I recommend Barry Rubin's latest piece, "Why does the US plan Iran's game?" "The great experiment of engaging Iran seems to be over but the Obama administration refuses to admit it. This shouldn't come as a surprise. As the Iranian regime's record shows, it stalls, maneuvers, gives vague promises and then doesn't deliver, but only after it's taken your concessions. Do you know how many years the talks with Iran have gone on without yielding fruit and letting Teheran develop nuclear weapons every day? Answer: Seven. "Do you know when the 'deadline' originally was for Iran to stop its nuclear program 'or else'? Answer: Approximately September 2007. "But the Obama administration doesn't want to admit that the new Iranian counteroffer is unacceptable because it would have to give up its dreams of a deal and actually do something in response."
~~~~~~~~~~ Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin gave a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday, and addressed issues connected to Iran. The nuclear facility in the city of Qom (a holy Shi'ite city) that was revealed recently has "no possible civilian use," said Yadlin. The Iranians, he said, are interested in a horizontal expansion of their nuclear production capacity, so that when they reach the point of wanting to develop their nuclear weapons capability, they can do so quickly. The Qom facility is designed for uranium enrichment. Obama, the ball is in your court. Your secretary of state told CNN last Friday that "I am going to let this process [negotiations with Iran] play out. We are going the extra mile, as we said we would." But this is simply not acceptable. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yadlin also told the Knesset Committee that Hamas has successfully tested a rocket, launching it into the Mediterranean, that has a 60 km. range. This brings Tel Aviv within rocket range. The speculation is that this is an Iranian made Fajr missile. What is more, Hamas does not see itself as having reached its full military capabilities. The group has been quiet in recent months for a number of reasons, including force-building and a desire to strengthen their civil rule in Gaza. ~~~~~~~~~~ The good news for today — and do we need good news! — is that it's raining here in Israel. Hard rain. Off and on for a few days now. It took a while to start, as we had unseasonally warm weather into the fall. But now that it has, it seems very serious indeed — above average fall. In this rain-starved part of the world, when the rains come everyone is delighted. "Baruch Hashem," a blessing from on high. Or, as my two-year-old grandson (too young to remember the rainy season last year) exclaimed: "mayim me'shamayim!" Water from heaven. May it continue. No shades of gray here. The rain turns the land green. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT
Posted by Kopts Moures, November 3, 2009. |
|
This article was written by Morris Sadek
and it appeared in
|
|
Since the dawn of history, the Jewish people have been a powerful force for peace and civility. Their remarkable contributions to civilization are a testimony to their love of the human race. Since Christianity came to Egypt in 57 A.D., we, the Christians of Egypt, have not had conflict with the Jewish people. Copts and Jews share a common history of centuries of persecutions by Muslims and Christians alike. Indeed, we share a deeply rooted appreciation for security and a yearning for peace. Copts have been a marginal population held in captivity for 16 centuries. They constitute the largest non-Arab, non-Muslim minority in the Middle East. The Coptic Orthodox Church, The Church of Alexandria, is arguably the oldest organization in the Middle East. It continues to exist and function as it has done so uninterrupted since 57 A.D. Despite this distinguished history, it is a church that has been under siege since the Islamic invasion. The Church's relations with foreign counties is dictated by the Arab government of Egypt. Since the humiliating 1967 defeat of the Arab government of Egypt in the Six-Day War, the Christians of Egypt have been allowed to immigrate to the United States, where several human rights organizations have actively worked to expose the heinous crimes committed against the Copts in Egypt. These organizations have generally avoided the public, which addresses the Arab-Israeli conflict. The National American Coptic Assembly in the U.S. recognizes that it is in the best interest of the Coptic people to develop and declare a position regarding the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our outline of our position is as follows: We recognize the sacred right of the state of Israel and the Israeli people to the land of historic Israel. "The right of return" of the Jewish people to the land of their foremothers and forefathers is a sacred right. It has no statute of limitation. The return must continue to enrich the Middle East. We recognize Jerusalem as simply a Jewish city. It must never be divided. She is, and shall always be, the united capital of Israel. The future of the Palestinians lies with the Arab states. A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria constitute an imminent danger to world peace. We believe that the Wahabi/Muslim Brotherhood's religious ideology and its power structures are threats not only to Israel and other non-Arab, non-Muslim peoples in the Middle East, but also to world peace. We believe that the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the achievement of a genuine peace in the Middle East can only be visible. In any current or future peace treaty among all parties involved in the Middle East conflict, the following must be part of such a treaty: All parties to this treaty recognize Mecca and Medina to be the holiest cities in Islam, whereas Christian and Jewish parties to this treaty give up and surrender in full any and all legal and historical rights to these cities. All parties to this treaty recognize a united Middle East. In conclusion, Copts and Jews share the same history in the Middle East. Both populations had been living prior to the rise of Islam. They also faced a great magnitude of discrimination and persecution during the past 1400 years. However, Copts are not seeking to create their own state, like Jews. Morris Sadek is President of the National American Coptic Assembly. Contact him at morrissadek@ymail.com |
|
MORE LIES ABOUT JEWISH SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Truth Provider, November 3, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, Two-faced Hilary Clinton continues to disseminate lies about the "illegality" of Jewish settlements (I call them communities) in Judea & Samaria. First, while in Israel three days ago, she accepted, even praised, PM Netanyahu's policy on the settlements. Then, a mere one day later, in Morocco, she reversed herself and called the settlements illegal. She added that all US Administrations regarded those settlements illegal.
"For 40 years, successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel's settlement policy. That is absolutely a fact." "And the Obama Administration's position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." This is not true! Her predecessor, Madeleine Albright, said in an interview on NBC that while the settlements are legal, they were not helpful.
In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's The Today Show on October 1, 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright related to building in Yesha and said: "I wasn't happy.I felt that going forward with those kinds of buildings was not helpful. Mr. Lauer pressed her and stated: " It's legal. ", and Albright admitted: "It's legal." It is high time that all of you, my readers, should be aware of the fact that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are 100% legal by any standard. See below the letter Eugene Rostow wrote to the NY Times in which he explains why they are legal. It is outrageous that Israel is pressured to remove entire Jewish communities from their homes and livelihood and hand their lands and properties to the Arabs, thus allowing the Arabs a Jewish-free state, while Israel continues be a home for 1.2 million Arabs. Your Truth Provider, Yuval. The text of the letter that appears below in full was written to the editor of the New York Times by Eugene V. Rostow in 1992 — a former Undersecretary of State of State in the Johnson Administration. It presents evidence that Israeli governments have and are betraying the Jewish people's rights to their lands in the Mandate of Palestine. |
|
Wednesday, April 1, 1992 EDITORIALS/LETTERS
Israeli Settlement and the Geneva Convention To the Editor: I apologize for an error in "Agreements Don't Bar West Bank Settlements" (letter, March 18), on the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which states that "international lawyers differ on whether the 1949 Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, because Israel is not a signatory." Both Israel and Jordan did sign and ratify the convention, Israel with a reservation. The error does not affect my argument, however. Article 2 of the convention provides that the agreement applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a high contracting party." Thus the convention cannot apply because the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip have never been generally recognized as territories of Jordan. Jordan administered them as a belligerent occupant between 1948 and 1967 after a war of aggression against Israel in 1948. Jordan's attempt to annex these areas in 1950 was recognized only by Britain (except for Jerusalem) and perhaps by Pakistan. In any event, Jordan has formally renounced whatever claims it may have had to the territory, which is a residual part of the Palestine Mandate and therefore subject to the rights of "the Jewish people" to make "close settlement" on the land. I regard this aspect of the controversy as legally more important than arguments based on the Geneva Convention. Eugene V. Rostow
To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
ARAB STATES FORMINGJOINT NAVY; ODD DEMOLITION ORDER FOR JEWS'
HOUSES; POLICE FAVOR ARAB SQUATTERS OVER JEWISH OWNER
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 3, 2009. |
|
NY TIMES BEFOGS J STREET CONTROVERSY The NY Times befogged the J Street controversy by its usual, subtly biased omission, under-statement, and misstatement. The article leaves readers uninformed and misinformed, therefore reliant upon the newspaper's slant. The fog sets in with the headline, "A Moderate in America's Jewish Lobby Causes a Stir." As usual, no definition of "moderate" or "extreme." It uses those terms editorially as praise and pejorative, to steer readers. Readers want to be on the side of moderates rather than extremists, don't they? Journalists Neil A Lewis and Mark Landler also do not specify who is "moderate," but implies it is J Street. That hints that other organizations in the Jewish Lobby are not moderate, denounced by implication and not facts. That is unfair and, I believe, incorrect. The authors do not use facts, just emotion. For greater accuracy, the lobby should be called the " Israel lobby." The context here is Israel and not other Jewish issues. I define J Street as "extremist," because it is anti-Zionist against all reason, as my earlier articles show. It opposes all Israeli means of self-defense, demanding concessions only of Israel, concessions that risk national security especially while the Arabs are moving toward war. J Street also opposes not only destruction of Iran nuclear weapons facilities but also sanctions. That harms U.S. security. Considering the heavy funding of J Street by Arab and Iranian Muslims, its inviting a pro-terrorist U.S. organization to speak at its conference, and dropping "pro-Israel" from its campus slogans, J Street is in the jihad lobby, not the "Jewish lobby." "What is the appropriate role for American Jews in supporting Israel?" Shouldn't the " U.S. have some room to disagree with Israel's government in order to be a more effective broker in the region?" Opponents of J Street assert that such a position encourages Arab "obduracy." J Street contends that AIPAC requires the U.S. to "support the Israeli government too reflexively." Some American Jews "have grown more weary" with Obama's policy towards Israel. The main point of contention is over Obama's demand to freeze settlement construction. Israelis now see Obama only 4% favorably. Such is how Lewis and Landler frame the issues here. Full of omission and understatement. A sophisticated understanding would be that governments have ideologies, politics, and blunders. We should not confuse a government with its country's national security. Governments often impair their countries' national interests. Therefore, it is does not help Israel to support its government reflexively, nor should the State Dept. and U.S. Presidents, as now, oppose its government reflexively. The Israel lobby here sometimes gets confused about that. AIPAC does not take on every issue, such as many of the arms-for-Arabs deals. The Zionist Organization of American, not mentioned in the article, has a Zionist ideology which prompts it to guard Israel's national interests to the point that it does rebuke the government of Israel when it betrays the national interest. The Obama administration, like the last couple of years of the Bush administration, like the State Dept. since before Israel was formed, doesn't just "disagree" with some policies of Israeli regimes. They disapprove of all Israeli policies on the Arabs except ones of appeasement. Therefore, it is not a matter of opinion that the Arabs, encouraged by this U.S. support, however much for propaganda they whine that the U.S. does not support them, are obdurate. They are obdurate. The Times' 11/1 article cites Abbas as admitting he won't negotiate because he has U.S. support. Rescued by the U.S. from every war on Israel they started, the Arabs rebuild armies for another round. Finding the U.S. pressing only Israel, they either demand more or refuse to negotiate. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has not implemented any peace measures it signed up for, under Oslo, in 1993. Now the Quartet unilaterally says it will excuse the P.A. from similar requirements under the Road Map, while it prepares the still-terrorist P.A. for statehood and combat for you know what but Obama pretends is against terrorism. Therefore the issue is not just settlements nor whether the U.S. is too pro-Israel, but that the U.S. makes stiff demands on Israel and only on Israel, demands that would deprive Israel of secure borders and go far beyond UN Resolution 242 and international law. The fact that only 4% of Israelis favor Obama's policies indicate he has gone too far in the other direction. Does that seem as if the U.S. were "reflexively" supportive of Israel? What would be wrong with totally supporting Israel, when it is the victim of Arab aggression and Muslim terrorism, as it follows international law in building in its own homeland? The article cites polls about U.S. Jewish opinion. Those polls reflect the paper's views, whereas studies of such polls find they are skewed and that valid polls find that more than half of U.S. Jews disapprove of Obama's policy toward Israel. I have discussed both types of polls, but the NY Times cites only the one type. The question here is what polls reveal or conceal. In my opinion, editors use polls as excuses and politicians use them as road maps. I think that strategic issues require certain policies regardless of polls. CLINTON & LEGITIMACY OF JEWISH SETTLEMENTS Sec. Clinton said, "It's also the fact that for forty years, Presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements..." (www.imra.org.il,10/31). The fact is that Obama is the first President to question [and deny] the legitimacy of Jewish construction in the Territories. The Oslo Accords that the U.S. brokered in 1993 does not restrict Jewish construction in the Territories. Neither does the Road Map, also brokered by the U.S.. Clinton and Obama, you may recall, also forgot or deny that Pres. Bush wrote a letter to PM Sharon reassuring Israel that it would be legitimate to retain and incorporate the large settlement blocks near the present State of Israel. She has difficulty with memory and history. Foreign Min. Lieberman pointed out that the Palestinian Authority had not before made Jewish settlement freeze a pre-condition for negotiation. As the NY Times stated on 11/1, Abbas brought that up because he felt it had Obama's backing. \ SOME ARAB STATES FORMING A JOINT NAVY The Gulf Cooperation Council and Arab states on the Red Sea have begun forming a joint navy, as an experiment. They say its purpose is to protect the region from piracy. They need freedom of navigation to export their oil (www.imra.org.il, 1/1). Or are they also polling resources against Iran's navy? SAUDIS STARTING BIG DESALINATION PLANT A French company is constructing a desalination and power plant in Saudi Arabia to supply 5.5 million people. The brief did not make clear how the electricity would be produced (www.imra.org.il, 1/1). As oil exporting countries consume cars and electricity for their own growing population of natives and aliens, they may impinge on already short supplies for foreign countries. This makes oil independence here all the more vital. ODD DEMOLITION ORDER FOR JEWS' HOUSES IN BEIT EL In 2000, the government of Israel built housing infrastructure on
land bought from its Arab owner. It is the site of the traditional
dream by Jacob of angels on the ladder to Heaven, where God promised
the Jews all the land around. Now the government issued demolition
orders for the several apartment buildings on site. The Supreme Court
asked the government how it could take both sides of the same issue
"Illegal Jewish housing" mostly is a myth. Illegal Arab housing mostly is unpublicized. POLICE FAVOR ARAB SQUATTERS OVER JEWISH OWNER Seventeen years ago, Yitchak Kerskovitz started legal proceedings to clear a clan of squatters off his property. I reported earlier stages: "The Arab clan, known as the Salahs, has been found by two Israeli courts to have illegally taken over Herskovitz's property, and to have brought false evidence in the course of attempting to prove their own ownership. Despite these rulings, years of legal wrangling by the Arab clan have enabled them to continue to reside on property not theirs — nor have they totally fulfilled the court's condition that they pay $250 of monthly rent to a third-party account." Israeli police refused to enforce the court orders, and the courts refused to compel the police. This time the judge gave the owner eviction papers, but since police wouldn't serve it, he would have to serve it, himself. The judge advised, Herskovitz, now 78 years old, to bring armed guards. He had two, plus his lawyer, a 63-eyar-old with a pacemaker, and the lawyer's wife. They found the clan notified. With large rocks, at least 20 of them smashed the windshield, damaged the car badly, and wounded two men in head and chest. Press reports again blamed the Jews. Realizing their mortal danger, the lawyer fired into the air, enabling them to get away. The videotape showed that the notice officially served and no Arab hurt. The Arabs called police. Police caught up with the owner's car and arrested all occupants. Their lawyer got all released except the lawyer, taken away in leg irons and charged with firing in a built-up area. Police tried to get him to incriminate himself, although he had to do their job of enforcing the law and then had to protect himself and his clients. A couple of days later, the lawyer was taken before a judge. The judge realized a man of his age and heart condition was not looking for a fight but did wish to defend himself and his party, without injuring anyone, if possible. The judge released him on his own cognizance and ordered him to avoid that property for 30 days. Police took his gun away, promising to return it. They usually take months to return weapons, if they ever do. Police did not take anything away from their assailants nor arrest them for their obvious assault on two men and car. The property owner intends to file a complaint against the assailants. "The Arabs claimed, and some English-language media reported as
fact, that four of" them were hurt. Te lawyer said, "I shot in the
air, as the video shows, and the Arabs lied and claimed that I hit
them. One Arab said he was shot in the hand, but the police agreed
with me that" the powerful weapon would have done more than scratch
his hand
Israeli police side with Arabs against Jews, in matters of violence and property. ISRAELI TEXTBOOK NO LONGER A HISTORY BOOK Israel prepared a high school textbook having equal space for the
Arab and Jewish sides of the conflict. "It has pages split in half,
on one side of which it gives the 'Jewish version,' meaning historic
facts, and on the other side it gives the 'Arab version,' meaning the
usual set of disinformation and lies about the 'Nakba,' about Jews
supposedly carrying out ethnic cleansing of Arabs in 1948, and so on
Prof. Steven Plaut ponders debating in the same split-page format whether Israeli Leftists should be stripped of their citizenship and deported as traitors. "The book could offer arguments pro and con in a balanced and even-handed manned on pages split in half." "You know, all for the sake of balance and pluralism and hearing both sides!" (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/22.) ISRAELI ARAB ATTEMPTS VEHICULAR HOMICIDE An Israeli Arab driver from Jerusalem approached a checkpoint near Bethlehem. Instead of slowing down and going through the security check, he ignored soldiers' orders, accelerated, drove at the soldiers, and sped through. The soldiers caught up with him at "a nearby gas station. They directed the driver to stop the vehicle. He did not abide by their calls, and instead attempted to run them over. "The soldiers first fired warning shots in the air, then at the tires of the vehicle and when the driver still refused to stop they fired toward him. A paramedic team arrived at the scene and confirmed his death." www.imra.org.il, 9/22). RABBI'S QUANDARY WITH ANTI-JEWISH POLICE Rabbi Mordechai Ganiram runs a yeshiva in the Hebron Hills area. He rehabilitates youths having minor police records, and gets them into the Army. A group of Arab shepherds infiltrated the town of Eshtamoa, and
approached his yeshiva. Three yeshiva students went out and yelled at
the Arabs, to scare them off. It worked. However, the Arabs told
police they were attacked. Police asked Rabbi Ganiram about it. He
told them what happened. They asked the names of the three students.
Ganiram refused to tell, knowing that if he did, innocent as they
were, the police would get them put on trial, on the word of the Arab
infiltrators. It might ruin their lives. So, he was indicted,
instead. If he had not cooperated with the police, and had kept
silent, he would be free
OBAMA WANTS TO OVERRIDE ISRAELI DEMOCRACY "Obama made it clear during the meeting that he was interested in resuming the negotiations between the sides "about all outstanding issues" based on the talks and signed agreements since the beginning of the Oslo process 16 years ago." "There's an historical record of the entire past negotiations and there are principles," he said. "We won't start the negotiations from scratch, we will not take the historical record and toss it aside. Nor will we wait for the perfect formula." "To paraphrase President Obama: It is one thing for the American people to be empowered to elect me to make massive changes in policy via the ballot box — that's the United States of America. That's democracy at home. But democracy abroad is a completely different story. If Ehud Olmert offered almost complete withdrawal when he served as prime minister (that's "offered" — no deal was consummated) and the electorate voiced its rejection of this approach in an election that lead to the forming of a ruling coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu then frankly, I don't give a damn about what a bunch of Israelis did at the ballot box." (Dr. Aaron Lerner, (www.imra.org.il, 9/23). Obama abandoned democratic movements in Iran, Honduras, etc.. CNN'S WOLF BLITZER INTERVIEWED PM NETANYAHU CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer interviewed PM Netanyahu. The only reason Netanyahu gave for Israel to hold on to the Territories is security (www.imra.org.il, 9/23). He omitted the Jewish people's historical, religious, and legal case. He isn't right-wing! He theorized about the Palestinian Arabs officially and sincerely accepting Israel as a Jewish state. That would abandon the religious basis for their struggle against it. The chances of a sincere and internalized acceptance is remote. Is that why Obama is pressing Israel hard to accept what is offered? When Obama refers to sacrifices and risks for peace, asked of Israel and not of the Arabs, he's resurrecting the land-for-peace policy that has failed, because the Arabs are not warring just for land but for religion. Although a former Muslim, our President does not seem to recognize the religious basis for the Arab-Israel conflict and indeed for jihad all over the world. He is failing to deal with America's primary security threat and is failing to deal properly with its follow-up security threat, the degradation of the U.S. economy by the lobbies. U.S. WARNS SYRIA OVER LEBANON The U.S. State Department warned Syria that it would stop trying to get Syria-Israel peace negotiations resumed unless Syria helps Lebanon form a Cabinet. Cabinet formation is stymied, as Hizbullah demands controlling Cabinet seats. Syria is striving to regain influence in Lebanon, through that process. An al-Qaida ally declared it had fired a rocket at Israel (www.imra.org.il, 10/31). Gaza fires rockets, again, too. Not a good sign. It contradicts claims that Israeli combat in Lebanon and Gaza restored Israeli deterrence against attack, unless dissidents opened fire against the wishes of Hizbullah and Hamas. Too many are coming from Gaza, which is tightly controlled by Hamas, for to be likely. RUSSIA MAY HAVE TURNED CHECHNYA ISLAMIST Chechnya had rebelled against Russia apparently for nationalist reasons. Russia reacted so severely, that the fighting, which at first had died down, has resumed, with both guerrilla and terrorist tactics and apparently a Radical Muslim orientation. The rebels promise justice. The Washington Post supposes that Russian brutality acted to radicalize Chechnyans. The newspaper thinks that Russia has been catering to Iran's nuclear ambitions, lest Iran support the rebels (www.imra.org.il, 10/31). When a dictator oppresses democratic or moderate opposition, more radical groups tend to pick up the banner of discontent. U.S. RESCUES DOZENS OF YEMENITE JEWS The U.S. has just rescued a few dozen Yemenite Jews. Although Israel had airlifted 49,000, early in its statehood, a couple of thousand remained. For the past few decades, this remainder was stuck there and intimidated from outside contacts. "For three decades there were no telephone calls, no letters, no traveling overseas. Few people outside of Israel even knew of their existence. With the recent civil wars in Yemen and Israeli combat in Gaza has come antisemitism among the masses, not the government. Yemenite Muslims accuse Jews of working for Israel and of corrupting Muslim morals. Jews mostly are afraid to leave their houses. When they do, they dress as Muslims, so as not to be easily identifiable (Miriam Jordan, Wall St. J., 11/1, A1). Muslim Arab persecution of Jews never has ended. How foolish and paranoid to accuse the beleaguered Yemenite Jews of aiding Israel and corrupting Muslim morals! Those Muslims could do a lot for their morals by stopping their persecution. Later the State Dept. explained its motive as wanting to prevent the Jews' persecution in order to spare further embarrassment to the Yemeni regime, which the U.S. is trying to save from Islamist overthrow. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
CHATHAM HOUSE MAN 'FIRED' BECAUSE OF PRO-ISRAEL BOOK
Posted by Daily Alert, November 3, 2009. |
|
This was written by Simon Rocker and it appeared in the
Jewish Community Online
|
|
The author of a new book sympathetic to Israel believes his views ultimately cost him his job at the UK's most prestigious foreign-affairs think tank. Robin Shepherd, whose new book, A State Beyond the Pale — Europe's Problem with Israel explores hostility towards the Jewish state, says his pro-Israel position put him at odds with the leadership of London's Chatham House. At a book launch at a London synagogue last week, Mr Shepherd recalled an op-ed piece he had written for The Times in January 2008 defending Israel's actions against terrorism, which had resulted in an "aggressive" email from Chatham House director Robin Niblett. "It didn't result in my leaving immediately," he said, "but it broke the relationship I had with my boss at the time." In the article, Mr Shepherd blamed Hamas for the situation in Gaza and hit out at the "frenzied onslaught" against Israel among commentators in Europe. He contended that the rockets fired by Palestinians since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza defeated the argument, put by "apologists for extremism", that occupation, rather than ideology, was the root cause of terrorism. But Dr Niblett wrote that the article was "polemical in tone and content" and that he was concerned at the "potential damage you have done to the institute's reputation for thoughtful and balanced insight". He wrote: "I do not have confidence in your knowledge of the situation in Gaza or of what motivates terrorists there to lob rockets on Israeli civilians. I do have confidence in your knowledge of European politics.... I hired you for the latter, not the former." But Mr Shepherd, who joined another think tank, the Henry Jackson Society, in March this year, said his Chatham House contract had included the writing of a book on European attitudes to Israel. "What particularly shocked me about the whole affair is that at an institute with a mission statement of 'independent thinking on international affairs', I was subjected to such fierce intimidation for honestly-held views about European attitudes to Israel," Mr Shepherd said. Another former employee of the institute recalled that "all hell broke loose" at the time of the article and claimed that the institute basically adopted a "pro-Palestinian" line. But Dr Niblett said this week that the institute's work on Israel was "fair and objective" and that the record of its Middle East programme over the last two or three years "speaks for itself. We have good relationships with a number of Israeli organisations including Bicom. We do events with them, we do events on Israel and we have two Israeli associate fellows at Chatham House." He declined to comment on Mr Shepherd's claims. Asked whether the Israeli Embassy had suspended its membership of Chatham House, Dr Niblett said: "It's fair to say that a conversation is going on, but their membership has not lapsed from our perspective, and there is nothing in writing saying that it has." He said he was due to see the Israeli ambassador shortly. "I'm pretty confident we are going to be on the same sheet at the end of the process," he said. A spokesman for the Embassy would say only that it was in "candid correspondence" with Chatham House. 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 |
|
'PERFIDIOUS ALBION' AND JEWISH LEADERS
Posted by Isi Leibler, November 3, 2009. |
|
The British and French foreign ministers, both of whom have Jewish ancestors, are now among the most vociferous European critics of Israel. This was reaffirmed by their odious "absence" from the vote on the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. Under these circumstances one would expect leaders of the well-established Anglo-Jewish community to have lobbied their government in advance and made it aware of the sentiments shared by the vast majority of British Jews. However, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which purports to be the voice of Anglo-Jewry, procrastinated until after the UN vote. This was no surprise because Anglo-Jewish leaders have a long tradition of burying their heads in the sand, determined not to rock the boat under any circumstances. A few years ago, Henry Grunwald, the recently retired president of the Board of Deputies, even wrote an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post expressing pride in the effectiveness of a policy based on "whispering" rather than "shouting." That approach is reflected by public demonstrations of solidarity with the Jewish state being deferred until forced under pressure from the Jewish street; inadequately confronting anti-Semites like the former mayor of London; and insufficiently opposing those seeking to boycott and delegitimize Israel.
THREE RECENT disconcerting events signal that the newly elected Board of Deputies president, Vivian Wineman (a former head of the UK branches of Peace Now and the New Israel Fund) is unlikely to deviate from this craven approach. The first relates to Robin Shepherd, a distinguished non-Jewish academic who until recently was a senior research fellow in charge of the European program of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). In 2008 Shepherd was forced to resign after having incurred the wrath of Chatham House director Robert Niblett over an article published in The Times expressing a more balanced approach to Israel. He currently serves as head of the Henry Jackson Society, and has just released a new book titled A State Beyond the Pale — Europe's Problem with Israel. It is a chilling but outstanding analysis of why Europe has turned against Israel, which I commend as essential reading for anyone engaged in Jewish advocacy. Three months ago Shepherd wrote an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post reviewing the dramatic upsurge of anti-Israeli feelings in the United Kingdom, and warned that with a partial arms embargo already in place and the British unions advocating trade and academic boycotts, "the darkness is closing in... for the Jews of Britain." He also predicted that "the prospect of increasing anti-Semitism... is only too clear." In lieu of conveying appreciation to a scholar of Shepherd's caliber for courageously exposing the hypocritical behavior of his government toward Israel, Wineman wrote to The Jerusalem Post lambasting Shepherd as "being misguided and alarmist." Disregarding public opinion polls in which Israel emerges as the greatest threat to world peace, Wineman insisted that Israel bashers represented an inconsequential minority, and that the state of UK-Israel relations was no worse than other countries. This incident was a mere curtain raiser for subsequent events. At a time when Jewish communities worldwide were intensively lobbying their governments to vote against endorsing the Goldstone Report, the Board of Deputies remained passive until after Britain had shamefully "absented" itself from the vote, by which time a board statement condemning government behavior could no longer influence policy. Prior to the vote, Jonathan Hoffman, a vice president of the Zionist Federation, had initiated a petition urging the British government to reject the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. Instead of commending his initiative, the vice president of the Board of Deputies, Jerry Lewis, whose role is to "promote advocacy on behalf of the Jewish community" and who had maintained a deafening silence on the Goldstone Report, engaged in a vitriolic public outburst defaming Hoffman. He alleged that "given his position he [Hoffman] should be far more cognizant of the necessity of acting with common sense, and not unilaterally in ways which damage both Israel's case and beyond."
THE MOST bizarre act of all was yet to come. On October 19 the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) hosted a banquet to honor the retired Board of Deputies president, Henry Grunwald. The JLC is comprised primarily of wealthy individuals who contribute generously to the Jewish community and consider themselves accountable to nobody. They provide funds to operate the board, which in return is expected to toe their line. Needless to say problems arise because whereas wealth and political astuteness are not necessarily incompatible, some tycoons prove to be political buffoons. What transpired when 100 "leaders" of Anglo-Jewry assembled to express tribute to Grunwald boggles the mind. The guest of honor was none other than the British Foreign Minister David Miliband. Prior to the dinner, a board subcommittee "decided" that as this was a "social" event, the speakers must avoid "embarrassing" the foreign minister, and were prohibited from even mentioning Goldstone's name in his presence. Like disciplined soldiers, the chairman of the evening, Mick Davis, who heads the JLC executive committee and UJIA, Wineman and the other speakers all followed orders. In the presence of their foreign minister none of them made any effort toward conveying the distress of the Jewish community over the government's behavior with respect to the Goldstone Report. Indeed, not only was a curtain of silence imposed relating to Goldstone, but aside from a few asinine remarks by Grunwald (apparently after Miliband's departure) about the visit to the UK by President Shimon Peres and Israel's 60th anniversary, Israel was not even mentioned. Miliband was thus able to inform his parliamentary colleagues that the Jewish community was not problematic and that its leaders had not only ignored the Goldstone Report but even failed to relate to Israel in any meaningful manner. One is compelled to ask: How is it possible in the immediate wake of such shameful behavior by their government that self-respecting leaders of a major Jewish community can behave in such a cowardly manner in the presence of their foreign minister? Such conduct explains why the British Jewish anti-Zionist fringe groups seem to make a greater impact on the media than the spineless communal establishment. The time has surely come for British Jews to say enough is enough. They should replace these "trembling Israelites" with leaders who recognize that silence is not always golden but is sometimes just yellow, and that Jewish self-respect demands that we speak up and present a dignified viewpoint as proud Jews. ADDENDUM: POSTSCRIPT TO PERFIDIOUS ALBION AND JEWISH LEADERS December 3, 2009
Readers will recall my condemnation of the behavior of Anglo Jewish leaders in a recent article. My concerns about the caliber of Anglo Jewish leaders were reinforced this week when I learned of an interview aired on the BBC Radio on Monday (Manchester Jewish program) with the treasurer of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a Mr. Lawrence Brass. Brass welcomed the settlement freeze and added that he wished it had been extended to Jerusalem. He also stated "We [The Board of Deputies] must not be seen to be an extension of the Israeli Embassy which I think previous regimes have been" ... In most Jewish communities such outbursts by a purportedly mainstream communal leader would not be tolerated. His constituents would demand that he withdraw such remarks and apologize or resign forthwith. It will be interesting to follow the outcome.
Contact Isi Leibler at ileibler@netvision.net.il
This article was published in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
|
|
J STREET HOLDS ANTI-ZIONIST CONFERENCE; WHAT "PALESTINIAN LAND?";
FATAH MEN PLEAD NOT TO BE SENT BACK TO GAZA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 2, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL DEMOLISHES ILLEGAL EU CONSTRUCTION Israel demolished illegal EU construction in Judea. Sponsored by the EU, Oxfam constructed pools and terraces within the municipal bounds of Kiryat Arba, near Hebron, without Israeli permits and for Arabs who do not own the land. The Arabs have many thousands of illegal structures in the area
TWO MEN IN NEW YORK CHARGED WITH TERRORISM The pair thought they were dealing with Hamas, but it was an FBI agent for whom they furnished weapons and other materials for Hizbullah (www.imra.org.il, 10/28). I approve of stings that apprehend people who already committed crimes, but am uneasy about the legitimacy of stings that tempt people to commit crimes. Tempted, some people commit crimes they otherwise might not have. Without temptation, some people might not commit crimes they otherwise do. In this case, the arrested men certainly showed a criminal disposition. This kind of terrorism case may be suited for civilian courts. IS UNIFIL STOPPING HIZBULAH FROM REARMING? Is UNIFIL stopping Hizbullah from rearming? The Lebanese Army recently intercepted four rocket launchers ready to be fired. What is the story? UNIFIL usually prevents Hizbullah from rearming outside of villages. Hence, Hizbullah brings its arms into hundreds of villages [endangering civilians more]. Explosions in villages, and IDF videos, have demonstrated this tactic. When Hizbullah blocks off the area around such explosions, so it can remove the evidence, UNIFIL forces usually wait until the cordon is removed. Then it claims that it detects no arms caches and the area is peaceful (www.imra.org.il, 10/28). I think that Hizbullah must be almost finished rearming. When will it strike? ISRAEL'S PERES TURNS RABIN MEMORIAL POLITICAL Israel's President Peres delivered a political speech about former PM Rabin, who was assassinated. In the speech, he identified the slain Rabins' policies with his. Actually, Rabin opposed formation of an Arab state in the Territories. He was more right-wing then than Likud is now (www.imra.org.il, 10/29). Peres, in effect, assassinated the beliefs of Rabin, from whose death he inherited the premiership. J STREET HOLDS ANTI-ZIONIST CONFERENCE At its inaugural conference, J Street removed "pro-Israel" from its student affiliates' slogan, let it embarrass them. The conference was notably anii-Zionist. "Indeed, some J Street Conference attendees openly said they had problems describing themselves as Zionists." An invited panelist, Hillary Mann Leverett, denounced criticism over Iran's nuclear negotiating tactics [of delay, changed mind, non-commitment or raising demands after an agreement, arranging to boost weapon-making capability] as "fundamentally racist," because it is "reinforcing stereotypes of Iranian duplicity." "Also addressing the Conference was Salam Al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), despite the fact that he has called for Israel's destruction and blamed Israelis for 9/11. Leaders of MPAC have also praised both Hamas and Hizballah." Union for Reform Judaism's Rabbi Eric Yoffie, himself a prominent leftist, criticized the Goldstone U.N. report on Gaza as distorted. Earlier, Rabbi Joffie had criticized J Street for not joining most Jews in the U.S. and in Israel in supporting the Gaza military. The audience loudly booed him. Some attendees proposed conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on new concessions, but did not propose the same for the Palestinian Authority, "despite its not having fulfilled its obligations to end terrorism and incitement to hatred and murder." The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, "References to the creation of a Palestinian state frequently garnered loud applause at sessions, though talk of a Jewish homeland received little crowd reaction." Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) said he was proud to have refused to vote for a Congressional resolution "to condemn a hateful 1994 anti-Semitic speech by an official of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, Khalid Abdul Muhammad. ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "Have matters really come to this pass where a mainly Jewish group is opposed to condemning anti-Semitism? No less absurd and perturbing is the reason given for opposing condemning an anti-Semitic speech — that one must protect the right to free speech. Since when has the right to free speech meant that one may not express one's own view — if it is one's own view — that the speech..." merits condemnation? Can J Street still pretend to be a pro-Israel organization? Does it? (10/29 press release from ZOA, headquartered in New York City, and of which I am a member.) As J Street tears off its pro-Israel mask, will it be able to complete with AIPAC? PERES PROPOSES ARAB STATE BEFORE FINAL STATUS Israeli President Peres proposes statehood for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) before a final status agreement determines its [and Israel's] boundaries and other major issues. His reason? Then they would strive to justify the grant. [Arafat and Le Duc Tho each was awarded a Nobel prize, but instead of striving to justify it, they made war.] He patronizes the Arabs by suggesting that they wouldn't continue working to fulfill their aspirations [first to take over Israel]. More likely, those Arabs would use the sovereignty, which cannot be rescinded despite violations of promises made to attain it, to promote their aspirations. They know that most of the world would sympathize with their continuing struggle against the "occupation," to define their borders [as the P.A. wishes them to be]. With sovereignty, foreign military aid to them need no longer be small and secret. The world would demand of Israel, and only of Israel, that it be "flexible," and accede to P.A. demands. They would tell Israel, don't block peace now after having made so much progress — meaning making the other concessions. They would chide Israeli reluctance [and not Arab demands] as "hard line." Israeli security operations would be subject to even greater international review, criticism and even sanctions as they are carried out within sovereign Palestine." Peres' proposal would increase regional instability. He is more of an anarchist than a diplomat (Dr. Aaron Lerner, www.imra.org.il, 10/29). Peres is a post-Zionist, a form of anti-Zionist. For decades, he has been proposing appeasement of the enemy, blithely as if they were not the enemy. WHAT "PALESTINIAN LAND?" Israel's Deputy Foreign Min. Ayalon covered a lot of "territory" in his speech before the London School of Economics. My source highlighted this query: If you insist this is "Palestinian land, name one Palestinian ruler, king, or government that ruled it? Define its boundaries! Actually, never in history was there a Palestinian state (www.imra.org.il, 10/29). SAUDIS DENY CLAIM THEY WOULD LET ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN The British Daily Express claimed that in a meeting with British and Israeli intelligence, Saudi Arabia agreed to ignore Israeli jets flying through it in order to raid Iranian nuclear facilities. S. Arabia denies the claim (www.imra.org.il, 9/30). Did they? Now they would feel they have publicly to deny it. Sometimes publishing news embarrasses the parties not to do the right thing that is not politically correct. OBAMA APPOINTS CHUCK HAGEL INTELLIGENCE ADVISER President Obama has appointed retired GOP Senator Chuck Hagel to co-chair his Intelligence Advisory Board. Here is the retired Nebraska Senator's record. "In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization." "In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel." "In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel." "In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections." "In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit" In 2002, a Hagel Washington Post op-ed "opposed then-President George W. Bush's refusal to meet arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat saying that 'we cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue. Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue. Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.'" [The Arabs started the wars, not Israel. The Arabs still want to conquer Israel. They have a plan for doing so. The State Dept. is facilitating that plan.] Hagel told an interviewer, "The political reality is that ... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." In 2002, Hagel said, "'Arabs and Palestinians view the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military occupation as terrorism.' He didn't exactly say he shares this view — but he also failed to reject it." [Therefore, he implies acceptance of it.] "In October 2008, Hagel prevented action on a Senate bill — sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama — proposing economic sanctions against Iran. Hagel has argued that, 'Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran's participation.'" Sen. Hagel's longstanding hostility toward Israel "has been criticized by both the Democratic and Republican Jewish coalitions." ZOA National President Morton A. Klein finds it "of grave concern" that the Intelligence Advisory Board, which is to provide the President with independent advice on intelligence, would be headed by someone hardly interested in the threat Iranian nuclear weapons would pose, and who is unusually hostile to the U.S.-Israel relationship and to Israeli self-defense. Concerned Americans should oppose this appointment. ZOA urges President Obama to rescind it (www.imra.org.il, 10/30 from ZOA, headquartered in New York City). The concern of Hagel's critics is for the national security of the United States and its ally, against a common enemy, the enemy of civilization, itself. Hagel's answer comes in the form of traditional antisemitic paranoia as the Jews being too powerful. [Not powerful enough to stop the U.S. arming of hostile Arabs and to demand concessions only of Israel even while Arabs continue terrorism.] Note the power of the opposing lobby that has kept the U.S. from seeing to its security and even gotten it to subsidize some of the jihadists! That power is worrisome, reinforcing a President whose advisers and ex-advisers, some rabid. such as Brzezinski, and others polite but distorted, such as "Bakers' Jews," are blind to their naïve policies' failure. They don't understand the major issues of our times. We need a State Dept. that puts the long-range safety of the U.S. before its obsolete prejudices against Jewish sovereignty. CLINTON IN PAKISTAN Arriving in Pakistan to bolster its war with the Taliban, Sec. of State Clinton was preceded by legislation subsidizing the effort. Her hosts resent the bill. They said it impinges on their sovereignty, especially in requiring the U.S. President to certify that the funds are not supporting terrorism or nuclear proliferation. Sec. Clinton praised Pakistan's military effort, but said the U.S. thinks Pakistan could have done more to hunt down al-Qaida leaders. "Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002...I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." She admitted she wasn't sure what the situation was. President Obama has given priority to an Arab-Israel peace agreement, but the two sides have "bickered" over the terms for creating another Arab state in Palestine (Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 10/30, A11). Sometimes foreign aid comes with political or commercial strings that seek to subvert the recipient. This bill does not. I think it is reasonable to try to make sure that the funds don't serve our enemies. Couldn't Clinton have made that clear? Our Secretary of State cast suspicion on the whole government of Pakistan, with her wording. She could have saved face for them by suggesting that while the brave Pakistani troops are facing down the Taliban, there may remain hidden in the government allies of the Taliban and al-Qaida who subvert the military effort by protecting the enemy leaders. "Is there anything the U.S. can do to assist Pakistan in this?" President Obama has been pressing for a deal, but not for peace. The deal he wants would not bring peace. Arab statehood would boost terrorist strength, not peace. The terms of statehood affect that. The Palestinian Authority is trying to get all it can, to put it into a stronger position when it starts the next war. Israel is trying to inject some protection against that security risk. "Bickering" makes the two sides seem petty, but the issues affect conquest or survival. ISRAEL ARRESTS INSTIGATORS OF RIOTS Israel arrested the head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement and a Fatah leader for instigating the Jerusalem riots. The Waqf, which runs the Muslim facilities on the Mount, quietly was pleased. It wanted those troublemakers removed before they upset the status quo (www.imra.org.il, 10/30) which is to their advantage. MAAN NEWS SETS STAGE FOR DISCRIMINATION Maan news reported that thousands of religious Jews came to Rachel's Tomb to pray. The report subtly and surprisingly asserted that the Tomb is "formerly known as the location of the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque." What is the significance of that assertion? Palestinian Arab religious officials consider it "a desecration for non-Moslem prayer to take place within a mosque. Thus, by asserting that Rachel's Tomb is actually somehow a mosque, Ma'an is warning that if" the Tomb comes under Muslim control, Jewish prayer will be banned from it. ( www.imra.org.il, 10/30). Turning rival religions' temples into temples of their own is an old imperialist or exclusivist device of Islam, notably in St. Sophia's Church in Constantinople, in India, and in at the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarch's in Hebron. Nevertheless, Maan hints that Israel discriminates against Islam. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY CONFISCATES SETTLER GOODS The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) confiscated tons of goods produced by "settlers." Some of the goods were perishables. The P.A. calls the settlements illegal www.imra.org.il, 10/30). The brief did not indicate who took the loss. Interesting, that while Israel tries to boost the economy of the P.A., which is operating without legal elections and in gross violation of its peace agreements, and much of whose housing is illegal, the P.A. tries to boot the economy of Israelis. Perhaps Israel should reconsider its policy and consider itself at war, when the other side does. FATAH MEN PLEAD NOT TO BE SENT BACK TO GAZA Since Hamas moved to seize Gaza, it killed and wounded hundreds of
Fatah fighting men. Hundreds of others, many of whom are terrorists
fled to Judea-Samaria. Israel allowed them temporary sanctuary. Now
the Palestinian Authority [which does not recognize Israel ] is
applying for permanent residency for its men. The men are afraid they
would be purged if returned. Israel is concerned that the men may set
up terrorist cells against Israel
I think that Israel should not have allowed Fatah fighting men, including terrorists, sanctuary. It should have let them fight it out with Hamas. It is not Israel's duty to safeguard its enemies. Humanitarianism can be carried to the point of being counter-productive. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE MUSLIM MAFIA IN AMERICA
Posted by Family Security Matters, November 1, 2009. |
|
This article is by Tom Tancredo and it is archived at
|
|
The recent indictment and arrest of Colorado resident and Afghanistan immigrant Najibullah Zazi on terrorism charges has again put a spotlight on the problem of Islamic radicals plotting acts of violence. But a book released on October 15th raises the question whether the FBI's response to the terrorist threat is being deliberately undermined by US-based organizations whose mission is the eventual Islamization of America. The book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America hit bookstores on October 15th and is already gaining attention from national lawmakers. Four members of Congress have asked the House to investigate allegations in the book of double agents placed inside Congress itself by the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Such allegations will be dismissed as alarmist by many, but critics will have to confront the book's extensive documentation. Its authors are two investigative reporters, David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, with national security backgrounds and solid reputations. The most controversial part of the book is the documentation of the relationship between the Washington, D.C.-based CAIR and the international Muslim Brotherhood, a relationship that has both financial and ideological aspects. The Muslim Brotherhood is highly organized and operates in both public and covert realms. One of its avowed missions is to bring Sharia law to America as one step in the destruction of Western civilization from within. The Council for American-Islamic Relations is well known in our nation's capital and as a member of Congress, I had many run-ins with it. Until very recently it enjoyed a cozy relationship even with the FBI. Our nation's news media often turn to CAIR for a "moderate Muslim response" to events of the day. Yet this book shows that the mask of moderation is only that — a mask covering its real mission. CAIR has a record of opposing all laws and measures that aim to deal effectively with the jihad being waged against the U.S. and Western democracies by radical Islam. How "moderate" is an organization that supports Palestinian terrorists, seeks to eliminate all obstacles to Islamic immigration to the U.S., opposes the Patriot Act, and accepts funding from sources tied to the Muslim Brotherhood? But that is not the most alarming part of the story. According to the evidence collected in Muslim Mafia, CAIR is only one part of a network of over 100 organizations in the U.S. that are serving as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. Their agenda is not to protect the civil rights of Muslim-Americans. Their agenda is a purely political mission — to neuter all opposition to the agenda of radical Islam. CAIR's operatives and apologists try to paint all critics as "Islamophobes" and "McCarthyites" and seldom responds to specific charges. They are aided in this strategy of deception by the mind-set of modern multiculturalism, which serves as a moral umbrella of denial about the mortal threat posed by radical Islam. To these apostles of preemptive forgiveness, Islam is just another exotic religion, and we can all live together in peace and friendship if we will only put away the fears and slanders propagated by the "merchants of hate." The problem is that the principal "merchant of hate" in the modern world is radical Islam and its jihad of violence, not those who are sounding the alarm. Fortunately, we are beginning to hear the voices of authentic leaders within Islam speaking out against the jihad waged by the radicals. The dividing line, however, between Muslims wanting to live within our democracy as Muslim-Americans and the radicals who want to replace it is not support or opposition to jihad. That dividing line, this book makes clear, is the choice of Sharia law over Anglo-American common law and the U.S. Constitution. CAIR and its allies are pursuing a plan to place civic loyalty and ultimately citizenship itself outside the Constitution and in the hands of radical imams. The articles of indictment against Najibullah Zazi say he attended terrorist training in Pakistan. The FBI and CIA have ways of monitoring such foreign travel and surveilling suspects who purchase the ingredients for bomb-making. But if the authors of this book are correct, we face a far larger problem than these foreign-trained terrorists. We may well be growing and training our own brand of domestic terrorist who know how to destroy our nation from within. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: IS THIS OK?"
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 1, 2009. |
|
"Is This OK?" Not from where I stand: it makes me very nervous. According to news reports here, PM Netanyahu has unofficially given US Envoy Mitchell a commitment to stop all construction in Judea and Samaria after the 3,000 units currently in planning stages — or otherwise in process — have been completed. This commitment — made, at least ostensibly, in order to render negotiations with the PA possible — would not include eastern Jerusalem. I'm reading nothing about continuing construction for public buildings such as schools within this understanding. Nor have I heard a word regarding how long this freeze would be sustained, and under what conditions it would be cancelled — such a freeze being easy to start and difficult to terminate. What's wrong with this is that is sets a precedent in principle and compromises our rights. This takes Netanyahu further down that slippery road than I had expected him to go. ~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, what Netanyahu is doing is playing with fire. He seems to be taking a risk that he anticipates will serve Israel's interests. (Yes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am giving him the benefit of that doubt here.) And so, in fairness, let's flip over that coin and look at the other side: Secretary of State Clinton, who arrived here last night after Shabbat, has expressed satisfaction with Netanyahu, calling his concessions "unprecedented." She told the PA that a settlement freeze "has never been a precondition [for starting talks], it has always been an issue within the negotiations." She made it clear that Israel, which she praised highly, was going to go no further. Clearly she has no intention of pressuring us to do so. But Abbas is demanding further of Israel: He is still insisting that he will not come to the table unless all construction is frozen now, including in Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ So what we have is a situation in which Israel is the "good guy" and the US is mightily irked with the PA instead. What's clear is that Netanyahu is a genius at manipulating the political situation so that we come out ahead, at least in the short run. Presumably, he took a calculated risk — offering enough to delight the US, but not so much that it was likely that Abbas would accept. It was Foreign Minister Lieberman who told the Americans (and I certainly concur) that the Palestinians weren't interested in negotiating now. As this is true, it might be argued that Netanyahu was calling their bluff. Had he offered nothing, Abbas would have attempted to put the onus on us. But he offered just enough so that the onus is now on the Palestinians — without having given so much that there was much chance Abbas would accept. Considering the political and diplomatic flack we've taken of late, this isn't a bad place to be. ~~~~~~~~~~ But there is a proviso here: Clinton called Netanyahu's offer "unprecedented." So now, even though Abbas has rejected this and Netanyahu's offer (I am assuming — perhaps erroneously) won't apply at the moment, there IS a precedent. And we have to ask what happens next time around and what principle may have been sacrificed. ~~~~~~~~~~ What's interesting here is that Deputy Premier Silvan Shalom (Likud) — something of a political adversary of Netanyahu, (and thus admittedly quick to criticize) but notably to Netanyahu's left — said at the Cabinet meeting today: "We did not ask any prime minister in the past to freeze the settlements. Therefore, there is no reason to ask this of Netanyahu. I very much do not support a partial freeze...we must come to any negotiations without preconditions." This is very much to the point. Political maneuverings or no political maneuverings, there is reason to say that Netanyahu offered more than was necessary in order to show good faith or call Abbas's bluff. He was all together too eager. At the Cabinet meeting, the prime minister declared: "The Palestinians should come to their senses and enter negotiations as soon as possible... So how much of what's going on has to do with keeping America happy and showing up the Palestinians, and how much is real on Netanyahu's part? He seems to be champing at the bit, terribly eager to get those negotiations going. Is this because he believes (I don't think he can really believe this!) that a settlement of some sort is possible, or because he wants to show the world that there's no compromise in the Palestinians at all, but that we are just so, so sincere? ~~~~~~~~~~ As this impasse in negotiations is faced, there is talk of some sort of interim agreement with the Palestinians. Some — including Shaul Mofaz (formerly defense minister and now a Kadima MK) — are proposing that an "interim" Palestinian state be established, without final borders. A bad idea. Foreign Minister Lieberman is referring to an interim understanding that is less than a state, although it's not quite clear to me what he does have in mind. ~~~~~~~~~~ I read one report last week that indicated the Obama administration is considering "indirect" negotiations, since Abbas won't sit down with Netanyahu. That's what is called "shuttle diplomacy." But I see no evidence for this at present, as Mitchell will be remaining in the area for a few more days, to try to get direct negotiations started. That's part of his continuing attempt to move the rock, you understand. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Palestinian news service Ma'an on Friday cited an independent in the PA Legislature, Dr Yasser Al-Wadiyeh, who declared: "There has not yet been an announcement that reconciliation failed — despite some setbacks." Al-Wadiyeh says that efforts (apparently by independents) to promote a unity government are still going on; talks are being held outside the scope of media attention. (If this is so, why tell Ma'an?) We'll see. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to return to the issue of the Temple Mount briefly, looking at an article by David Kirshenbaum, in the Post. Two matters he mentions are worthy of note here: [] In point of fact, "no non-Muslim can step foot anywhere in Islam's holy cities [which means all of Mecca and Medina, not just specific places of worship there]." This provides a jarring contrast with the reality here, which is that "Muslims can gather on the Temple Mount by the hundreds of thousands and they can play soccer and have picnics on Judaism's holiest site." I would add that it also offers a look at the mentality of religious exclusivity of the Muslims, which makes them so adamantly against compromise and sharing. [] There are those (a small number, unquestionably) who are promoting the establishment of a synagogue on the Temple Mount. Primary among these is "Chief Rabbi of Haifa She'ar Yashuv Cohen, [who] has long championed a change in the status quo on the Temple Mount." The Arabs would have apoplexy, and our government would be too frightened to proceed with such an idea. But I think it's great. It would establish firmly our right to not only maintain a presence but to pray there. (There is, of course, the issue of not allowing Jews to walk on sanctified places, such as where the Holy of Holies stood, but I am betting there is a way to protect that sanctity by establishing the Jewish presence on the Mount's periphery.) At any rate, this is an excellent piece, and I recommend reading it and sharing it:
~~~~~~~~~~ Last week thousands of pious Jews flocked to the site of Rachel's tomb — which is outside of Bethlehem, in an Israeli-held enclave within Palestinian Authority territory — in order to observe what is traditionally recognized as Rachel's yartzheit, the anniversary of her death. Ma'an, the same Palestinian news agency mentioned above, noted this event and in the accounting said: "To this day the site, formerly known as the location of the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque..." This is serious business, for it is one more attempt by the Palestinians to co-opt or delegitimize a Jewish site. In this case the claim is patently ridiculous. Our mother Rachel died in childbirth (bearing Binyamin), while the family was on the road. "And Rachel died, and was buried on the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a monument upon her grave: that is the monument of Rachel's grave until this day." — Bereshit (Genesis) 35:19-20 Needless to say, there were no mosques then. I will add that many Jews (myself included) are deeply touched by the imagery of Rachel in her tomb on the road, where she wept as her children passed her as they went into exile — and where she now awaits our return. ~~~~~~~~~~ And what is the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque, you may ask. According to Nadav Shragai, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs two years ago, for centuries Muslim tradition had recognized the site we call Kever Rachel as being Rachel's tomb — this was not contested. The Gaza-Jericho Agreement (part of Oslo), signed in 1994, stipulated that the Palestinians would guarantee free access by Jews to holy places within areas of PA jurisdiction. (Because of the adamancy of key rabbis, Rachel's Tomb was retained in Israeli jurisdiction, and was never surrendered to the hands of the Palestinians.) The Palestinian commitment, as you are likely aware, was never honored, and the most severe crisis with regard to this came with the desecration of Joseph's tomb in Shechem (Nablus) in October 2000. Just days later, on Yom Kippur in 2000, the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida ran an article marking Rachel's Tomb as the next target: "'the Tomb of Rachel,' or the Bilal ibn Rabah mosque, is one of the nails the occupation government and the Zionist movement hammered into many Palestinian cities....The tomb is false and was originally a Muslim mosque." That was apparently the first official mention of the Tomb as a mosque. Wrote Shragai: "Bilal ibn Rabah was an Ethiopian known in Islamic history as a slave who served in the house of the prophet Muhammad as the first muezzin (the individual who calls the faithful to prayer five times a day)...The Palestinian Authority claimed that according to Islamic tradition, it was Muslim conquerors who named the mosque erected at Rachel's Tomb after Bilal ibn Rabah." A concrete lesson in the historical distortions of the Palestinians. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ARAB MEDIA MANIPULATION
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Dr. Alex Grobman, a historian and author of a number of books, including Nations United: How The U.N. Undermines Israel and The West, Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State to be published by Balfour Books |
|
The Arabs carry on a continuous "war of nerves", cleverly using the press, UN and Western gullibility — or seminal Anti-Seminism — to isolate Israel and weaken it from psychologically from within and without. Here's how. "One need not destroy one's enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage. " Sun Tzu The recent Arab riots on the Temple Mount and inside Jerusalem's Old City, the Goldstone Report, academic and economic boycotts as well as other tactics are part of the familiar ongoing war against Israel. The Arabs employ a number of psychological techniques to demoralize Israelis in order to convince them that their county has usurped Arab lands, is unjust and morally bankrupt. Their ultimate objective is for Israel to be internationally villified, isolated and ultimately for it to cease to exist. It behooves us to study their techniques so as better to counter them. The Arabs borrow from revolutionaries including Carlos Marighella, a leader of the Brazilian guerrilla organization ALN. Marighella urged his followers to use the mass media, foreign embassies, the U.N., international commissions, and Vatican representatives to spread their lies and false rumors in order to discredit the government. Acts of terror, assassination, sabotage and kidnappings further create an environment of uncertainty, anxiety and apprehension. During the first Intifada (December 1987 to October 1991), the Arabs manipulated the international press by placing individuals affiliated with the PLO and other Islamic political groups into their media bureaus. Rather than hide these connections, the Arabs used them to enhance their attraction to their employers. Developing personal relationships with Israelis who oppose Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, meeting with them in Israel and taking them on tours of the refugee camps helped solidify support for the Arabs, and created a sense of guilt among those who know little about the history of the conflict. Semantics is another weapon used against Israel. Instead of describing insurrections as riots, the Arabs call them demonstrations. This is in keeping, they assert, with their basic right in a democracy to protest against unfair government policies. What they don't say is that the riots are designed to hasten the demise of Israel. After the Arabs continually used the term "demonstration," members of the media adopted it as their own. When a demonstration becomes violent after the military intervenes to disband the crowd, the Arabs allege that Israelis are committing atrocities. This is after trying to goad the army into committing indiscriminate acts of force, particularly against women and children. Contrived shootings, protests, arrests for the Western media is another technique Arabs use. Dutch television showed an Arab boy being aggressively arrested by Israeli soldiers while he was walking on the street. To ensure that the TV crew noticed that he was "innocent," he yelled to them to take notice of what was happening. An investigation later revealed that the youth had purposely violated curfew after seeing the TV crew. He knew he would be apprehended, that his violent arrest would be recorded and the broadcast would help to discredit Israel. This was an isolated event, yet Israeli intelligence claimed that journalists knew how much they would have to pay for a stone throwing or a demonstration. The Arabs instructed the journalists when and where to stand in order to get the best shot. This was brought to an extreme at the beginning of the second intifada in 2000. Muhammad al-Dura, a 12 year-old Palestinian boy, was reportedly shot by Israelis in cross fire near the Netzarim crossing in Gaza while being shielded by his father. The episode was filmed and broadcast on France TV 2. This was later shown by Israeli physicist Nahum Shahaf and a courageous Frenchman, Philip Craszenty, using IDF and other materials, to be staged and patently false, yet in the Muslim world his name remains an infamous symbol of grievance against Israel. Historian Richard Landes began investigating the case as a blood libel after seeing this incident as "One Jew allegedly kills a gentile child in cold blood, and all Jews everywhere are responsible. That's the beginning of the wave of anti-Semitism that literally has marked the 21st century, and we have not seen the end of it. This is where cyberspace can play a crucial role Landes coined the phrase "Pallywood" to describe this and other "pernicious productions staged by Palestinians in front of (and often with cooperation from) Western camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda by disguising it as news." While examining footage from another alleged incident, Landes noticed a Palestinian with "blood" on his forehead ostensibly from a head wound running without any sign of trauma. After giving what appears to be a Molotov cocktail to a colleague, the Palestinian darts into the crowd. In the next frame, he is put on a stretcher and taken to an awaiting ambulance, while keeping his head high though allegedly suffering from a head injury. "It's really obvious that it's fake," Landes concludes. In the Gaza beach explosion on June 9, 2006, eight Palestinians were killed and 30 or more injured. Though very compelling evidence shows they were killed by Palestinian land mines, the Palestinians accused Israel. The foreign media sided with the Arabs. Landes noted "And herein lies another real tragedy: The eagerness with which the media seize upon anything negative about Israel, and the reluctance with which they reveal anything negative about the Palestinians, have radically skewed the world's view of what's going on here." In Rhetoric, Aristotle claimed that "Men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth." When it comes to the Arabs, many in the West and Israel have yet to use that natural instinct. Sources: 1. Carlos Marighella, Mini-Manuel Of The Urban Guerrilla (Toronto: Abraham Guillen Press and Arm The Spirit, 2002), 28-32; Maurice Tugwell, "Terrorism and Propaganda: Problem and Response," Conflict Quarterly (Spring 1986): 5; Abu Iyad with Eric Rouleau, My Home, My Land: A Narrative of The Palestinian Struggle (New York: Times Books, 1978), 69, 136-138; Shaul Mishal and Reuben Aharoni, Speaking Stones: Communiqués from the Intifada Underground (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1994). 2. Ron Schleifer, Psychological Warfare in the Intifada (Portland, Oregon: Sussex Academic Press, 2006), 94. 3. James Fallows, "Who Shot Mohammad al-Dura," Atlantic Monthly (June 2003); Nidra Poller, "Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair," commentarymagazine.com (September 2005); Doreen Carvajal, "The Mysteries and Passions of an Iconic Frame," NYT (February 7, 2005); James Fallow, "News on the al-Dura front-Israel finding that it was staged," Atlantic Monthly (October 2, 2007); Martin Patience, "Dispute rages over al-Durrah" BBC News (November 8, 2007); Gabriel Weimann, Communicating Unreality: Modern Media and the Reconstruction of Reality (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1999); Amnon Lord, "Who Killed Muhammad Al-Dura? Blood Libel-Model 2000" Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No. 482. (July 15, 2002) 4. Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, "One on One: Framing the Debate" The Jerusalem Post (March 27, 2008). Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
ARABS ACCELERATE CONSTRUCTION IN ISRAEL'S MOUNTAINOUS HEARTLAND
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 1, 2009. |
|
This was written by Gil Ronen aannd it appeared in Arutz-7 and is
archived at |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Under pressure from the United States, Israel has been discussing and at least partially implementing a freeze on construction in Yehudah and Shomron (Judea and Samaria), its mountainous heartland. The PA Arab authority there, meanwhile, is doing the the opposite, gearing up for a building drive in areas designated as 'Area C' in the Oslo agreements — even though these areas are under Israeli security and administrative control. To this end, the PA has been conducting intensive negotiations with the relevant financial institutions and is close to an agreement with banks and contractors for kicking off a large construction drive in two months' time. Speaking with Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper Saturday, PA Minister of Housing and Public Works Muhammad Shatia said that his office would build in "all Palestinian areas" including Area C, because these are "Palestinian territories despite the Israeli control over them." Following the PA government's initiative, he said, his office has received more than 50,000 requests for housing units in Area C and it will begin construction, as a first phase, in Shechem and Kalkilya. The apartments are to be marketed at attractive rates because they are being built on what he designated "government lands." This activity is part of the policy of strengthening the PA's hold in Area C. At a groundbreaking ceremony for a hospital near Bethlehem this week, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayad said that the PA does not see any difference between Areas A, B or C, and that it objects to the Israel claim that Area C is a disputed zone. "While Israel invades A Areas by military force, we invade C Areas through construction," he explained. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
ISRAEL ARMY RADIO'S ANTI-ZIONIST BROADCASTS; ACADEMIC FIFTH COLUMN;
HOW PA IS STRANGLING JERUSALEM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 1, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL ARMY RADIO'S ANTI-ZIONIST BROADCASTS Someone sent an anonymous letter to Israel Army Radio, exposing its anti-Zionist broadcasts: Captain Asaf Ramon, his father, the Ramon family and many others like them who symbolize the Return to Zion; the realization of the Zionist vision; the readiness to sacrifice for all of us; the Jewish moral code in defense of our nation, its state and our country; the beautiful Israel; the solidarity in Israeli society; the giving, the Zionist ethos! Remember him when you report innocently about "demonstrations" at Na'alin by "activists" who hurt the bodies and souls of IDF soldiers and Border Police. Remember him when a doctor of philosophy at Tel Aviv University disseminates a photo of an IDF soldier and calls him a murderer — yet you remain silent. You did not cover that. Remember him when IDF reservists turn to the Attorney General and demand that he investigate the Ha'aretz newspaper and Danny Zamir for libel, after they besmirched the IDF during Operation Cast Lead — and again you are silent, you did not cover that either! Remember him the next time you consider participating in a media lynch against a battalion commander and reservists as you did to the battalion commander who hit violent anarchist Yonatan Pollak while he and his friends destroyed an IDF roadblock, confronted soldiers and harmed them. Remember him when you give Hamas terrorists an open microphone. Remember him for not holding an in-depth discussion about the Tel Aviv "Rugatka" pub that prevents soldiers from entering it. You preferred to hide that... Remember him for the large stage you give to anarchist groups and "Breaking the Silence," which assassinate the character of the IDF and its soldiers. Remember him when you prevent discussion and prevent anyone from expressing deep and fundamental opinions against those who defame IDF soldiers without any basis. Remember him when you do not cover the protest against those organizations. Remember him when you pillory those who call to make government service conditional on military, civilian or national service, and thus damage all those who serve. Remember him when you exalt Israeli films that win prizes only because they present the IDF as an immoral army of murderers. Remember him when you interview the actors who dodged military service and whose only contribution to the IDF was to sling mud at it. Remember him, because handing out briefs and undershirts to soldiers on (the program) "A Mother's Voice" and pretending that you care about the soldiers, but then slandering them after every operation — that is not being "the soldiers' home" (an IDF Radio slogan — ed.). Remember him, because when you wear a uniform or enter the gates of the station, you are supposed to be in the same army! Remember him, because your broadcasts de-legitimize, and even demonize, IDF soldiers in compulsory service and the reserves.
Remember him — because we ask you, Galei Tzahal — are you on our side
or that of the enemy?
Anti-Zionists live in an imaginary world, in which Jews maintain Zionist solidarity, and Israel keeps oiled a "Zionist propaganda machine." Like IDF Radio? ISRAELI GROUP WARNS OF ACADEMIC FIFTH COLUMN Isracampus.org.il is the site of a group that warns of an academic fifth column. Last year, it submitted an ad to Yediot Aharonot, but was rejected. This year, apparently having heard more of Isracampus, the newspaper accepted the ad. It made a sensational controversy. The Student Union of Haifa University distributed related material explaining, "Professors and lecturers in Israeli universities and colleges engaged in subversive activity such as: openly endorsing terror attacks against Jews, initiating international boycotts of Israel, using their status to anti-Israel preaching and anti-Zionist brainwash, cooperating with known anti-Semites, slandering Israel as a fascist, colonial State with an apartheid regime" and "promoting violence and law violations, encouraging draft-dodging among IDF soldiers and calling for the annihilation of Israel." Isracampus website names "lecturers from various universities and their quotes on such topics..." Someone complained to University President Aaron Ben Zeev, calling the material "incitement." "'Preparing black lists of academics reminds me of dark times in dark regimes when people were persecuted for their different opinions. The ad's title — a fifth corps — clearly amounts to incitement.' Members of the Haifa Student Union claimed that the ad doesn't constitute incitement but a legitimate expression of opinion." "Chairman Felix Koritney commented, "It's an advertisement bought and published in the planner as by other advertisers. We went over the content and it is fine by us. It informs the students, in the way other websites inform of corruption and ethics violations...Students should know who they take classes with. We love the State of Israel and support it and see no wrong with the ad." Israelis use the term, "incitement," loosely. The Left feels free to denounce and defame, but cries "incitement," when criticized for it. The Left tries to exempt itself from criticism that way, and in the name of freedom of opinion, but it really is trying to stifle freedom of expression by people who don't agree with it. Isracampus does not incite to violence. It doesn't punish for opinions. It alerts students and donors to professors who abuse classrooms for propaganda, to incite to lawbreaking, and to try to destroy the Jewish state. WHAT HAMAS 'PEACE' MEANS FOR ISRAEL & THE WORLD Hamas stated that it, too, wants peace. It qualified that as a "just peace," in which "Palestinian lands" are not occupied. Hamas did not put into the same sentence that it considers all of Israel occupied "Palestinian lands." Therefore, its notion of peace is the mere respite after having conquered its immediate enemies (www.imra.org.il, 10/29). The Supreme Leader of Iran declared that disputing the election results is a crime (Wall St. J., 10/29). After the respite, of course, as good jihadists, Hamas would join with Iran to try to spread a backward form of Islam over the rest of the world. Remove the blocking efforts of the Israeli army, and considering how bogged down are U.S. forces, that Islamist task would be facilitated. If Hamas put its notion of "occupation" and jihad into the same speech, it would make it too easy for Western policy makers to understand, finally, that there can be no peace with Radical Islam until it is defeated, and that concessions to it make it easier for Radical Islam to defeat us. AFGHANISTAN, JIHAD, & THE WEST The Wall St. Journal has been discussing strategy for
opposing jihad in Afghanistan. These Op.-Eds. dispute the strategy
proposed by the expert I had interviewed (to see that piece, goto:
Proper strategy takes time into account. Not a timetable for pulling out, but allowance for the 15 years it usually takes to defeat an insurgency. Once the enemy knows we intend to leave by a certain time, whether the job is finished or not, he will wait us out and return in triumph. Why should they lay down their arms permanently? Pulling out the main body of troops would leave Western air and naval forces too far away from Afghanistan and Pakistan to help. "From where are you going to fly the drones? What intelligence will be available to guide the drones or special ops?" At least we need to get Pakistan to make peace with India, so that Pakistan can devote its forces to its real enemy, and so India can provide bases to Western forces (James Shinn, 10/27, A21). Afghanistan doesn't need more troops. It needs a wiser mission. The mission Now is "clear, hold, and build." A wiser one would be "befriend, secure, build governance — and then hold." Earnest and honest governors are needed. With the second strategy, tribes have kept insurgents out. With the first strategy, having ten times as many Western troops does not suffice (David Adams & Anne Marlowe, 10/28, A23). President Bush had the theory right, but not the know-how, and his political opposition was too impatient. American wasted enough money to impair our economy, but not how to spend enough to stanch the outflow on war. These articles have convinced me that we can differentiate Radical Islam from the moderates abroad, and that we must. Our President and State Dept., he with his radicalism, and it with its petty turf concerns and its subversion and anti-Zionist phobia remain confused about whom the U.S. should work with and whom to oppose. BAHRAIN MAY BAN CITIZEN CONTACT WITH ISRAELIS The lower house of Bahrain's legislature passed a bill prompted by an opposition bloc, so that "whoever holds any communication or official talks with Israeli officials or travels to Israel will face a fine... and/or a jail sentence of three to five years." The impetus for the bill is thought to arise from the Goldstone Report and the Temple Mount Clashes. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that peace cannot be made without contact. Bahrain has a Shiite majority, Sunni rulers who work with the U.S. and favos more engagement with Israel, and an ancient Jewish community with the only synagogue in use in the Persian Gulf (www.imra.org.il, 10/28). I worry that the U.S. military facilities there are insecure. Goldstone issues a propaganda-only report, and the Muslim Arabs attack Israelis, but the Arab world gets angry with Israel, the victim in all this. ISRAELIS BARRED FROM CAIRO CANCER CONFERENCE? Nancy Brinker, founder and head of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization...claimed last week that despite threats in Egypt, Israelis were not barred from the Cairo conference" on cancer. But the Foreign Ministry and the Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization said they had been (www.imra.org.il, 10/28). Since the Palestinian Arabs have a mostly collectivist society, since the polls show that most support jihad, and since the jihadists repress contrary expression, and since that society is indoctrinating young people in hatred, and since young Muslims can suddenly be converted into terrorists, I have condemned their society as a whole for being a menace to civilization. Some readers suggest I make more allowances for individuals within that society not agreeing to jihad. They suggest I not impute a collective guilt. On the other hand, we see Arab governments imputing a collective hostility toward all Israelis, without hearing Westerners or my readers suggesting that that unfairly targets all Israeli individuals, of whom many are rather sympathetic to the Arabs. Why the double standard? When I see a double standard, I wonder about the ethical standard and the indignation directed against Israel and those who feel it is in the right. HAMAS WON'T ALLOW ELECTION IN GAZA Hamas said it won't allow Palestinian Authority (P.A.) election committee staff to set up for elections in Gaza. Its position is that since the term of the P.A. President has expired, so has his official authority. From his cell in Israel, Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti urged Hamas to sign the reconciliation pact and then agree to elections (www.imra.org.il, 10/29). People still think the P.A. is democratic. They ignor what a dictatorship both parts of it are. Its occasional elections screen out most non-terrorists. There is little civil law and little civil society not impressed into the service of jihad. Israel is unwise to let Barghouti influence events, considering that he is a mass-murdering terrorist who was Arafat's instigator of the second Intifada and still believes in war on Israel. DEFENSE AGAINST ATTEMPT TO STRANGLE JERUSALEM Palestinian Arabs are attempting to strangle Jerusalem by developing settlements around it, thereby cutting off suburban Jewish towns not immediately abutting it. Some Israelis are attempting to fill in the vacant areas, themselves. They did stop the Army from turning over its base, Shdema, to the Arabs. Shdema is in what the Oslo Accords designated Area C, under full Israeli security and administrative control. It lays between southern Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood of15,000 Israelis and the eastern "Gush Etzion" towns of Nokdim and Tekoa. [When Jordan first waged aggression on Israel, its forces overran the Gush Etzion bloc and expelled the Jews.] "The Arabs of nearby Beit Sahour and Bethlehem saw this [Army base abandonment] as their opportunity to expand to the east, thus choking off the Jerusalem-Gush Etzion connection. In fact, rumors were soon substantiated that the Olmert government had agreed to turn the area into a Palestinian Authority hospital/neighborhood — despite the many other areas in the region that were already under PA control that could have been used for the same purpose." [Earlier news reported U.S. foreign aid subsidizing the illegal Arab building there.] Nearly every Friday, activists led by The Committee for a Jewish Shdema and Women in Green have held lectures and other activities at the site." At first hostile, now the Army works with it, short of allowing permanent construction. Women in Green have earned the gratitude of Members of Knesset for "having kept the hilltop from being given away — though illegal Arab construction still continues below." "Though a court has rendered the Arab construction illegal, not only has it not been razed, it continues apace." PM Netanyahu has been asked to "end the unauthorized and dangerous Arab expansion." Retaining Shdema is also vital to ensure that the development of
southern Jerusalem is not choked off." The Har Homa neighborhood of
Jerusalem is scheduled for construction in its western end, but more
important would be its eastern end, to connect to Shdema
Note yet again, that PM Netanyahu does not take right-wing action. SHEIKH WANTS JEWISH LAW APPLIED TO TEMPLE MOUNT Sheikh Kamal Riyan. who heads the Al-Aksa Association for the Islamic Trust, urged Jews to "'observe Jewish Law' and not visit the Temple Mount." The Sheikh is mistaken about Jewish law. "Basic Jewish Law allows Jews to enter the Temple Mount, after having purified themselves of a certain level of legal impurity, but they may not enter the site where certain parts of the Temple itself stood" [and where the mosque probably is now]. Jewish law also forbids gentiles entry to the whole Temple Mount
UNRWA PROPAGANDIZING AGAINST ISRAEL OVER GAZA Sponsored by UNRWA, its spokesman, Chris Gunness, wrote, directed, and performs a play making propaganda in Israel against Israeli combat in Gaza. His play portrays Israel as the aggressor, as if Hamas had not fired thousands of rockets at it, first. He contends that Israel bombed a warehouse with white phosphorus illegally and perhaps intentionally in the hope of injuring civilians. His contention ignores enemy shooting from alongside the warehouse. During the actual war, he raised doubts whether the IDF was reporting truthfully. That doubt could be raised about him. Last January, he admitted to my source that it was not clear to him whether Israel used white phosphorus. He also admitted he did not know whether it was Israelis who fired toward the warehouse. But his play nevertheless condemns Israel. "Subsequent probes by Israeli military officials proved that phosphorus material from smoke, and not as a substance in weapons, was measured in minimal quantities and far within the limits of international law." [It is allowed in smallish quantities as a smoke marker.] The play has been poorly received, if received at all, since some
theatres refused to show it. In another, the Tel Aviv audience walked
out half way through
ISRAEL FORFEITING CONTROL OVER EASTERN JERUSALEM Municipal council member Yakir Shegev, who oversees issues about eastern Jerusalem, said that the Palestinian Authority is slowly taking over the area. Shegev said that "the PA issues building permits in parts of the Old City." "The Education Ministry pays the salaries of Arab teachers in eastern Jerusalem, where the PA administers students' matriculation examinations. 'It is absurd that the tests are checked in Ramallah while teachers receive money from us.'" "The official charged that the Netanyahu government, similar to previous administrations, has ignored the needs of the Arab community 'as if the future of eastern Jerusalem is not clear...and that these problems will be someone else's concern in a few years. The PA serves most of the Arab residents and repairs roads, giving it more de facto control.'" Israel would have to serve the people, collect taxes, issue parking
tickets, and deter and demolish illegal Arab building
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
READER-SELECTED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, November 2009. |
|
No to Minarets From Truth Provider (November 30, 2009) Dear friends, You may have heard the news today: Small democratic Switzerland had a referendum on whether to allow Muslims to erect Minarets. To the surprise of the left and the Swiss government, the vote was quite decisive. No minarets will be allowed in Switzerland. The Swiss majority had enough! Is Europe beginning to wake up? Is it too late for England, France and Germany? Will Scandinavia lose its peaceful civilized character? Well, watch the following video and make up your own mind. http://vodpod.com/watch/1428923-sweden-in-grip-of-islam Soon in a country or a city near you..... Your Truth provider,
islam Around the world in Alatha- English & Arabic From Morris Sadek (November 28, 2009) Islam: The great "Religion of Peace" and its call to Jihad against all non- believers republicaninthearts.blogspot.com/2007/07/ islam-great-religion-of-peace-and-its.html meforum.org/2102/jihad-martyrdom-and-the-torments-of-the-grave Italy Leader Daniela Santanchè: Mohammed is a Pedophile" youtube.com/watch?v=5AdDR1efRCY&feature=related Michael Coren with Father Zakariah Botros youtube.com/watch?v=_YKKrDoeeSo&feature=related youtube.com/watch?v=_YKKrDoeeSo&feature=related 76 Trombones - a must see From Fred Reifenberg (November 26, 2009) Take a look, and enjoy....special! www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmDGntpZC3I
From Boris Celser (November , 2009) Interesting movie. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/742.html Although I do not agree with some of the premises and conclusions of these guys, there is a lot of interesting information in this movie. Likud MKs rebel against Netanyahu's construction freeze in Yesha From Moshe ELkman (November 26, 2009) Watch video to see courageous Lkud MK's stand up to their traitor of a PM There is only one answer to gain true Torah Leadership....a United Torah Bloc NOW!!!!!!!!!!! www.unitedtorahbloc.net Moshe Elkman
World Likud Lays Cornerstone for New Neighborhood in Jerusalem Taking action:
You are cordially invited to a meeting against the construction freeze in Judea & Samaria. The meeting will take place Saturday, November 28, 19:30, at "Mul Ha'Park" in 267 Ahuza st., Raanana.
Click here to watch coverage of yesterday's emergency meeting after Prime Minister Netanyahu's announcement on construction freeze. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpVFD1g661Y Settler Leaders, Likud MKs blast PM From Yaacov Levi (November 26, 2009) Settlement leaders and a number of young Likud parliamentarians on Wednesday accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of betraying his party's principles by caving into the Americans and Palestinians by imposing a ten-month moratorium on new construction permits in West Bank settlements. Likud MKs, Judea and Samaria councilmen blast PM's annoucement They crowded into a small room in the administrative office of the Givat Ze'ev Local Council, a settlement located just outside of Jerusalem, to watch Netanyahu speak on television. In an emergency meeting, they called upon everyone who supported the settlement enterprise to oppose the measure. Likud MK Danny Dannon called on Netanyahu to seek approval for the measure at Monday's Likud faction meeting. "If Netanyahu does not do so, I will personally convene an urgent meeting of the Likud Central Committee to correct this betrayal of commitments we made to our voters," said Dannon. "We were elected to advance a certain platform, we promised that we would build in Judea and Samaria," said Dannon, who added that a freeze goes against the Likud Party's principles. "This is not the party that I grew up in or on whose behalf we were voted into office. I called to all those in the party who clearly support the settlements: we cannot be silent." He warned Netanyahu, "If you chose to follow the Left and to become [Ehud] Barak's subcontractor, we will oppose you." MK Tzipi Hotovely said, "Judea and Samaria are supposed to be on the same level as Jerusalem." It was a strategic mistake to differentiate between east Jerusalem and settlements in Judea and Samaria, as if one was legitimate and the other was not, she added. "Netanyahu has betrayed the very principles for which he stood for all his life," said Danny Dayan, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. He said that Netanyahu was the person who, under former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, said that freezing settlement construction was a code for territorial concessions and would destroy the settlement enterprise. All his life Netanyahu has spoken against unilateral steps, and almost immediately upon entering office he has taken unilateral steps, even when the Palestinians have warned that they are worthless, said Dayan. In protest, settlers refused to meet on Thursday with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, insisting they would only meet with Netanyahu Shas, meanwhile, released a statement explaining why its ministers absented themselves from the vote. Interior Minister Eli Yishai said while he wanted to be loyal to the prime minister, he could not agree to freezing construction even for a single day. He warned that the move would make Israel look weak. Science Minister Daniel Herschkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi), who has observer status in the security cabinet, called on Netanyahu to now bring the freeze to a vote by the entire cabinet. "A right-wing government must encourage settlements, not strangle them," Herschkowitz said. "Any gesture to the US and to Abbas won't work." Labor rebel MK Ophir Paz-Pines called the move "too little, too late." He said that had Netanyahu agreed to a settlement freeze before the summit with Abbas in New York, the summit might not have failed and negotiations could have begun then, but now it was unlikely that talks could begin even with the freeze. Defense officials, meanwhile, said that the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria would be given additional tools to enforce the freeze on settlement construction. In meetings held recently by Acting Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Amos Gilad, the possibility of hiring additional building inspectors for the civil administration was approved and is waiting for a final okay from Barak, expected in the coming weeks. Already in recent months, civil administration inspectors have been surveying and mapping out the settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank to ensure that none of them are expanded once the construction freeze is imposed. Once the freeze goes into effect, OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrachi will have to issue orders to all of the different regional councils instructing them to cease all construction. The Israel Police will also be called in to ensure that construction is not continued and to prevent the deployment of caravans in outposts or settlements. In recent meetings, Gilad recommended that Mizrachi issue orders removing radical settlers from the West Bank who have been involved in past illegal construction. Sanctions against regional council head who continue to permit construction are also under consideration. These steps had been outlined as suggested measures at a Defense Ministry meeting that took place on October 18. According to the document, a copy of which was obtained by The Jerusalem Post, there has been a lack of building enforcement in 94 settlements. The document also added that the civil administration had only 14 inspectors monitoring activity in the 120 West Bank settlements. It noted that while the Defense Ministry was taking measures to crack down on illegal construction in West Bank settlements, it advised deferring enforcement of evacuation orders against unauthorized outposts when cases against those fledgling hilltop communities are brought before the High Court of Justice. "We should advise the court that because of diplomatic constraints and negotiations with the Americans, we are asking not to evacuate outposts at this time," the document stated. Pinchas Wallerstein, the director of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said that settler leaders learned of the new measures only a few days ago from the media. He said of the Defense Ministry memo, "It's a scandalous letter and its author should be put in prison." Israel from 1947 to 1967 History Footage in Colors From Boris Celser (November 25, 2009) Footage taken by Fred Monosson, a wealth Bostonian industrialist who was an avid Zionist Nothing much has changed…there are those who dodge the draft, then and now, and Tel Aviv cafes are humming while few kilometers away the war is blasting... http://www.jerusalemonline.com/specials20.asp Saturday Night Live: Presidents Obama & HU From Truth Provider (November 24, 2009) Dear friends, Yesterday I sent you the latest Saturday Night Live video clip. YouTube is no longer carrying the clip because of copyright. However, if you missed it, here it is again: nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/china-cold-open/1178451 Enjoy, laugh and remember how the left celebrated when Sarah Palin was Tina's victim. How things change in merely one year... Your Truth Provider,
The memo of shame: Walter Reed personal aand Captain Hassan From Boris Celser (November 24, 2009) Via NPR ... yes NPR, we have a memo that anyone with more than 10 years of commissioned service should recognize - the classic CYA memo that kicks a decision upstairs because you know that you don't have the top cover to survive an attack of the Diversity Bullies. How do I know? I had been guilty years back of the same thing for the same reasons - I knew there was negative top-cover from my CO's ISIC and acted accordingly. I'm not proud - but I protected my CO; I thought that was my job. cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2009/11/memo-of-shame.html Obama press conference in China From Boris Celser (November 24, 2009) youtube.com/watch?v=NxYSduRES1o&feature=youtube_gdata War games in Iran, Peace in Jerusalem From Yael from Road 90 (November 24, 2009) Please a take a few minutes to watch the videos below, especially the video clip done by an Israeli artist "Jair M3", which should absolutely be seen and spread to a larger public. We would also like to bring your attention to our current operation of support for the IDF soldiers, as we already sold more than 10'000 Sufganiyot! As we might witness the liberation of Gilad Shalit very soon, we would like to ask you once more to take part in our operation "100'000 Sufganiyot for 100'000 Soldiers", by donating here and by talking about this operation to your friends, family, colleagues, etc... We hope you enjoy all the videos below and we wish you in advance a happy Hanukkah! - Nancy Falchuk interviews Noam Shalit [click here] - War Games in Iran [click here] - Get Real Hip Hop for peace in the Middle East [click here] - A great moment in Jerusalem [click here] - Bnei Menashe and Kaifeng Jews Making Aliyah [click here] - Kosher Gas Station in Brooklyn, NY [click here] Very funny but Sad From Truth Provider (November 24, 2009) Dear friends, As some of you said when Tina imitated Sarah, it is just a joke. So, if you have not seen it yet, here is a better joke (if it were not so sad). youtube.com/...NxYSduRES1o&feature=youtube_gdata Enjoy! or Cry! Happy Thanksgiving to you all. Still the best celebration for the greatest cause in human history! Your Truth Provider,
The Third Jihad Available for Free Online Streaming on Anniversary of 9/11 Attacks From I. Oppenheim (November 24, 2009) This year, America has witnessed an increased number of radical extremist incidents. The recent tragedy at Fort Hood is only one of many alarming plots carried out on our soil. The threats are very real. This Thanksgiving, we commemorate the one year anniversary of the attacks in Mumbai. We must pause on this day to acknowledge our liberties and recognize those that actively seek to destroy our values. To mark this day, the producers of the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West are making the film available for free viewing online. The free stream campaign will run from Monday November 23 until December 10 at www.radicalislam.org/obsession. This campaign follows a highly successful free stream of The Third Jihad to mark the anniversary of 9/11. Over 35,000 viewers watched the film over the course of the 2 1/2 week campaign. Together, these films represent the best educational tools available for informing the public about the true threats of radical Islam. But, in order to spread the message, we need your help!
We greatly appreciate your help in making this campaign a success. If you have any feedback, comments or suggestions feel free to contact me at ioppenheim@clarionfund.org. Hello from Helen in Hebron, Israel From Helen Freedman (November 23, 2009) Dear friends, This was an interview I gave with my scratchy voice when the AFSI/MY Chizuk mission arrived in Kiryat Arba/Hebron for Shabbat Chaye Sarah, last weekend. We've been participating in this special Shabbat for fifteen years. It records the purchase by Abraham of the grave for his wife, Sarah, in Hebron thousands of years ago. By being there with the constantly harassed community of Jews in Hebron, we hope to strengthen them. Just click on the link and you'll get a sense of where we were.
Spiritual Impressions from Shabbat in Hevron israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134476 GEERT WILDERS: THE CONFLICT WITH ISLAM From Paul Rotenberg (November 23, 2009) Few are willing to stand up to the issue. Fewer still look past their own difficulties to see what others are facing. Geert Wilders is not only trying to see the big picture, he is also willing to stand up and fight the fight. One does not have to agree with everything he says, though it is hard to disagree with most of it. It is most interesting to see who listens and who just covers their ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI Testimony at the UN watch - Oct 2009 From Fred Reifenberg (November 20, 2009) Please watch the below link, very interesting. We never hear this side of the story . unwatch.org/bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409 Lou Dobbs on CNN reporting - MUST WATCH! From Fred Reifenberg (November 19, 2009) EVERYONE--PLEASE TAKE TIME TO LISTEN TO THIS--IT TELLS ABOUT THE BILL GOING THRU CONGRESS RIGHT NOW REGARDING IMMIGRATION. EVEN CNN IS UPSET ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!! Pass this on after you watch it. NOTICE THAT THIS IS FROM CNN, NOT FOX!!! http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/.../ftc-vi26.wmv This 2-minute video should be mandatory viewing for every US citizen. If you have never passed anything on before, pass this on! Every American should be outraged! Hitler's Children From Boris Celser (November 19, 2009) wejew.com/media/6230/Children_of_Hitler Hitler's Children - just the family names alone evoke genocidal horror: Himmler, Frank, Goering, von Ribbentrop. Hitler's Children is a film about the descendants of the most notorious killers in the Nazi regime: men and women who were left a legacy of being the offspring of mass murderers of the Jewish people. A powerful dialogue between children of perpetrators of the Holocaust and children of survivors. Very touchy 20 minutes clip! Good "educational" piece for the Holocaust deniers! Several major national policy forums From Jewish Policy Center (November 19, 2009) The JPC was again proud to sponsor several major national policy forums, hosted by syndicated radio talk show host and JPC distinguished fellow Michael Medved. The first, held in Washington, featured The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore, economist Lacy Hunt, and Senator John McCain's campaign economic advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. That event tackled some of the critical issues associated with the current economic crisis. Our second policy forum, held in Atlanta, featured former Defense Department officials Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen, as well as media commentator Cliff May. That event looked at the security challenges facing both Israel and America in the age of nuclear proliferation. We encourage you to watch both videos on our website, if you haven't already. 1.) jewishpolicycenter.org/1486/ radical-islam-and-rogue-regimes 2,) http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/ Speaking of our website, the JPC continued to expand our web presence. In addition to the original articles, video, audio, and timely blogs we posted throughout the year, we continued to expand our Palestinian Rocket Report. This web-based project was critical during Operation Cast Lead (December 2008-January 2009). The JPC provided the media and policy makers with crucial background and analysis that influenced the public debate. The JPC participated in other crucial debates via our journal, inFOCUS Quarterly. Our upcoming issue will address the challenges of nuclear proliferation, with particular attention to Iran. Other journal topics included: the debate over environmental policies; the mounting national debt and misguided fiscal policies; and an in-depth look at the dangers Syria poses to the Middle East. In fact, we sent the Syria issue to every member of Congress with a personal letter encouraging them to reject engagement with Damascus, due to its record of supporting terrorism and meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. As always, the JPC worked hard to ensure a balanced intellectual environment on campus. Deputy Director Jonathan Schanzer traveled extensively, lecturing at the University of Michigan, Miami of Ohio, Florida International University, University of Texas at Austin, and Vanderbilt, among others. Jonathan also continued to expose the scholar-activism of Middle Eastern Studies professors who too often malign the United States and Israel in the classroom. Jonathan's book, Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine, which he wrote while working here at the JPC, continues to spark debate about the impact of the Palestinian civil war on the U.S.-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. M.I.T. Prof. Richard Lindzen From Truth Provider (November 17, 2009) In a few weeks, based on non-scientific swindle, our independence and our money are going to be signed away in Copenhagen, Denmark. Please do yourself and all of us a favor and listen carefully to this broadcast from Australia. Do not allow a bunch of conniving politicians gain control over the world's economy. 2gb.com.au/index2.php ... &task=view&id=4998 In the above interview, Lord Monckton mentions MIT's Professor
Richard Lindzen
And here is a short speech by Prof. Lindzen:
Your Truth Provider,
Video from Canada's "The Passionate Eye": Inside the Saudi Kingdom From Boris Celser (November 17, 2009) "With unique access to one of the most senior Royal Princes in the Kingdom, this film paints a portrait of modern Saudi Arabia at a crossroads. As it wrestles with modernization and digital technology, can it maintain it's bedouin and Islamic traditions?" www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Passionate_Eye/ID=1333855575 Hope: A new Palestinian president? From Yael from Road 90 (November 17, 2009) - Hope: A new Palestinian president? [click here] - Boxing: first Jewish world champion! (bad quality but great victory!) [click here] - 9/11 "Living Memorial" in the Jerusalem Forest Hills Dedicated [click here] - Memorandum to the Goldstone Mission [click here] - Dahlan: Arafat deceived the world when condemning terror [click here] - Hadassah Medical Center New Tower [click here] - Weekly Torah Portion: Toldot [click here] YOU HAVE TO WATCH THESE TWO VIDEOS From Susana K-M (November 16, 2009) Super strong words and reality about the changed Europe and the well orchestrated plan of the Muslims to take over. Also strong, positive words about Israel. You may have already watched this, but let the ones you think will be interested watch it as well. Please take the time to watch and listen to these amazing utube clips by Geert Wilders. I've been reading a lot about this subject, but to actually hear someone who is as high ranking as a Prime Minister, actually verbalize what's really going on in our world vis-a-vis the muslims is astounding to me. Forewarned is forearmed. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCtlh8& Obama stumbles again www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024951.php Here's the key part of the transcript: ... Now, obviously Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that I'm sure helps to motivate the Prime Minister's deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don't have immediate travel plans, but it's something that would be meaningful to me. How pathetic. In fact, though, it's probably just as well Obama didn't say what he really thought. In his speech on nuclear proliferation in Prague, Obama at least suggested that Truman did the wrong thing by bringing World War II to a decisive end. Important Petition From Truth Provider (November 15, 2009) Your Action Needed Now: Goldstone Resolution Headed for UN Security Council. The United Nations Human Rights Council spends a great deal of time condemning Israel while ignoring real human rights abuses. Now, the U.N. General Assembly has approved a Human Rights Council resolution endorsing the one-sided, biased report of Judge Richard Goldstone accusing Israel of "War Crimes." The General Assembly recommended that the resolution should now be considered by the U.N. Security Council. Act now to prevent the Security Council from approving this resolution. http://www.honestreporting.com/a/UNHypocrisy.asp Brigitte Gabriel video blasts political correctness From Gerald A. Honigman (November 14, 2009) Did you know that, from November 5th to November 10th, 85% of the news stories about the Ft. Hood attack produced by ABC, CBS and NBC did not mention the words "terror" or "terrorist"? Did you know that investigators found personal business cards belonging to Nidal Hasan that had the initials "S.O.A" — "Soldier of Allah"? Only now are more and more news reports and commentators acknowledging, some very grudgingly, that Hasan was a jihadist. There simply is too much evidence to ignore — even for the most stubborn politically correct apologists for radical Islam. Today Brigitte Gabrielle gives her take on how this happened, why it could have been prevented, and what this means for the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYYrWrS6fU4 Denmark to pay immigrants $20,000 to go home if they "can't or won't" assimilate From Boris Celser (November 13, 2009) jihadwatch.org/2009/11/ denmark-to-pay-immigrants-20000-to-go-home.html Radicals demand an Islamic Britain From Boris Celser (November 12, 2009) 
This is fun From Paul Rotenberg (November 11, 2009) HEMA is a Dutch department store. The first store opened on November 4, 1926, in Amsterdam . There are now 150 stores all over the Netherlands. Take a look at HEMA's product page - wait a few seconds and watch what happens. DON'T click on any of the items in the picture; just wait. Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps, as in Wansee From Midenise (November 11, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ Col. Peters was offended by Obama's speech: Were you? From (November 11, 2009) thefoxnation.com/fort-hood-shooting/ col-peters-offended-obamas-speech-were-you? Gaza situation before and after "Operation Cast Lead" From UCI (November 10, 2009) From the disengagement to Operation "Cast Lead" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQN7NHx01bw There will definitely be more Arab - Israeli wars From Yael from Road 90 (November 10, 2009) Last week the Israeli army intercepted a ship full of Iranian weapons that was going to the Hezbollah terrorists. This proved to the world once again that Iran keeps on sponsoring terrorist movements, and that the threat to Israel is real. It also showed that the Israeli intelligence and army is still extremely active and efficient. In these uncertain times, and as Hanukkah is approaching, we at Road 90 are partnering with IDF Pizza for a special and unique operation, the Operation Sufganiyot. The goal of this operation is to offer a sufganiyah to each Israeli soldier for Hanukkah. A sufganiyah is only 1 USD, so we ask for your help and contribution to the IDF. https://www.idf-pizza.com/ - Netanyahu: let's talk! [click here] - Netanyahu's address to the UJC/JFNA GA: [Part1], [Part2], [Part3], [Part4]. - E-Menu: The Future of Restaurant Technology [click here] - There will definitely be more Arab - Israeli wars [click here] - Free trip to Israel [click here] - Israel/Egypt border [click here] - 500 T of Iranian weapons captured by Israeli navy commando [click here] Jihad in Oz From Zalmi (November 10, 2009) http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2009/11/jihadist-of-oz.html London - Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide? From Boris Celser (November 9, 2009) Court Ruling Raises Question. vosizneias.com/london-who-is-a-jew-and-who-gets-to-decide Egyptian Cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri Recommends Tricking Jews into Becoming Muslims From Sheridan Neimark (November 9, 2009) http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2268.htm Excerpt: I'd like to tell you a very nice story. Once there was a Muslim who lived next to a Jew. The Muslim saw in the Jew a measure of goodheartedness — however small — and he wanted to find any way to make him convert to Islam. So he went to him and asked: "Don't you feel the need for Islam? Why don't you become a Muslim?" The Jew said: "The only thing preventing me from becoming a Muslim is that I love drinking alcohol. I would have become a Muslim ages ago, but the only thing stopping me is that I am an alcoholic." The Muslim devised a plan. He said: "No problem — become a Muslim, and continue to drink." The Muslim didn't meant this, of course, but he said to him: "Become a Muslim, and continue to drink." The Jews said: "Fine." He said: "I proclaim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." The Muslim said to him: "Now you have become a Muslim. If you drink alcohol, we will carry out the punishment for drinking alcohol on you, and if you renounce Islam, we will kill you." So the man remained a Muslim and never drank alcohol again. This was a nice trick by this good Muslim. interview on Muslims with Fr. Zakaria Botros, Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Priest From Boris Celser (November 8, 2009) Muslims pretend to be nice people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1rxiaJvlC0 Obama and Islam From Arlene Peck (November 7, 2009) Obama praising, glorifying Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY Radical American Muslims praise Fort Hood shooter and want Americans to die From Boris Celser (November 7, 2009) http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4 Terrorists Among Us From Truth Provider (November 7, 2009) They are right here, among us, in Manhattan, instead of where they really belong, in (still open) Guantanamo or in heaven with 70 virgins. The left media, including NPR, continues to blame everybody and everything for the horrific murder in Ft. Hood, except the terrorist murderer himself. http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4 Here is Bill O'Reilly's talking points from yesterday's broadcast: "It took only hours for the far-left loons to begin politicizing the mass murder in Texas. Rather than blaming the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the media seems to believe Hasan's vile crimes were caused by public policy. The New York Times ran this headline: 'Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment.' The article said the attacker didn't want to go to Afghanistan, so he killed thirteen people. Does that make any sense to you? The Washington Post headline: 'Fort Hood has felt the strain of repeated deployments.' Newsweek magazine has a very extreme take on the story as well, asking whether the murder at Fort Hood 'only signals that the worst is yet to come.' Unbelievably stupid! Hasan has not served in any war; the guy killed people for absolutely no reason. We all know the far left has a problem with personal responsibility - it's always somebody else's fault. Talking Points believes media that use tragedy to ram home political points are despicable. Hasan was either a Muslim terrorist or a crazy person. That's it, those are the choices!" Illegal Aliens From Emanuel A. Winston (November 6, 2009) This is Lou Dobbs on CNN on new legislation on Illegal Aliens who can be made legal 24 hours after they apply. d.yimg.com/.../1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv Israel delivered 20,000 swine flu vaccines to the Palestinian Authority From Sheridan Neimark (November 6, 2009) Israel delivered 20,000 swine flu vaccines to the Palestinian Authority ahead of the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Is the Palestinian issue the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict? From Yoram Ettinger (November 6, 2009) The following 4 minutes video
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/4israel22.asp The video was produced by JerusalemOnLine, a service of daily video
news from/about Israel. Enjoy it and Shabbat Shalom,
We do nothing From midenise (November 6, 2009) 
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/all-it-takes.html Next Phase of the Goldstone Report: Censoring the Critics From Eye on the UN (November 5, 2009) Watch this video from UN Headquarters in New York. Anne Bayefsky was escorted off UN premises and her pass confiscated for daring to speak at an open UN microphone against the General Assembly's shameful endorsement of the terrorist's golden ticket, the Goldstone Report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8x4BUHQDyY Please Sign the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence From Buddy Macy (November 5, 2009) Never Again is Now http://www.neveragainisnow.com/article&id=102&Itemid=130 Sderot victim confronts Goldstone From Zalmi (November 5, 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqyB04klExU PJTV Sonja Schmidt on Obama's Friends From Boris Celser (November 5, 2009) www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9yI9LCILhU&feature U.N. Human Rights Council From Paul Rottenberg (November 3, 2009) http://hosem.gotdns.com/Banned-UN-Watch-Speech.html U.S. illegal alien amnesty From Paul Rothenberg (November 3, 2009) This little bit of legislation sounds very interesting. CNN seems to have missed one of the main benefits, there is no doubt it would take a lot of pressure off the Canadian refugee system and relieve those of us north of the border of a lot of drain on our economy. Thanks guys!!! d.yimg.com/.../17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv A Leader in Business Innovation From Yael from Road 90 (November 3, 2009) - Israel: A Leader in Business Innovation [click here] - Jenin: Massacring Truth [click here] - Statement by Netanyahu and Clinton, Jerusalem, October 31 [click here] - Palestinian official denies existence of Jewish Temple [click here] - Learning Aleph-Bet Video [click here] - Thousands Receive Blessings at Birchat Kohanim [click here] - Jerusalem Markets [click here] Obama ADMITS Muslim faith OVER AND OVER From Arlene Peck (November 3, 2009) madamericanwarrior.vox.com/ obama-admits-muslim-faith-over-and-over. Medved, Feith, Ledeen & May on radical Islam and rogue regimes From Jewish Policy Center (November 3, 2009) The new video is a recording of the recent forum we hosted on October 25 in Atlanta (view press release here). The event was titled "Radical Islam and Rogue Regimes: Challenges for America and Israel," and it featured Michael Medved, Douglas Feith, Cliff May, and Michael Ledeen. jewishpolicycenter.org/1486/radical-islam-and-rogue-regimes If you would like to purchase a DVD of this event, please email our staff at info@jewishpolicycenter.org. CBS Holocaust Part 1, Part 2 From Fred Reifenberg (November 1, 2009) Here is something about Israel that you thought you knew but didn't know why From Fred Reifenberg (November 1, 2009) Why is Israel a leader of technical and scientific business innovation? Dan Senor, co-author of "Start-up Nation: the Story of Israel's economic Miracle" tells us why cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1311023934 |
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |